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

20–942 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 114–336 

OVERSIGHT HEARING: THE PRESIDENT’S 

FISCAL YEAR 2017 BUDGET REQUEST FOR 

THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 6, 2016 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RYAN JACKSON, Majority Staff Director 

BETTINA POIRIER, Democratic Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

APRIL 6, 2016 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 1 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 3 

Sanders, Hon. Bernard, U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 302 

WITNESSES 

Burns, Stephen, Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .................... 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 27 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 75 

Response to an additional question from Senator Barrasso ......................... 82 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Rounds ......................................................................................... 83 

Senator Sanders ........................................................................................ 87 

Senator Fischer ......................................................................................... 95 

Senator Crapo ............................................................................................ 104 

Senator Sessions ........................................................................................ 136 

Svinicki, Kristine, Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .......... 277 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 278 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 279 

Ostendorff, William, Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ...... 280 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 281 

Baran, Jeffrey, Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ............... 283 

Response to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ................................. 284 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING: THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2017 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6, 2016 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. James M. Inhofe (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Inhofe, Boxer, Barrasso, Capito, Crapo, 

Boozman, Wicker, Fischer, Rounds, Carper, Cardin, Gillibrand, 

Booker, and Markey. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. I would like to begin by welcoming all four commissioners here. I appreciate it. 

And I say particularly to you, Commissioner Ostendorff, I understand you are going to be going back to your previous duties, less 

strenuous, I would assume, teaching at the Naval Academy. You 

have had a great background in history and great contributions to 

this committee. We will miss you. We will all miss you sitting out 

there. 

By the way, right now there are two vacancies. Mrs. Jessie 

Roberson is one of them that has been nominated. These are partisan nominations, so that would be a Democrat slot. What we have 

always done in the past we will attempt to do again now, is to pair 

with a Republican, and we are hoping we will be able to do that. 

We are in contact right now with the White House to try to accommodate that, because I would hate to have to try to operate with 

just three commissioners. 

Barbara is here. 

Senator BOXER. Good morning, Jim. 

Senator INHOFE. Good morning, Barbara. 

So, anyway, that is what our intention will be. And we are going 

to ask, also, as I did individually with you, since we have a vote 

at 11, that means we can stay here until 11:15. I think if everyone 

stays within the time limit, that will work, and that is what we 

will be asking our members to do. 

The NRC requested $982 million in budget authority for fiscal 

year 2017, down slightly from fiscal year 2016. The NRC’s safety 
2 

mission is a critical one, but it accomplished its mission with significantly fewer resources in the past. 

Following 9/11 the NRC’s budget grew to address rising security 

concerns. Around 2006 it started growing to address growth in nuclear energy. Unfortunately that growth hasn’t been as robust as 

we thought. In fact, we have seen five reactors close in recent 

years, and at least three more will be closed by 2019. The NRC’s 

budget remains significantly higher. 

So what I am saying is we raised the budget anticipating greater 

activity out there, and that didn’t happen. But it is very typical of 

a government agency to maintain that same size. So we have a 

chart. What I am saying is right here, if you look at the increases, 

and then you look at the workload, the workload is going down, 

money is going up, and this is not the first time in Government 

that that has happened. So I am concerned about this. 

As a result of Project Aim, the NRC staff has proposed to the Commission an additional $31 million in cost savings for next year. 

That is good, but that is not enough. 

Now, back then I talked to Barbara about what happened in 

1998. At that time we had actually gone 4 years without any oversight, and that is something that doesn’t work. So at that time the 

stakeholders identified several areas for improvement in the Commission meeting and before this Committee, and I was there at the 

time, and I remember it well. 

Those recommendations were five: the timely and fiscally responsible review of the licensing actions; stricter application of the 

Backfit Rule; the systematic application of a clear standard of safety significance in regulatory decisionmaking rather than vague 

terms such as enhanced defense-in-depth; more disciplined use of 

Requests for Additional Information, or RAIs; and the need for an 

objective, quantitative assessment of safety performance. 

You may have noticed that this committee has either written or 

requested the Commission on all these subjects in the last year. It 

appears that many of the inefficiencies that plagued the NRC in 

the 1990s have returned, and that is what we have been talking 

about. 

Back then, in response to congressional oversight Chairman Shirley Ann Jackson held a meeting with stakeholders to delve into 

their concerns. She followed with a memo tasking agency staff with 

developing a plan to address those concerns and others raised by 

this committee. 

The Executive Director, Joe Callan, seized her challenge, and his 

routine progress reports became legendary examples of the agency’s 

self-improvement capability and responsiveness. All of this transpired under 3 months. 

In 1998, in my first NRC hearing as subcommittee chairman an 

industry witness testified, ‘‘Just as the industry has made a significant transition in the way it operates in a competitive market, the 

NRC must replace an outdated, ineffective regulatory framework 

with one that is objective, safety-focused, and responsive,’’ and it 

did. 

The nuclear industry once again faces challenges in the marketplace, and once again the need for the NRC to be an objective, safety focused, and responsive regulator is imperative, and Chairman 
3 

Burns, I urge you to take a page out of Chairman Jackson’s playbook and tackle these challenges. 

Senator Boxer. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

I’d like to begin by welcoming the four commissioners, but especially Commissioner Ostendorff who will leave the Commission in June to once again take up 

teaching at the U.S. Naval Academy. Bill, your service at the NRC came during 

some tough times. I personally appreciate your service. 

By July 1st, there will be two vacancies at the Commission. Mrs. Jessie Roberson 

was nominated for the open seat. I have met with the nominee as have many other 

members of the committee. Before moving forward with her nomination, it is important to know the White House’s intentions on the open seat. The NRC has partisan 

seats, and pairing the nominations informs the committee members’ decisions. 

We will continue with the committee’s practice of a 5-minute opening statement 

from Chairman Burns and 2 minutes for each of the commissioners. 

The NRC requested $982 million in budget authority for fiscal year 2017, down 

slightly from fiscal year 2016. 

The NRC’s safety mission is a critical one, but it accomplished its mission with 

significantly fewer resources in the past. 

As a result of Project Aim, the NRC staff has proposed to the Commission an additional $31 million in cost savings for next year. 

While this is a step in the right direction, I believe the Commission should move 

beyond incremental savings and examine its budget and regulatory processes more 

fundamentally. 

The NRC can do better. I’ve seen it do better. Unfortunately, the situation we are 

witnessing now reminds me of the late 1990s. 

Back then, stakeholders identified several areas for improvement: 

• The timeliness and fiscally responsible review of licensing actions; 

• Stricter application of the Backfit Rule; 

• Systematic application of a clear standard of safety significance in regulatory 

decisionmaking rather than vague terms such as ‘‘enhanced defense-in-depth’’; 

• More disciplined use of Requests for Additional Information, or RAIs; and 

• The need for an objective, quantitative assessment of safety performance. 

You may have noticed that this committee has either written or questioned the 

Commission on all of these subjects in the last year. It appears that many of the 

inefficiencies that plagued the NRC in the 1990s have returned. 

Back then, in response to congressional oversight, Chairman Shirley Ann Jackson 

held a meeting with stakeholders to delve into their concerns. She followed with a 

memo tasking agency staff with developing a plan to address those concerns and 

others raised by this committee. 

The Executive Director, Joe Callan, seized her challenge, and his routine progress 

reports became legendary examples of the agency’s self-improvement capability and 

responsiveness. 

All of this transpired in under 3 months. 

In 1998, an industry witness testified: ‘‘Just as the industry has made a significant transition in the way it operates in a competitive market, the NRC must replace an outdated, ineffective regulatory framework with one that is objective, safety 

focused and responsive.’’ 

The nuclear industry once again faces challenges in the market place, and once 

again the need for the NRC to be an objective, safety focused, and responsive regulator is imperative. 

Chairman Burns, I urge you take a page out of Chairman Jackson’s playbook and 

tackle these challenges. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

I would like to welcome the commissioners here. 

There are many important topics facing us, including implementing post-Fukushima safety improvements, ongoing efforts to 

cut costs, and the Commission’s work on decommissioning reactors 
4 

such as the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in my home 

State. 

Today’s hearing comes more than 5 years after the Fukushima 

tragedy. The people in Japan continue to suffer from the consequences of this disaster. It may be pleasant not to look at it, but 

we better look at it. 

A study released in October 2015 and published in the journal 

Epidemiology found that children living near the site of the 

Fukushima meltdown have been diagnosed with thyroid cancer at 

a rate 20 to 50 times that of children elsewhere. Also, in October 

Japan’s Health Ministry announced the first confirmed case of cancer in a Fukushima recovery worker. These reports do not inspire 

confidence. 

Just last month the Gallup Poll showed that for the first time 

a majority of U.S. adults, 54 percent, opposed nuclear power. 

I have been saying over and over again since Fukushima, in 

order to earn the confidence of the American public and win them 

over, the nuclear power industry must do everything it can to avoid 

similar disasters, and so must you. That is why it is so critical to 

address post-Fukushima safety recommendations that were identified by the Fukushima Near-Term Task Force in 2011. 

While I recognize that progress has been made on some of the 

recommendations I remain concerned that not one—not one—of the 

12 Task Force recommendations has been fully implemented, and 

many have been closed without any action at all. 

We will share with you this chart. Sadly, it is the same darned 

thing I held up months ago. What are you folks doing over there? 

You have a majority of the people against nuclear power for the 

first time in a long time. People believe nuclear should be part of 

the mix if it is safe. 

So you have reports out of Japan; you had your task force tell 

you what to do. I will tell you if the Congress did that, we would 

all be voted out if we were expected to take certain steps. I don’t 

understand it. So I am going to ask you about it. 

Now, in addition to this, the non-action over here, the Commission recently approved an NRC staff proposal to close out numerous lower priority recommendations without taking any action to 

implement safety improvements. This approach ignores the serious 

safety concerns raised in the wake of Fukushima. 

I am concerned that the efforts to reduce your budget would undermine safety if they are not implemented carefully, those cuts. 

The staff recently provided the Commission with a paper outlining 

151 recommendations for cutting costs. Unfortunately, some of 

these recommendations would reduce or eliminate important safety 

initiatives, including new limits on inspections at nuclear plants. 

If we want to convince the American people, again, that they are 

wrong on nuclear power, that it can be done safely, this is the 

worst way to go about it I have heard. I don’t get it. I really don’t, 

in all sincerity. 

The Commission has to live up to its mission ‘‘to ensure the safe 

use of radioactive materials for beneficial civilian purposes while 

protecting people and the environment.’’ One mess-up in any one 

of these power plants, and it is over for the nuclear power industry. 
5 

I hope everyone understands that, with this news coming out of 

Fukushima. 

Finally, I want to highlight challenges at the two nuclear power 

plants in my home State. My people there are telling me they are 

very concerned that Diablo Canyon cannot withstand earthquakes 

that could occur in the area. Despite evidence in recent years of increased seismic risk at the plant, the NRC is proceeding merrily 

along the way with the relicensing process for this plant and has 

failed to take action to address seismic safety concerns. My people 

are at a loss to understand it. 

And at the San Onofre Nuclear Plant, which is closed permanently, there are many concerns about public safety during the decommissioning process. As I stated at our October hearing, I disagree with NRC’s approval of exemptions to emergency planning 

requirements. Why would you do that with so many people living 

so close to this plant? 

Because of this exemption, the plant’s operator will no longer be 

required to maintain detailed plans for the evacuation, sheltering, 

and medical treatment of people residing in the 10-mile zone. This 

is troubling. You know how populated the area is, and there are 

thousands of tons of extremely radioactive spent fuel remaining at 

the site and millions of people, millions living in close proximity. 

So, in closing, and I will close in 10 seconds, you cannot be a rubber stamp for exemptions from the nuclear industry. That is not 

your job. That is counter to your job. And I think you owe it to the 

citizens of my great State and the Nation to make safety your highest priority. 

Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Boxer. 

Without objection, I want to enter into the record this article 

from Platts entitled Nuclear safety upgrades post-Fukushima cost 

$47 billion, a very complimentary article to you folks. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 

Senator INHOFE. Mr. Chairman, if you would begin. And I am 

going to ask you all to try to stay within your time. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN BURNS, CHAIRMAN, 

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Mr. BURNS. Thank you, Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member 

Boxer and other members of the committee. We appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this morning to provide an update 

on the fiscal year 2017 budget request and the agency’s current 

regulatory activities. 

As we said, the NRC is an independent agency established to license and regulate the civilian use of nuclear and radioactive materials in the United States and ensure adequate protection of the 

public health and safety to promote the common defense and security and protect the environment. The resources we are requesting 

will allow the NRC to continue to carry out our important mission. 

The proposed 2017 budget is $970 million and 3,462 FTE, fulltime equivalent staff, excluding the Office of the Inspector General. 

The proposal represents a net decrease of nearly $20 million and 

90 FTE from the fiscal year 2016 enacted budget. The request reflects a decrease of approximately $74 million and 280 full-time 

equivalent employees from the 2014 enacted budget. 

The inspector general component of the 2017 budget is $12 million. 

Consistent with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, our 

2017 request provides for 90 percent fee recovery, resulting in a net 

appropriation of $121 million. This appropriation is an increase of 

$2 million compared with the 2016 enacted budget due to the inclusion of $5 million in non-fee recoverable resources for advanced nuclear reactor technology. 

Our 2017 budget request reflects our continuing focus on our important mission while continuing our Project Aim initiative. We are 

concluding the review of the re-baselining paper that outlines an 

additional 150 activities that could be eliminated or reduced without an impact on safety, for a savings of about $41 million in 2017, 

of which $10 million has already been reflected in the fiscal year 

2017 President’s budget request. 

We cannot emphasize, however, 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 

that we provide the American people remains unchanged. 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 want to highlight one area the Commission is attending to: improving our rulemaking process. The Commission has revised its 

processes to improve its understanding of, and where possible to reduce the cumulative effects of regulation. In addition, the Commission has recently directed the staff on a proposed plan to better define and enhance the Commission’s role in the early stages of rulemaking, before significant resources are expended. 
12 

The Commission is also considering a proposal to establish a single unified approach to tracking rulemaking activities so the public 

and stakeholders have real-time access to current information. 

We carry out our safety and security activities through two major 

programs: nuclear reactor safety, which includes operating reactors 

and new reactors; and nuclear materials and waste safety, consisting of fuels facilities, nuclear materials users, decommissioning 

and low level waste, spent fuel storage, and transportation. 

Our request in the operator reactors business line represents a decrease of $1.7 million from the 2016 enacted budget. 

These resources that we request will help with implementation 

of lessons learned from the Fukushima Daiichi accident in Japan. 

The requested resources support the continued implementation of 

the most safety significant, or Tier 1, enhancements that were 

identified after Fukushima, including implementation of our orders 

on mitigation strategies, spent fuel instrumentation, and severe-accident-capable hardened vents, and completion of the mitigation of 

beyond-design-basis events rulemaking. 

The bulk of the most safety significant enhancements for postFukushima should be completed in this year, calendar year 2016. 

We expect to bring to closure our evaluation of the longer term Tier 

2 and Tier 3 issues. We will inspect the work that has been done 

and ensure plants maintain their progress. We strongly believe 

that the United States’ plants are better prepared for extreme 

events now than they were in 2011. 

On a related note, the NRC recently issued letters to the Nation’s 

commercial operating plants about their 2015 performance. While 

the vast majority fully met safety and security performance objectives, three reactors at two sites, Arkansas Nuclear and Pilgrim, 

were deemed to be in the fourth or lowest performance category. 

To wrap up, we have requested in our budget to cover some new 

reactor activities, including the review of the small modular reactor 

design expected from NuScale, and we have asked for $5 million 

in non-fee activities to cover development of image structure for advanced reactors. 

I thank you for the opportunity to appear, and we would be 

pleased to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Burns follows:] 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
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 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 
225 
226 
227 
228 
229 
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 
238 
239 
240 
241 
242 
243 
244 
245 
246 
247 
248 
249 
250 
251 
252 
253 
254 
255 
256 
257 
258 
259 
260 
261 
262 
263 
264 
265 
266 
267 
268 
269 
270 
271 
272 
273 
274 
275 
276 
277 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Commissioner Svinicki. 

STATEMENT OF KRISTINE SVINICKI, COMMISSIONER, 

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Ms. SVINICKI. Thank you, Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member 

Boxer, and distinguished members of the committee for the opportunity to appear before you today at this hearing on NRC’s fiscal 

year 2017 budget request and associated matters. Our Chairman, 

Stephen Burns, in his written 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. 

I thank the committee for its consideration of our budget request. 

In the interest of time, I will ask if I may submit my brief oral 

statement for the record. 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection. 

Ms. SVINICKI. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Svinicki follows:] 
278 
279 
280 

Senator INHOFE. Commissioner Ostendorff. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM OSTENDORFF, COMMISSIONER, 

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Good morning, Chairman Inhofe, Ranking 

Member Boxer, and distinguished members of the committee. 

Chairman Inhofe, thank you for your kind remarks. It has been a 

distinct privilege to serve with this group of people for the last 6 

years. 

I am in complete alignment with Chairman Burns’ testimony. I 

will make two specific comments. 

First, as mentioned by the Chairman, the Commission’s recent 

decision to provide direction to the staff to seek Commission approval before embarking upon rulemaking activities is a significant 

change and a major step toward improving efficiency. Second, our 

budget requests $5 million in non-fee billable resources to further 

develop our regulatory infrastructure to review advanced, non-light 

reactor technology applications. It is very important for the longterm health of the NRC and the nuclear industry that we retain 

the ability to license new reactor technologies. 

In closing, I completely agree with Chairman Inhofe’s comment 

that these oversight hearings are of extreme importance. 

Thank you. 

[The responses of Mr. Ostendorff to questions for the record follow:] 
281 
282 
283 

Senator INHOFE. Well, thank you very much, and again, good 

luck at the academy. 

Commissioner Baran. 

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY BARAN, COMMISSIONER, 

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Mr. BARAN. Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member Boxer, members 

of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. It 

is a pleasure to be here with my colleagues 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, questioning look at 

what work the agency is doing and how we are doing that work. 

The NRC staff has generated a list of 151 proposals that would reduce costs in the coming months. The Commission is deliberating 

on those now. I think the vast majority of these items make a lot 

of sense, but I have concerns about several items, 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 clean up 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, as the 

Chairman mentioned. In the last few years, five U.S. reactors have 

permanently shut down, and three more have announced plans to 

do so 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. 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, a number of other important efforts underway, including small modular reactors coming up, and the proposal 

for advanced reactor funding. We are happy to discuss these and 

any other issues of interest. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The response of Mr. Baran to questions for the record follow:] 
284 
285 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Commissioner Baran. 

I will begin, and I have three questions, all three for Chairman 

Burns. The first two questions just require a yes or no answer, and 

I think you may be already starting in on the areas that I am going 

to suggest here. The last one you will probably want to elaborate 

just a little bit. 

First of all, I referred several times to the then Chairman Shirley 

Jackson. When she testified before this Committee, this would have 

been 1998, the time that I have been referred to, I am quoting now: 

‘‘The NRC has been the subject of a number of external reviews, 

some of them sharply critical. Whether or not one agrees with 

these criticisms, we believe that they are worthy of careful consideration. The Commission invited a number of these stakeholders, 

including some of the harshest critics, to engage in a roundtable 

discussion open to the NRC staff, the press, and the public. As anticipated, the meeting provided the Commission with beneficial insights, including a range of perspectives on the strengths and 

weaknesses of NRC regulatory programs and policies.’’ 

Chairman Burns, would you commit to holding a stakeholders 

meeting within the next 3 months? 

Mr. BURNS. Yes, I would be willing to do that. I do meet with 

stakeholders across the spectrum. 

Senator INHOFE. Good. 

Mr. BURNS. But I would be willing to meet with—— 

Senator INHOFE. I appreciate that. 

Now, following the 1998 hearing, Chairman Jackson tasked the 

NRC’s executive director with action on a set of high priority tasks 

identified in the stakeholders meeting, the one that we referred to, 

and by this committee. The executive director responded in less 

than a month with a plan to address an issue that had been raised. 

Chairman Burns, would you commit to task your executive director and report your progress to this committee let’s just say every 

couple months? 

Mr. BURNS. Yes, I would do that. I want to consult with my colleagues, the fellow commissioners, and provide some direction. I 

think we probably can get some other ideas—— 

Senator INHOFE. Would any of the other three commissioners object to this request that I am making? All right. 

And last, Chairman Jackson’s single most important reform was 

to transition the agency from subjective, inconsistent assessments 

of nuclear plant safety to the current reactor oversight program, 

which is based on objective, measurable performance indicators. 

However, I understand there has been some of the staff backsliding 

on this. 

So, Chairman Burns, how will the Commission exercise its oversight of the staff to ensure the reactor oversight process is not compromised by undue subjectivity? 

Mr. BURNS. We have been engaged with the staff on the reactor 

oversight process. There are some aspects I think they are looking 

at. They are engaging with stakeholders now on that. I would expect the Commission to be informed about that. To the extent that 

there are changes that require Commission endorsement or approval, that those be provided to us and we have an understanding 
286 

what the different viewpoints are. So I think as part of our normal 

process we would do that. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. I have another minute and a half. Anyone 

want to comment on that, of the other three commissioners? 

Mr. BARAN. I would just add that I think the staff takes very seriously the rigor that we have right now in the reactor oversight 

process; they are very conscious of that. So it is something that the 

Commission is focused on, we are talking with the staff about, but 

I think it is something that the staff is very clear that they want 

to maintain the rigor of the reactor oversight. 

Senator INHOFE. You know, when I say it could be that reports 

we have gotten are not all that accurate, but we understand that 

there has been some resistance to this, and I would just ask you 

to do what you can to eliminate that. 

Any comments on that? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Chairman Inhofe, I agree with the Chairman and 

Commissioner Baran. The Commission has been engaging rather 

actively with the staff as they develop any proposals to modify this 

process. Although there may be modest adjustments that are within their authority to make if something has a significant impact to 

the program, I am certain that the Commission would want to put 

its imprimatur on that. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. And let me be clear. Our situation today is 

not analogous to what it was in 1998. In 1998, having gone 4 years 

without an oversight, that was a pretty extreme time. And though 

this is not the case now, there are some indicators that there has 

been a more relaxed attitude than there should be. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

I want to follow up on this meeting with stakeholders. How do 

you define stakeholders, Mr. Burns? 

Mr. BURNS. I think that was our members of non-governmental 

organizations, members of industry, licensees that can be local 

groups. 

Senator BOXER. Community groups? 

Mr. BURNS. It is a wide variety. 

Senator BOXER. Good. Because this is not just a meeting that the 

Chairman is asking for you to have with the industry; it is the industry, it is the non-profit groups, it is the community groups, is 

that correct? 

Mr. BURNS. That is correct. 

Senator BOXER. Good. That is good. 

Mr. BURNS. And part of what I do, for example, I am meeting 

with an NGO tomorrow on some of their concerns. I meet with a 

lot of people. 

Senator BOXER. Good. That is good. Well, to me it is not about 

a lot of people; it is about stakeholders, you know. And I agree 

meeting with stakeholders, as long as it is everyone, and meeting 

with them at the same time is critical. It builds confidence all 

around. 

And specifically on that, I would like to arrange a meeting with 

you and the stakeholders in San Onofre, as well as Diablo. That 

would include the operator of the power plant, the concerned com-
287 

munity, the citizens around there, the environmentalists around 

there as well. Could we work together on that? 

Mr. BURNS. Certainly, Senator. 

Senator BOXER. And I would love it as many commissioners could 

attend would be great. It is not just meant to be for the chairman; 

he has a lot on his shoulders. So any one of you that wants to be 

at that meeting. And I will organize that and get back to you. 

I wanted to comment on the article that my friend, and he is my 

friend, put in the record, Nuclear safety upgrades post-Fukushima 

cost $47 billion. When you read the story, what you find out is that 

90 percent of that is being spent outside the United States of 

America, most of it in Japan because of the disaster and the turning up now of these diseases. So I wanted to point out that our nuclear industry is quoted in the story as saying the industry has 

managed its response to Fukushima while avoiding costly new requirements. 

So I just wanted to circle those points in the story. And I am glad 

the story is in the record because it proves my point that what is 

happening here is just not moving fast enough, which leads me to 

the last part of my questioning. 

I think I gave you this, Mr. Burns. 

Mr. BURNS. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. And I know that everyone has seen it and agreed 

that it is accurate, but I am going to go through it just to show the 

people, the American people how little is really being done postFukushima. 

Almost 4 years ago, your Commission, your task force laid out 

these 12 ideas. They were senior members of the NRC staff. I don’t 

know who is still there. If I was working there, I would probably 

quit, given the fact that nothing has been done. But it is almost 

4 years, so I am going to go through each one of these, and all I 

want from you, Mr. Burns, if you would, is if you agree with my 

analysis of each one, and if you don’t, explain why. 

No. 1, improve regulatory framework. The NRC rejected staff 

proposals on that, is that correct? 

Mr. BURNS. The Commission decided not to proceed with that. 

Senator BOXER. That is what I just said. So the Commission said 

no to the NRC staff proposal on regulatory framework. 

Two, study and upgrade seismic flooding and other hazard protections. My understanding is that there is no target date set for 

permanent safety upgrades on seismic flooding or other hazards, is 

that correct? 

Mr. BURNS. I am not sure that that is correct. We have seismic 

and flooding analysis from most of the plants. 

Senator BOXER. No, I am asking do you have a target—— 

Mr. BURNS. In some circumstances there was not a need for further seismic and flooding upgrades. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Well, your staff said—— 

Mr. BURNS. This is important work, and progress is made on it. 

Senator BOXER. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Your staff said that there 

needed to be upgrades, study and upgrades seismic flooding and 

other protections. My understanding is you are implementing some, 

but no target date has been set for permanent safety upgrades. 

Now, your staff said that is correct. Is that correct? 
288 

Mr. BURNS. I am not sure of the context, Senator. I am happy 

to look at that. 

Senator BOXER. Does anyone else understand the context? 

Mr. Baran. 

Mr. BARAN. I think it is correct that there is no firm date by 

which any necessary upgrades would be made. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. So that is accurate. 

Three, upgrade to prevent or mitigate seismically induced fires 

or floods. My understanding is the NRC rejected that action. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. BURNS. I think that is correct because we felt it was bound 

by the existing protections that we—— 

Senator BOXER. I understand that. All of these are improvements, they are not status quo. You rejected, the NRC rejected 

doing this even though your staff, senior staff, after Fukushima 4 

years ago, said to do it. 

No. 4—— 

Mr. BURNS. No, what they said to do is to evaluate whether that 

provided an additional benefit. 

Senator BOXER. No, they said to upgrade. 

Mr. BURNS. And we have been responsible about doing those 

things. 

Senator BOXER. Upgrade. Upgrades. They want upgrades in the 

plants to prevent or mitigate seismically induced fires or floods. 

You said no. 

Let’s move on. Mitigation for events like blackouts. The final rule 

is supposed to be due this year. Is it coming? 

Mr. BURNS. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. When? 

Mr. BURNS. Toward the end of the year, as scheduled. 

Senator BOXER. Can we say by December? 

Mr. BURNS. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Mr. BURNS. And the plants have already implemented, per orders 

imposed by this Commission in 2012, improvements to address 

this, and in fact went beyond the Near-Term Task Force requirements were. 

Senator BOXER. I see I have gone over my time, so I will wait 

for a second round to go through the rest of these. But we will ask 

you the rest of these. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Boxer. 

Senator Rounds. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Burns, as part of the oversight review, there are just 

some specifics on the budget proposal that I would like to ask, and 

if you think you need to respond to them for the record, that would 

be fine. 

Mr. BURNS. Thank you. 

Senator ROUNDS. Your testimony states that the fiscal year 2017 budget represents a decrease of $19.8 million from 2016, $15 million of which is a decision not to fund the university grant program. That leaves a decrease of $4.8 million and 90 FTE in the 

NRC’s office. Chairman Burns, I would expect that there would be 

more of a cost savings than $4.8 million considering the decrease 
289 

in FTEs. Is the NRC spending some of the savings and efficiencies 

in other activities? 

Mr. BURNS. No, Senator, it is not. And one thing I would note, 

with respect to the integrated university program, in terms of the 

President’s budget reflects a judgment the Administration believes 

that those activities ought to be consolidated. We recognize that 

over a number of years we have received the direction to continue 

with that and have essentially absorbed that program and tried to 

implement it responsibly. 

But to your other point, we are looking at, we have identified 

savings. One of the things, as I said both in my submitted and in 

my oral testimony, as part of Project Aim, we have identified about 

$30 million beyond the President’s budget submittal where we 

think through the re-baselining we can achieve additional savings. 

Senator ROUNDS. Then when can we expect to see the savings 

and the efficiencies fully reflected as actual decreases in the NRC 

spending, rather than, if it is being reallocated, but when will we 

see that actually reflected in the budget? 

Mr. BURNS. Well, we see some of that actually in our implementation of the fiscal year 2016 budget, and as I say, although the 

President’s budget came in at $970 million, which included incorporation of some of the identified gains or efficiency gains in areas 

where we thought we could reduce, we think there is more there 

for the fiscal year 2017. So there is some work we are doing this 

year where we think we are achieving those gains, and I think in 

the further consideration of the fiscal year 2017 budget we can 

achieve more. 

Senator ROUNDS. OK. Licensees must seek NRC review and approval for many modifications to equipment and procedures. As 

such, this is a fairly routine activity and a significant portion of the 

NRC’s workload. However, the NRC seems to be struggling with a 

backlog, unable to complete their reviews on time in spite of the 

fact that from 2012 to 2015 the industry filed fewer licensing action 

requests than the NRC had budgeted to review. The NRC used the 

review about 1,500 licensing actions each year at a time when the 

agency had fewer people and fewer resources. 

What has changed since then to cause this recurring backlog? 

Mr. BURNS. Well, thank you for the question, Senator. Actually, 

where we are, we have come to the point where we have substantially worked down the backlog. I think a major cause of the backlog was a need to focus on the potential safety enhancements postFukushima. What we have been able to do over the last few years 

is work that backlog down. I think it was like about 100 actions 

were in the backlog about a year ago, so we are about 24 now, and 

we expect to work them off within the next year. 

Progress to date through fiscal year 2016, we are just about at 

what our target of 95 percent completion, we are at about 94 percent. Staff, I know, will work to get that better. So I think the simple answer to your question, I think a lot of attention, necessary 

as it was, on Fukushima put some of the licensing actions on hold, 

created backlog. What we have been trying to do and have done 

successfully is work that off. 

Senator ROUNDS. OK. I have another question, but rather than 

that I just want to give you the opportunity, and I think Ranking 
290 

Member Boxer had asked you a question, and she was out of time. 

I have a few seconds left. Is there any part to her question that 

you would like to respond to with regards to when staff recommendations are made, and sometimes the Commission decides 

not to accept or may have other things? Is there anything you 

would like to respond to that you didn’t have time to when the 

Ranking Member was asking the question? 

Mr. BURNS. I think she has given me a fair opportunity to answer her question. The only context I would give is that the NearTerm Task Force, I was here as general counsel then, and I have 

a lot of respect, and there are a number of folks who are still working with the agency and proudly do so. 

But what I would say is this, the Task Force had an enormous 

task in 90 days to say what are the things we ought to be looking 

at, and the Commission and the staff took that seriously. Staff 

added some additional things, and we took those seriously. So I 

think from my standpoint we may have disagreements about 

whether some of those things should be implemented or not, but 

I think we have taken them seriously, and I continue to do so. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, sir. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Rounds. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks very much. 

Welcome, one and all. Good to see you. 

Commissioner Ostendorff, tell us what you are going to be doing 

next, please. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Senator Carper, I have accepted a position at 

the Naval Academy as a distinguished visiting professor of national 

security, and I will start teaching there in August. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Well, as we say in the Navy, fair 

winds and a following sea. Thank you for all of your service to our 

country. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for bringing us together for 

this hearing. I recently wrote a letter to Chairman Burns about the 

challenges of safely licensing advanced nuclear reactors. I was encouraged to see that the NRC budget request for 2017 includes $5 

million to develop the licensing infrastructure. 

I would just start off by asking Chairman Burns and others who 

would like to join in what you expect to do with the $5 million targeted toward the development of advanced nuclear reactor technology regulatory structure in terms of hiring appropriate staff. 

Give us some idea how many might be needed, technology development, maybe some other activities. 

Could you start off with that, please? 

Mr. BURNS. Certainly, Senator. Thanks for the question. 

Probably three areas that we focus on with the $5 million, focusing on licensing infrastructure. Given that the current infrastructure focuses primarily on light water reactors, these advanced reactors are in a lot of non-light water technologies, are there areas 

where we need to address there? Part of it is technical preparation, 

getting some of the right staff, understanding where we may be 

going, actually talking with our Canadian counterparts about the 

processes. 
291 

One of the concerns is whether people have to go all or nothing 

in terms of coming in with an application. Are there ways of doing, 

in effect, what we would call topical reports that sort of give maybe 

not a final sign off, but it gives encouragement that says you look 

like you are on the right step, we don’t see a primary safety problem. We are looking at that, and our Canadian colleagues have a 

process to do that, and we are encouraged to do that. 

I think, again, it is outreach. We had a successful workshop we 

co-hosted with DOE last year—— 

Senator CARPER. I am going to interrupt you and just ask some 

specific questions if I could. 

Mr. BURNS. OK. 

Senator CARPER. How long do you expect the regulatory development process to take? 

Mr. BURNS. I couldn’t hear you. Sorry. 

Senator CARPER. How long do you expect the regulatory development process to take? 

Mr. BURNS. I think that is over probably several years. I don’t 

think we really expect an advanced non-light water application 

probably until the mid-2020s, so we have some time there. There 

is work underway, and I think we would continue. 

Senator CARPER. Might we expect to see similar requests in coming years? 

Mr. BURNS. Probably. What we understand, I think this is some 

of information we get from DOE in some of these initiatives, I 

think around 2025. 

Senator CARPER. OK. So in terms of how much money and roughly how much time will it take to put the appropriate regulatory 

structure in place, we are talking about 8 or 9 years? 

Mr. BURNS. I am not sure it would take that long. Part of, I think, what this $5 million helps us do is understand where the 

gaps are, what other work we would have to do. But I think we 

want to encourage those who are interested in the industry to talk 

to us and we want to be in a place where we are ready and we 

have identified the issues that we think need to be addressed. 

Senator CARPER. OK. 

Commissioner Ostendorff, any idea when you might anticipate 

advanced nuclear reactor technology applications being presented 

to the Commission? Any idea? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Thank you for the question, Senator Carper. I 

spoke at a conference at Oak Ridge National Laboratory back in 

February of this year, met with a number of groups that are looking at, on the vendor side, developing new technologies. I have had 

communication with the Nuclear Infrastructure Council, Nuclear 

Innovation Alliance, Nuclear Energy Institute, and Third Way, four 

different groups who are working in this area. There is not a predicted date, but we think it is possible in the next 5 years to receive an application. 

Senator CARPER. Do you think that the NRC staff have the nonlight water reactor design and modeling skills that are going to be 

required to consider applications for advanced nuclear reactors? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Let me answer that by using an anecdote, if 

I may. Right behind me is Amy Cubbage. Amy, please raise your 

hand. Amy is my reactor assistant. She was a member of the Near- 
292 

Term Task Force on Fukushima issues. She has been my reactor 

assistant for the last 3 and a half years. 

Amy, 15 years ago, worked on the pebble bed reactor technology 

that was submitted to the NRC, and those plans were curtailed at 

the industry’s request. I would say we have many other people like 

Amy at the NRC who have had some experience working in nonlight water reactor technologies, and we believe we can fully capitalize on their skill sets going forward. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Thanks so much again, and thank you for 

your service. Great to see you. 

Commissioner Svinicki, Commissioner Baran, thank you all for 

joining us today. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Burns, thank you, and I think the members for being 

here today. I want to discuss the NRC permitting process. During 

its licensing reviews, the NRC staff frequently poses requests for 

additional information, they call it the RAI, Request for Additional 

Information, to licensees, to applicants. It is clear the NRC should 

request any information necessary to make a safety determination, 

then process the information, because the process itself can be burdensome if it is not properly managed, and that is one of the concerns about how this works. 

Chairman Inhofe and Senator Capito and I have tasked GAO 

with examining the very problem, and I want to just give you one 

example of why we feel the process warrants some scrutiny from 

you as chairman. With regard to a request for additional information request made by the NRC to the United States Geological Survey, it regards their renewal application for a research reactor they 

have in Denver. 

This is what the NRC asks the United States Geological Survey, 

and this is recent, February 8th, 2016. It says: The application indicates that the United States Geological Survey is a Federal bureau within the United States Department of Interior. To comply 

with 10 CFR 50.33(d), the staff—your staff—requests that the applicant state whether the United States Geological Survey is 

owned, controlled, or dominated by an alien foreign corporation or 

foreign government, and if so, give details. 

This is what your staff has decided to ask the U.S. Geological 

Survey. Now, I am going to quote what the NRC’s instructions for 

developing these requests for additional information are, because 

you need to get additional information sometimes. Your own instructions say before developing a request for additional information, the staff should ensure that the information isn’t already 

available to the staff or that the answer could not reasonably be 

inferred from general knowledge or previously docketed correspondence. 

So I think not only can it be reasonably inferred that anyone outside the NRC staff that the United States Geological Survey is part 

of the Federal Government, the fact has been docketed in previous 

correspondence with the NRC staff. They actually asked the same 

question in an RAI in 2010, and they got the same answer. It just 

seems that project managers are supposed to be responsible for en-
293 

suring that these requests for additional information are actually 

necessary on companies, my State, other States, but do you have 

any idea how this sort of thing keeps happening? 

Mr. BURNS. No, Senator, and I would agree that that question is 

unnecessary. I appreciate the request the committee has made to 

have GAO take a look at it. It is something—and I think our EDO 

is committed to bringing discipline, bringing training. This may be, 

in part, one of these things in terms of the transition from the 

generational shift from older folks like me who are getting fewer 

at the Commission to some of our young staff. 

As a lawyer, I know, for example, I would go up to the judge and 

say, Your Honor, will you take official notice or judicial notice that 

the USGS is a U.S. Government agency. We can do better. I think 

that the review will probably help us do that, and I think our staff 

will continue to be vigilant. But we need to be disciplined because 

it is important. There are important questions we have to ask during the review, but we need to focus on the things where those 

touchy safety issues or undefined things. So I appreciate the example. 

Senator BARRASSO. OK, thank you. I asked a question for the 

record back in October, October 7th hearing, that essentially asked 

how might a longer license duration help the NRC manage its 

workload a little better with regard to uranium recovery facilities. 

I think you said extending the license term would reduce the administrative burden associated with the license renewal process for 

both the NRC, I think you said, the staff and the uranium recovery 

licensees, and I agree. 

Will you, therefore, commit to me to help pursue extending the 

license duration for uranium facilities for the reason that you had 

stated? Because it used to be 5 years; we extended it to 10 back 

in the 1990s, which helped, but it takes about 5 years to get 

through the full process. 

Mr. BURNS. I think that is something we can look at. As you 

noted, we had extended before. My understanding and as a general 

matter, given where we are in terms of some of the licenses before 

us, renewals, it becomes a more critical issue in the early 2020s, 

but that gives us some time to, I think, consider that, and I think 

the staff will be willing to do that. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. 

Senator Gillibrand. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, 

Madam Ranking Member. 

As I am sure you are aware, last week Entergy, which operates 

Indian Point Units 2 and 3 in New York, discovered that 227 baffle-former bolts inside of Unit 2’s reactor core are degraded, which 

is more than 10 percent of the specific type of bolts used in the reactor. My understanding is that these bolts are used to hold together the core former which surrounds the nuclear fuel. Do you 

have any information about whether there was any degradation of 

these bolts detected prior to this most recent inspection? 

Mr. BURNS. Senator, I am not sure. Let me get back to you on 

that, whether there were indications. As you said, the inspections 
294 

were started after defueling and identified, and I want to give you 

the best answer I can. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. OK. Would you have concern about other 

types of bolts if that was indeed the case? 

Mr. BURNS. I think your concern about the bolts there, and this 

is part of the monitoring I would expect at plants. This is the type 

of equipment that you want to see—— 

Senator GILLIBRAND. You would expect that type of monitoring? 

Mr. BURNS. Pardon? 

Senator GILLIBRAND. You would expect that kind of monitoring? 

Mr. BURNS. Yes. That is what happened here. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. OK, then I would urge the same inspection 

for Unit 3, because they have decided not to expect Unit 3 because 

it is 3 years younger. Do you think that is a legitimate reason not 

to inspect Unit 3? 

Mr. BURNS. Actually, my understanding from my staff is that it 

will be inspected in several years. It has operated less—— 

Senator GILLIBRAND. I wouldn’t wait several years. If 11 percent 

is degraded and you didn’t expect to find degradation, it means 

your expectations are wrong. So I would not wait a few years; I 

would inspect Unit 3 immediately. 

Mr. BURNS. OK, we will take that into consideration, Senator, 

but I think the technical evaluation of our staff assure that they 

believe that the timing is appropriate. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Their technical evaluation concerning Unit 

2 was flawed, so I would be highly concerned that their technical 

evaluation concerning Unit 3 is also flawed, and I would request 

you to do the inspections now. It is unexpected to have 10 percent 

degradation. One of the bolts couldn’t even be found. 

That is highly alarming to me, given that it is just 50 miles from 

8 million people. We do not want to have any problems at this 

power plant, and I think you have to be more concerned than you 

might be otherwise, given the failure to know that 10 percent of 

your bolts were degraded so close to the reactor. I think it is very 

unwise and I think it is unsafe. 

So who decides? Who is the technical decisionmaker here? 

Mr. BURNS. The NRC considers and evaluates the information it 

has. The licensee has programs in terms of monitoring and maintenance, and those are integrated together. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. So when do you step in and require an infrastructure issue to be treated as a significant safety issue for the 

plant? 

Mr. BURNS. When we identify it as a significant safety issue. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Is 10 percent of degradation a significant 

safety issue? 

Mr. BURNS. I would be happy to consult with our staff in terms 

of their evaluation. They are evaluating what the licensee is doing 

and examining there, and I would expect us to take that information into account. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. I would like a written response to these 

questions, specifically whether you think 10 percent degradation of 

bolts is a safety issue. If not, why not? And if you do, then I would 

like you to evaluate Entergy’s plan and make recommendation 

about what they should do instead. 
295 

Does anyone else on the panel have a comment to this concern? 

Mr. BARAN. Well, Senator, let me just add I think the written request you asked for is completely appropriate, we should do that. 

You should have a complete answer to those questions. My understanding is that the number of baffle bolts that were potentially 

problematic in this case is a substantially larger number than we 

have seen in the past with other plants that had this issue, so I 

know it is something the staff is looking at very carefully. We 

should get you the answers you are asking for. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Well, I would like aggressive oversight 

here. 

Both Indian Point Units 2 and 3 are currently in a period of relicensing. A major component of relicensing is the management of 

aging infrastructure. Is it fair to say that as you go through the 

process of evaluating a plant for relicensing, there are a certain set 

of assumptions made on what you expect the condition of the 

plant’s infrastructure to be and how the plant will operate if it is 

relicensed based on past performance of safety records? 

Mr. BURNS. Senator, I would agree essentially with that you 

said. The focus on license renewal tends to be on aging management. In fact, I believe the issue of the question of the inclusion 

of the baffle bolts is a matter in contention within the license renewal hearing. We can’t comment on the outcome of that, I think 

it is still going on, but that is the focus. So I think I would agree 

with your general characterization. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. So if you find that degradation was higher 

than you expected, will you then go back and challenge other assumptions you made in the review for relicensing? 

Mr. BURNS. If that is appropriate. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Meaning if your assumptions were wrong, 

I would like you to go back and look at all of your assumptions concerning degradation. 

Mr. BURNS. We would look at our assumptions. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Gillibrand. 

Senator Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of you 

for being here today. 

Chairman Burns, I listened to your testimony, and I just want 

to make sure that in terms of the budget and your FTEs, your employees, where the numbers are. I understand that in 2005 your 

budget was $669 million and you had just over 3,100 employees, 

and today you are overseeing a smaller—I think we brought this 

up several times—a smaller nuclear fleet and considering far fewer 

licensing actions, but you are requesting $982 million and over 

3,500 employees. I know Project Aim is specifically aimed at this 

issue, and I applaud your progress. 

How far along is Project Aim, and how much longer do you plan 

to continue? And do you think that will be shrinking the work 

force, number of employees? 

Mr. BURNS. Thank you for the question, Senator. Project Aim, in 

terms of the particular tasks that were identified when it began, 

is pretty far along. This re-baselining paper, which the Commission 
296 

will issue its final guidance on I think very soon, was one of the 

main steps. 

We have some additional papers and recommendations to come 

from the staff, for example, on the consolidation, the new reactors, 

and recombining the new reactor office with a nuclear reactor regulation office, a few things like that. The EEO and the CFO have 

given some tasks in terms of further looking at the corporate support offices and potential efficiencies and reductions there. 

So the main activities that were identified in the Aim program 

were, I think, come to close this year. The longer term issue, and 

I have been talking to the EEO and I think my fellow commissioners, and I will let them add if they wish, is really incorporating 

sort of the ongoing awareness and idea of looking at how we do our 

work to assure we get the safety security benefit that we need 

while doing it effectively and efficiently. That is the longer term 

challenge once I think most of their Aim activities conclude this 

year. 

Senator CAPITO. Does anybody have any other comment on that? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Senator, I would just add and reinforce the 

chairman’s comment that there is still more work to be done both 

on corporate support as well as some of the programmatic activity 

lines, and we are committed to doing that work. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

Mr. BARAN. Just briefly. I will just give you a couple of concrete 

numbers that I think illustrate how aggressive the effort has been. 

At the beginning of fiscal year 2016 we had 3,628 FTE. By the end 

of fiscal year 2017, so 2 years later, we expect to see that number 

drop to 3,344 if all these re-baselining items are approved. That is 

284 fewer employees in 2 years, or about 8 percent of our work 

force. It is a pretty significant decline we have seen. 

Senator CAPITO. And you are already on your way there because 

you are at, like, 35-something at the present time. 

Mr. BARAN. That is right. Yes. 

Senator CAPITO. Chairman Burns, also, you were directed ay appropriators to discontinue the practice of carrying over budgeted 

funds from one fiscal year to the next. Are you carrying over any 

funds in this fiscal year? 

Mr. BURNS. Well, our plan is to obligate the funds that we have 

been appropriated in 2016. 

Senator CAPITO. Right. 

Mr. BURNS. With respect to potential carryover, there is the potential for some at the end of the year, some de-obligation. I think 

it is somewhat less than $25 million. 

Senator CAPITO. Well, I am on the Appropriations Committee, 

and I mean, I think you can understand in tight times you want 

to appropriate to the proper amount for the particular year because 

there is a lot of give and take and a lot of flat in the budget. So 

you can understand why that would be an issue. 

Another issue, we are having trouble getting conflicting numbers 

on the number of rulemakings that are in progress right now. We 

have been given numbers between 43 to 60. Do you have an accurate number for that? 

Mr. BURNS. Yes. What we did, and this is quite honestly one of 

my frustrations and one of the reasons why I asked for a tasking 
297 

to say let’s get a consistent reporting on these issues. We have 

what would be called rulemaking activities, about 80, and part of 

that 89 is there are a number of those things that are, for example, 

petitions for rulemaking. That means the industry or a citizen can 

file something. 

We have an obligation under the law to look at that. We can 

probably give you a better breakdown for the record, but a number 

of other things are things like incorporating industry consensus 

standards, cast certifications, things like that that the industry 

wants. 

But we have, I think, a good handle on what the number of 

‘‘rulemaking activities’’ are. And one last point is within those 89, 

the staff has identified for potential elimination a number of 

rulemakings so that we would take those off where we see limited 

value in proceeding. 

Senator CAPITO. If you could get me that, maybe more detail on 

that. 

Mr. BURNS. I can try to give you a better breakdown. 

Senator CAPITO. All right. Thank you so much. 

Senator INHOFE. Because a vote has started, and we are good for 

another probably 15 minutes here, we are going to continue. 

Senator Boxer wanted to make one statement that I think is reasonable. 

Senator BOXER. Really quickly. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

We only got to four of the recommendations. Could I count on 

you to answer my questions in writing on the rest of the list? 

Mr. BURNS. Absolutely. 

Senator BOXER. I know that you are taking these seriously. That 

is the difference between that and implementation. So I appreciate 

all of you being here today. 

And I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Boxer. 

Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 

I just want to once again put the Commission on notice that the 

NRC is still not in compliance with its own policy and the law surrounding providing documents to members of your oversight committee. It has been almost 2 years since I first requested documents related to the indictment of five members of the Chinese 

military on charges of hacking and stealing nuclear reactor trade 

secrets from Westinghouse in 2010 and 2011. At the very same 

time that these thefts occurred, Westinghouse was hosting monthslong visits for dozens of unescorted Chinese personnel at U.S. nuclear reactors. 

I have narrowed my document request. I have sent several letters. I have raised this in several hearings of this committee. I 

have raised it in private conversations with the chairman of the 

Commission. My staff has been briefed by your staff. The Commission still hasn’t even provided me with the documents that others 

at the agency have already made it possible to get access to. 

I am not willing to accept briefings in lieu of my document request, nor is it helpful for the Commission to ignore the need to 

respond to my request until several days before the hearing. When 
298 

you ask for a meeting on this issue, I expect the Commission’s response to my request. 

I just wanted to put that on the record, and I would ask the 

Commission again to comply with the request for that information. 

In 2014 an insider at the Doel Nuclear Plant in Belgium sabotaged the reactor by draining all the oil from the reactor turbine. 

This was not all that sophisticated; it was basically the nuclear reactor technology equivalent of slashing someone’s tires. 

But it caused more than $100 million in damage. Two years earlier a contractor at the plant who had passed a security background check traveled to Syria to fight with jihadist groups there. 

This incident is similar to that of Sharif Mobley, an American who 

worked at U.S. nuclear plants and subsequently fought with AlQaeda in Yemen. 

Disturbingly, the background check investigations that are required for nuclear contract workers allow them to self-report their 

foreign travel. We also recently learned that two suicide bombers 

in the Brussels terrorist attacks had collected video footage at the 

home of a Belgian nuclear official. 

Commission Baran, do you agree, then, in light of these disturbing reports from Belgium, the Commission should take a new 

look at its design basis threat, force-on-force mock terrorist exercises, and other security regulations? 

Mr. BARAN. I have to be careful answering that just because the 

design basis threat issues are classified. I can say that the NRC 

staff is taking a look at this issue, and I believe that is appropriate. 

The events you raised are something that is being looked at by our 

security folks. 

Senator MARKEY. We know that nuclear power plants, gaining 

access to those materials are at the top of the terrorist target list, 

so I recommend very strongly that you put in place a program to 

reexamine the measures that we have in place. That is where they 

are going, and we have been warned, and I think it is critical for 

us to have heeded those warnings. 

The NRC is currently doing a rulemaking to address decommissioning in light of the many reactors that are now or soon to be 

shutting down, including the Pilgrim Plant in Massachusetts. The 

commissioners told the staff that the new rules should consider the 

concerns of State and local officials, but the nuclear industry wants 

the Commission to eliminate the consideration of State and local officials’ views from the rulemaking altogether. 

At a recent NRC meeting, Massachusetts State Senator Dan 

Wolf said the industry’s suggestion was absurd. 

Starting with Commissioner Baran, do you all agree that it 

would be absurd to eliminate all consideration of State and local 

officials’ concern in your decommissioning rulemaking? 

Mr. BARAN. I agree that would be a very bad idea. I think we 

absolutely, as part of that rulemaking, should look at the appropriate role of State and local governments in the process. 

Senator MARKEY. Can we keep coming down the panel? Do you 

agree? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Senator Markey, we had a good Commission 

meeting on this topic here last month. We heard the State senator 
299 

from your State, his comments, and we are considering all these 

comments as we go forward here. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you. 

Ms. SVINICKI. Senator, the NRC staff is engaging in looking at 

all of the public input that came in. The comment period is closed, 

and I look forward to their evaluation of all of that public comment. 

Senator MARKEY. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BURNS. Really the same response. I haven’t made up my 

mind on this. I want to look at the comments. I want to extend my 

appreciation to Commissioner Baran for suggesting this meeting. I 

think when you and a number of others wrote to us this was one 

of the impetuses for holding that meeting on the decommissioning 

issues. 

Senator MARKEY. OK. Well, only one of you can, right now, say 

yes, that the State officials should be listened to, and I think that 

is not a good thing. 

Mr. BURNS. Well, I don’t think that is what I said. That is not 

what I mean to imply. I think we need to take into consideration 

those views in this process. 

Senator MARKEY. OK. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you very much, Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Fischer. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Burns, I would like to ask you a few questions about 

the Backfit Rule. That is a topic that I have raised in several of 

our committee’s oversight hearings of the NRC in the last 2 years. 

As you know the Backfit Rule says that before the NRC can impose 

a new requirement on an existing licensed facility the NRC must 

first demonstrate that the new requirement results in a substantial 

increase in the protection of public health and safety and also that 

it is cost justified. 

This committee has expressed concerns about how the NRC’s use 

of subjective qualitative factors, as opposed to objective quantitative factors, can erode the Backfit Rule and undermine, I believe, its important purposes, and I have been very concerned about 

that. 

Sir, are you aware of the compliance exception to the Backfit 

Rule, and do you believe it should be used by the NRC staff to 

avoid the Backfit Rule in cases involving changes in interpretations 

of existing regulations? 

Mr. BURNS. Yes, Senator, I am aware of the compliance exception 

to the Backfit Rule. It has a role, and it should be applied that 

way. I don’t view it as a way of evading the Backfit Rule but a way 

of looking at what is the requirements, what is compliance; if it fits 

in that, otherwise you need to apply the Backfit Rule the substantial additional protection elements. 

Senator FISCHER. So are you saying that your staff would be justified in requiring extra steps for regulation that don’t take into effect the cost? 

Mr. BURNS. No. What I think I am saying is that there may be 

circumstances in which the question or the issue between a licensee and the staff is whether or not some corrective action, some 

other action by the licensee is really something needed to comply 
300 

with existing requirements. That is an exception. I don’t mean the 

exception to swallow the rule. But that is a stated exception the 

Commission adopted in the mid-1980s when it reformed the Backfit 

Rule. 

Senator FISCHER. And the rule then should still be in effect. 

Mr. BURNS. Yes. 

Senator FISCHER. It should be considered at all times? 

Mr. BURNS. Well, the Backfit Rule has a substantial additional 

protection piece of it. Included within the Backfit Rule are these 

limited exceptions to whether or not you engage in the cost-benefit 

analysis. I am just saying I think the rule should be applied appropriately in the circumstances we find ourselves in. 

Senator FISCHER. And costs should be considered? 

Mr. BURNS. Costs should be considered where it is not a compliance backfit, or for example there is a statutory requirement that 

has been imposed by the Congress to do something. It is part of a 

normal evaluation and consideration of the Backfit Rule. I don’t 

want to leave you the impression that I am saying that the exception should swallow the rule. It is part of the normal process of 

evaluating whether a particular action requires the backfit analysis, the substantial additional protection. 

Senator FISCHER. I think this gets us back to the discussion on 

looking at if it is a subjective factor or an objective factor when we 

consider the rules and regulations. Would you agree with me on 

that? And I would always come down on the objective side of this. 

Mr. BURNS. Well, and the Commission’s guidance—— 

Senator FISCHER. I think that has been clear. 

Mr. BURNS. Yes. And I think the Commission’s guidance issued 

about a year or so ago emphasizes we expect the application of 

quantitative factors, and we have given guidance, and I would expect that as the process of engagement between licensee and staff 

goes on that that guidance of the Commission would be adhered to. 

Senator FISCHER. OK, thank you. 

Also, in a letter that was dated January 20th of this year, the 

Nuclear Energy Institute discussed concerns about misuse of the 

compliance exception. For historical context, the NEI letter quotes 

from the Federal Register Notice from the 85 Backfit Rule where 

the NRC explained new or modified interpretations of what constitutes compliance would not fall within the exception and would 

require a backfit analysis. 

I think this is getting at it again. Would you agree for the NRC 

staff to be able to use that Backfit Rule’s compliance exception that 

the staff first of all has to show some omission or mistake that has 

occurred within that licensed facility that was previously approved 

by the NRC? 

Mr. BURNS. I think my answer is yes, but let me give some explanation. 

Senator FISCHER. OK. 

Mr. BURNS. The provision I think you quoted from the Federal 

Register, the statement of consideration for the Backfit Rule, are 

significant example or significant guidance from the Commission 

with respect to the appropriate application of the compliance exception. And I am aware of the NEI letter, but I am not aware of all 

the details of some of the dialogue, but I would expect in the dia-
301 

logue between staff and licensee that that would be focused on, and 

in terms of the decisionmaking those are persuasive words or persuasive criteria that the Commission set at that time. So what I 

want to say is I don’t think they are easily discarded. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, sir. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Burns, thank you for your upcoming plans to visit Arkansas Nuclear 1. As you know, nuclear power improves air quality. Each year Arkansas Nuclear 1 allows our State to reduce air 

emissions. For example, in just 1 year, the plant reduces sulfur dioxide by about 14,000 tons, it reduces nitrogen oxide by about 

10,000 tons, and it reduces CO2 by nearly 8.5 million metric tons. 

In other words, thanks to nuclear power in Arkansas we reduce 

acid rain, smog, and ground level ozone. The operation of our Arkansas Nuclear 1 directly creates more than 1,000 good paying 

jobs; it provides a reliable source of over 1,800 megawatts of clean 

power to Arkansans. The plant provides affordable power that supports many other jobs and industries across our State that helps 

families keep the lights on. 

The NRC staff has been working diligently to address a few 

issues that were discovered at the plant following a serious industrial accident that occurred 3 years ago during maintenance on the 

non-nuclear side of the plant. I applaud the efforts of energy and 

the NRC staff to address these issues while keeping the plant safely operating. We really are very, very proud of our nuclear plant. 

Just a question. We want to make sure you have the resources 

you need to do your work, and we want to make sure that the NRC 

budget is right sized for today’s workload. The NRC’s work on 

Project Aim is intended to more closely align NRC’s resources with 

the actual workload while making sure the NRC meets its safety 

and security missions. 

In your testimony you say, ‘‘The NRC has taken a hard look at 

the proposed budget and is proposing reductions in both full-time 

equivalents and contract support dollars that represent real savings. As we continue our work through the Project Aim initiative 

we anticipate additional savings and efficiencies to come.’’ 

How would these additional savings translate in reductions of 

the NRC fiscal year 2017 budget request of $982.3 million and 

3,523 FTEs? 

Mr. BURNS. Thank you for the question, Senator. I do appreciate 

the opportunity to be able to go visit Arkansas Nuclear 1 and 2 

soon. It is a plant I haven’t been to as yet. 

The answer to your question is that we have identified, primarily 

through the re-baselining effort through Project Aim, about $31 

million in additional savings, and I think below what we came in 

on the President’s budget, part of that is, you know, the timing of 

the President’s Budget and the review process. 

The Commission is about ready to issue its final guidance on 

these additional re-baselining items, and I think they represent 

about $31 million. There are a few more, and frankly the number 

escapes me now, that we see that would go on into 2018. I forget; 

it is about $8 million in additional savings. So that is where I 
302 

would say the core of it is, and I think it is a demonstration we 

have taken this effort seriously. 

Senator BOOZMAN. How about Project Aim recommendations and 

work force planning, including strict hiring controls, staff reduction 

buyouts; how would that affect things? 

Mr. BURNS. The Office of the Chief Human Capital, I used to call 

it HR, now it is OCHC, so I get confused sometimes. Our H.R. office basically has put hiring controls, so in terms of external hires 

we are looking only at very critical positions, looking to be more 

flexible, that is the strategic work force planning, about getting 

people with skill sets who might, say, working in the reactor area 

go to the materials area and working with things like that. 

We did do an early out buyout last year. We were authorized up 

to about 100. We had about 50, I think 49 take it. We are in the 

process of going through the process of getting authorization for an 

additional effort in that way, but that is in process. So we would 

do that again to achieve some savings this year. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Chairman 

Burns. 

Mr. BURNS. Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Boozman. 

Senator Sessions had questions concerning Yucca Mountain, and 

without objection I am going to ask him to submit to each one of 

you those questions, and we would anticipate a response by the end 

of the week. OK? 

Thank you very much for your patience and also getting us out 

on time. 

We are adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m. the committee was adjourned.] 

[An additional statement submitted for the record follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BERNARD SANDERS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT

In examining the fiscal year 2017 budget request for NRC I would like to focus 

on the need to provide a strong role for the public in the decommissioning process 

when a nuclear plant shuts down. The fundamental issue here is the role of the 

State and the local community members in the decommissioning process. The community of Vernon, Vermont, is grappling with the effects of the decommissioning 

process of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, and communities all over the country 

are now, or will soon, experience the process of having the plant in their community 

shut down. 

As I understand the current rules do not apply uniquely to decommissioning. The 

current rules allow the NRC to sit down with the companies to negotiate a decommissioning process, and States have no significant role in that process. They can be 

observers, they can attend public meetings, they can provide input, but at the end 

of the day the company and the NRC work out the agreement. On the face of it 

that just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. The people of the State, regardless of 

whether it’s Vermont, Massachusetts, New York, or California, it seems to me have 

the right to have a seat at the table. The NRC must be very diligent in ensuring 

adequate public input as it continues to develop its new rules. 

Additionally, specifically regarding Vermont Yankee although the NRC is in the 

very beginning of the process of developing regulations regarding decommissioning, 

the NRC continues to approve requests from Entergy to waive current regulations. 

I find that very problematic. 

For example, the NRC approved Entergy’s request to withdraw funds for spent 

fuel management from the Decommissioning Trust Fund, which is expressly disallowed by NRC’s own regulations. The NRC also recently allowed Entergy to decrease the level of both its onsite and offsite insurance from the required $1.06 billion to merely $50 million. This lower amount is expressly in violation of the level 

required by the NRC’s own regulations. NRC’s insurance requirements do not ex-
303 

plain what should happen in the instance of a decommissioning and should be followed until there are regulations that expressly consider the unique circumstances 

and risks of the decommissioning process. 

That, of course, is why the NRC is actively developing regulations for the decommissioning process. However, while we wait for the final rules the NRC continues 

to allow companies to avoid the existing regulations. The NRC should not negate 

its own rules and instead wait until it has an appropriate set of regulations that 

are drafted after sufficient input from the public. Those final regulations will be created with input from the public that will allow them to address the unique circumstances and risks of decommissioning. The NRC should wait tor that necessary 

input instead of allowing plants to continue to operate outside the NRC’s own rules. 

Æ