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

97–802 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 113–765 

NUCLEAR REACTOR DECOMMISSIONING: 

STAKEHOLDER VIEWS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 14, 2014 

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 THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director 

ZAK BAIG, Republican Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

MAY 14, 2014 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 1 

Inhofe, Hon. James, U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .......................... 2 

Sanders, Hon. Bernard, U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont ....................... 4 

Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana ............................ 6 

Sessions, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama ............................. 6 

WITNESSES 

Weber, Michael, Deputy Executive Director, Operations, Materials, Waste, 

Research, State, Tribal and Compliance Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission ........................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 11 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ................................................................................................... 19 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 27 

Senator Vitter ................................................................................................... 32 

Mosier, Don, Council Member, City of Del Mar, California ................................. 94 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 96 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper .............................. 98 

Recchia, Christopher, Commissioner, Vermont Public Service Department ...... 99 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 101 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper .............................. 133 

Fettus, Geoffrey, Senior Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council ............. 140 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 142 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper .............................. 153 

Fertel, Marvin S., President and Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear Energy 

Institute ................................................................................................................ 158 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 160 

(1) 

NUCLEAR REACTOR DECOMMISSIONING: 

STAKEHOLDER VIEWS 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2014 

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 Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer (chairman of 

the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer, Sanders, Markey, Vitter, Sessions and 

Inhofe. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Good morning. 

We have a wonderful panel here and several members. We are 

going to keep our opening statements to three to 4 minutes each. 

We have a vote in an hour. 

We are holding a hearing on the issues facing communities located near decommissioning nuclear reactors. 

Last year, four nuclear reactors were shut down permanently, including those at California San Onofre, which closed because of a 

severe safety failure. A fifth reactor at the Vermont Yankee plant 

will close at the end of this year and analysts have predicted more 

closures will follow. 

The San Onofre closures may bring some relief to California communities worried about the reactor’s safety but I am concerned that 

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is not doing everything it can 

to keep these communities safe during the decommissioning process, including maintaining all emergency response capabilities. 

The people who live and work nearby need to have a voice in the 

decommissioning process and we will hear from a representative of 

one of those communities today. 

When reactors shut down, they stop producing energy. However, 

all of the highly radioactive fuel must remain stored in a large pool 

of cooling water five to 7 years after it comes out of the reactor core 

because it is far too dangerous to remove. 

Today, I plan to discuss studies that have shown that an accident 

or terror attack on a crowded spent fuel pool could result in spontaneous fire and the release of large quantities of radiation. We don’t 

want that to happen. 

The NRC has also determined that an earthquake would be the 

most likely cause of a spent fuel pool accident. It seems that some 

2 

of these plants are located on or near earthquake faults. We must 

ensure that these scenarios are addressed. 

At San Onofre, the spent fuel pools were designed to hold a total 

of 600 spent fuel assemblies but currently they hold more than 

2,600. That over crowding puts them at risk of serious safety consequences if they experience an accident or terror attack. Make no 

mistake, the reactors may be shut down but the risk of an accident 

or an attack has not gone away. 

While NRC Chairman Allison Macfarlane co-authored a paper 

that found that the long term land contamination consequences for 

spent fuel fire ‘‘could be significantly worse than Chernobyl,’’ NRC 

has taken no action thus far to ensure appropriate levels of protection are in place. 

In fact, every time operators of decommissioning reactors have 

asked to be exempted from NRC’s emergency response regulations, 

the NRC has said yes. That means no more evacuation zones or 

planning, no more warning sirens and no more emergency relocation centers. 

NRC justifies this by saying a spent fuel fire at a decommissioning reactor would take 10 hours to ignite after an accident or 

terror attack occurred. NRC also assumes that 10 hours would be 

enough to fix the problem. 

Hoping that the consequences of a catastrophe on a spent fuel 

pool could be stopped within 10 hours is not responsible or realistic. For examples, less than 10 hours after the earthquake and 

tsunami at Fukushima, high levels of radiation were already being 

measured outside the reactor buildings and most of the fire trucks 

and the pumps that were supposed to provide water to cool the reactors were found to be unusable. I think we remember that. 

We just cannot assume that everything will go as NRC hopes. 

You don’t go into the situation with just hope. You have to have 

a plan. That is why yesterday I introduced the Safe and Secure Decommissioning Act of 2014. 

This bill prohibits the NRC from approving any emergency response or security exemption requests that are supposed to protect 

against a spent fuel accident until all the spent fuel is placed into 

safer, dry cast storage. I have also co-sponsored two other bills by 

Senators Sanders and Markey. 

Safety for the American people is our No. 1 priority and it 

doesn’t change whether a nuclear facility is fully operational or 

shut down. I look forward to hearing from witnesses so we can 

make sure we get all the information we need to keep communities 

located near decommissioning reactors as safe as they can be. 

With that, I will call on Senator Inhofe. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I have been critical of the NRC over a lot of things. Current electricity markets and the lack of demand for new nuclear power 

plants means that the NRC has a budget that I believe is too big. 

The NRC’s budget has allowed its staff to swell to what I believe 

are unjustifiable levels which has resulted in development of new 

and unnecessary regulations. 

3 

Putting that aside, I have full confidence in the NRC’s ability to 

handle the nuclear decommissioning process. They have done it 

successfully many times and the agency is handling the current decommissioning projects well. 

I know there are some, including Senators Sanders and Boxer, 

who are concerned that the level of community engagement allowed 

by the NRC and the plant operators during the decommissioning 

process has been lacking and this justifies the need for additional 

Federal legislation or NRC regulations. I don’t think that is the 

case. 

All the plants currently undergoing decommissioning have gone 

out of their way to engage the public. They have allowed the public 

to air their concerns and frustrations and have communicated what 

they are doing at every step of the process. 

To me, this kind of responsiveness is exactly what we need. We 

should not legislate something that is working well on a voluntary 

basis. Other concerns have been raised over the safety of spent 

fuels that have been removed from reactors and decommissioned 

plants. 

I am going to shorten my statement in accordance with the timeframe that we have here. 

This committee and the NRC have been particularly concerned 

about the U.S. nuclear fleet risk to the Fukushima like event. Importantly, at Fukushima, the spent fuel structures were not compromised and neither was the fuel inside them. 

Regardless, the NRC staff conducted a study on the U.S. fleet’s 

spent fuel pool risk and concluded, ‘‘The likelihood of a radiological 

release is very low, about 1 time in 10,000,000 years or lower.’’ The 

study predicted no early fatalities attributable to radiation exposure. 

‘‘Consequently, our staff concluded expediting movement of spent 

fuel from the pool does not provide a substantial safety enhancement.’’ 

They also recommended that this issue be put to rest and that 

the agency’s time and resources be spent on other priorities. Knowing this, calls to expedite the transfer of fuel from pools to casks 

are unwarranted as the calls to maintain security and regulatory 

protocols at unnecessarily high levels at decommissioning sites. 

Pushes like this add tremendously to the cumulative cost of operating and maintaining a nuclear plant. That cannot be understated. The nuclear power industry is incredibly important to this 

country. It accounts for 20 percent of our electricity generation, but 

many plants are hobbling along right now. 

The cumulative cost of the regulations on the industry, whether 

from the EPA with its impeding 316(b) rule, with which we are all 

very familiar, or the NRC with its front end and back end regulatory control of our plants’ operations are the main threat to the 

nuclear industry’s future. 

We, on this committee, need to treat these assets as what they 

are, intentionally valuable. I think this is a well-balanced committee and I have quite specific questions and I do want to make 

sure we get the answers in the record, Madam Chairman. 

Thank you for holding this meeting. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

4 

STATEMENT OF HON JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

I have been critical of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission over many things. For 

one, current electricity markets and the lack of demand for new nuclear power 

plants means that the NRC has a budget that’s too big. The NRC’s budget has allowed its staff to swell to unjustifiable levels, which has resulted in the development 

of new and unnecessary regulations. Putting that aside, I have full confidence in the 

NRC’s ability to handle the nuclear decommissioning process. They’ve done it successfully many times, and the agency is handling the current decommissioning 

projects well. I know some are concerned that the level of community engagement 

allowed by NRC and the plant operators during the decommissioning process has 

been lacking, and that this justifies the need for additional Federal legislation or 

NRC regulations, but I don’t think this is necessary. 

All of the plants currently undergoing decommissioning have gone out of their 

way to engage the public. They have allowed the public to air their concerns and 

frustrations, and they have communicated what they’re doing at every step of the 

process. To me, this kind of responsiveness is exactly what we need. We should not 

legislate something that’s working well on a voluntary basis. Other concerns have 

been raised over the safety of spent fuel that has been removed from the reactors 

of decommissioned plants. Spent fuel must spend a time in pools after being removed from a reactor so they can cool down. Once cool enough, they can be stored 

in dry casks and eventually placed at Yucca Mountain for long term storage. And 

it’s important to note that when fuel is removed from the reactor and placed in 

spent fuel pools, the risk profile of the site goes down dramatically. 

This Committee and the NRC have been particularly concerned about the U.S. 

nuclear fleet’s risk to a Fukushima-like event. Importantly, at Fukushima the spent 

fuel structures were not compromised and neither was the fuel inside them. Regardless, the NRC staff conducted a study on the U.S. fleet’s spent fuel pool risk and 

concluded that ‘‘the likelihood of a radiological release[is] very low (about 1 time in 

10 million years or lower) . . . [and] the study predicted no early fatalities attributable to radiation exposure.’’ Consequently, the staff concluded that ‘‘expediting 

movement of spent fuel from the pool does not provide a substantial safety enhancement.’’ They also recommended that this issue be put to rest and that the agency’s 

time and resources be spent on other priorities. Knowing this, calls to expedite the 

transfer of fuel from pools to casks are unwarranted, as are calls to maintain security and regulatory protocols at unnecessarily high levels at decommissioning sites. 

Pushes like this add tremendously to the cumulative cost of operating and maintaining a nuclear power plant. And that can’t be underestimated. The nuclear power 

industry is incredibly important to this country. It accounts for 20 percent of our 

electricity generation, but many plants are hobbling along in profitability right now. 

The cumulative cost of regulations on the industry—whether from the EPA with its 

impending 316(b) rule or the NRC with its front-end and back-end regulatory control over a plant’s operations—are the main threat to the nuclear industry’s future. 

We on this committee need to treat these assets for what they are—intensely valuable, fully depreciated societal treasures that provide the Nation with the cheap, 

clean, and reliable electricity we need to create jobs and prosperity. 

Senator BOXER. Without a doubt, we will do that. 

Senator Sanders. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BERNARD SANDERS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Senator SANDERS. Madam Chair, thank you very much for holding this hearing which I will tell you deals with an issue of great 

importance to the people of the State of Vermont and States 

around this country which have nuclear plants that are being decommissioned. 

As you know, when one closes down a nuclear power plant, it 

means lost jobs. In the case of the Yankee Nuclear power plant, we 

are talking about several hundred jobs. It means lost revenue to 

the community and lost revenue to the State. Mostly, it is an issue 

of safety. People want to know what is happening in that plant and 

the nature of the decommissioning. 

5 

We in Vermont are very concerned that the decommissioning 

process could take up to 60 years. Let me repeat that. There are 

some suggestions that the decommissioning of Vermont Yankee 

could take up to 60 years. Frankly, that is not acceptable to the 

people of the State of Vermont but that could happen under the 

current NRC rules. 

The licensee in Vermont has a long history of safety and disclosure problems, despite NRC oversight including the collapse of a 

cooling tower and multiple leaks of radioactive material. The prospect of letting a dangerous plant sit there decade after decade after 

decade makes the people of the State of Vermont very uncomfortable. 

I am sure Vermonters are not alone in their concern. I suspect, 

Chairman Boxer, that same concern exists in California and in 

other States with nuclear power plants that are being shut down. 

The problem we are dealing with is that the NRC now does not 

allow host States, the States that host the nuclear power plant, any 

kind of meaningful role in crafting the decommissioning plant despite the obvious impact to those States. A plant is sitting in a 

State, the plant’s closing has enormous impact on the State, yet the 

State has very, very little say in how that plant is being closed. 

For my conservative friends who worry about local control, I 

would suggest this is very much a local control issue. At best, currently, States have a token opportunity to provide public comment 

after the plant is already finalized, but this is not good enough. 

In our case, the Vermont Yankee licensee could adopt a decommissioning plan that ignores needs and interests of Vermonters 

and the State would have no recourse. To my mind, that is unfair 

and unreasonable. 

I want to acknowledge the significance of the agreement that the 

State of Vermont struck with Entergy, which owns Vermont Yankee, which was approved by the Public Service Board in March and 

which signals an improved relationship. That is a step forward. 

However, even this agreement does not address many of the most 

difficult issues. Under current law, there is no assurance that the 

concerns of the State or impacted local communities will be reasonably addressed. I think they should. I think most fair minded people would think the State being impacted by the decommissioning 

should have a seat at the table. 

This is an issue in every State currently facing decommissioning 

and could be a problem for many other States with plants that may 

be decommissioned in the future, including States like California, 

Florida, Wisconsin, New Jersey, New Jersey and Ohio. 

This is not a Democrat, Republican or Independent issue. It is 

not an urban or rural issue. It is certainly not a pro-nuclear or 

anti-nuclear issue. This is simply about ensuring that States have 

the opportunity to play a meaningful in a decision that has enormous impact on the people of that State, on that State’s economy, 

on its environment and on its communities. 

I want to thank the Chair for holding this hearing which addresses these issues. With that, Madam Chair, I would yield. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Senator Vitter, followed by Senator Sessions. 

6 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Chairman Boxer, for convening this 

hearing. 

I also want to thank our distinguished witnesses. 

Certainly the regulations enforcing security and safety standards 

during decommissioning are very important to the country and certainly those who live and work right around these facilities. That 

is a factor we need to consider, particularly as more plants are 

forced to shut down in part, I think, due to an erratic regulatory 

environment. That is why today’s hearing is crucial. 

It is also crucial before changes are made to the decommissioning 

process to hear from those directly impacted and to hear from experts. 

The good news is that since the 1960’s, the U.S. has decommissioned 11 nuclear reactors with 17 still going through that process. 

Throughout this 50-plus year period, there has not been any mishap in the process that has resulted in harm to public safety. 

That does not mean our process is perfect; it doesn’t mean we 

shouldn’t always look at it and reexamine it potentially but that is 

the good news. That does give us caution for significant changes. 

Before changes are made, I certainly want to hear about the safety benefits of those changes also in relation to the costs. I also want 

to hear from the NRC, their experts and their employees. I am concerned about some push or changes to this process that is actually 

opposed by the Commission, that the Commission says will not add 

to safety but will take a lot of time and resources instead. 

I think it is important to have this discussion about safety to 

make sure we continue to provide that safe environment for decommissioning. 

I look forward to your testimony. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, thank you. 

Senator Sessions. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Madam Chair, for this hearing. 

Safe nuclear reactor decommissioning is a technical process, an 

expensive process and it takes time to do it safely and properly. It 

is a proven process. 

Federal law, Senator Sanders, is supreme law. This process of 

nuclear power regulation has been preempted by the Federal Government. I think there are real problems arising if you give legal 

power to States to alter reactor decommissioning or other changes 

in reactors after it has been established differently at the beginning. It threatens the future of nuclear power. 

It is an open process. All State and local stakeholders and the 

interested parties can appear, raise issues, complain, point out and 

make suggestions for improvement. 

Current regulations are developed by professional staff at NRC 

and allow for up to 60 years to decommission plants, but it is a 

careful process. The safest and best way is to not go too fast. Let 

the plants cool down a bit before you go through the process. 

7 

Nuclear plant licensees are required to establish a financial 

mechanism to ensure they have the resources, estimated between 

$300 million to $400 million or more, to decommission plants. 

There have been no problems with that financial responsibility to 

date and we don’t expect any. 

In spite of these hurdles, the United States has successfully performed decommissioning work for nearly 50 years. More than 25 

reactor locations have begun decommissioning processes and 11 

have successfully completed it. Many of these sites have returned 

to productive use as green field sites. 

It is vital as the Nation faces the shutdown of up to six nuclear 

reactors in a short amount of time that the public continues to 

have confidence in the scientific and technical assessments of the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This is particularly true in face of 

the large number of nuclear power plants closure announcements. 

The industry gaining environment support worldwide is very fragile financially. 

Kewaunee Power Station in Wisconsin, Vermont Yankee, Crystal 

River, San Onofre Units 2 and 3 in California, Oyster Creek in 

New Jersey are plants being closed. There is one area, however, 

where the public should be skeptical of political distortion in the 

decommissioning process and indeed, the blatant violation of laws 

and contracts. 

The Nation continues to have no long-term storage for nuclear 

waste despite the 1987 nuclear waste policy amendments clearly 

designating Yucca Mountain as the Nation’s sole permanent repository for nuclear waste. Despite the Department of Energy’s legal 

obligation, no nuclear wastes have been collected. 

Of the 25 sites where decommissioning has begun, all but 9 have 

nuclear waste stored onsite. After undergoing a decade long process 

costing hundreds of millions of dollars, reactor vessels, steam generators and buildings have been safely removed at 11 sites. Of the 

11 sites, 7 of them still have fuel storage onsite waiting for the 

Federal Government to pick up the waste and move it to a repository. 

In fact, beginning tomorrow, the Department of Energy will no 

longer be able to collect the waste fee from civilian nuclear power 

generators or their customers. This is because the D.C. Circuit 

Court on December 20, 2013 issued an order finding the government has failed to fulfill its contractual obligations and can no 

longer collect the money. 

The Court brutally criticized the process and highlighted the obstruction by former NRC Chairman Jaczko and others. They found 

‘‘Former NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko orchestrated a systematic 

campaign of non-compliance. Jaczko unilaterally ordered Commission staff to terminate the Yucca Mountain review process in October 2010, instructed staff to remove key findings from reports evaluating the Yucca Mountain site and ignored the will of the fellow 

commissioners.’’ 

These are the problems we have which are causing stress in our 

nuclear industry. We have to put this matter to rest. I believe we 

can. I believe the NRC is capable and has worked for decades to 

develop this decommissioning process. We need to continue with it. 

If there are technical improvements, so be it. 

8 

It is now a cloud over the future of the nuclear industry. That 

is a threat to our financial future and we have to get it fixed. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

We will now turn to our panel. Michael Weber is Deputy Executive Director for Operations, Materials, Waste, Research, State, 

Tribal and Compliance Programs, at the NRC. Welcome, sir. 

Next, we have Hon. Don Mosier, Council Member, city of Del 

Mar, California, one of the most beautiful places. Dr. Mosier was 

first elected to the Del Mar City Council in 2008. He served as 

Mayor in 2011. He is also a professor in the Department of Immunology and Microbial Science at the Scripps Research Institute. He 

has had longstanding safety concerns about the San Onofre Nuclear Plant, some of which he will share with us today. 

Mr. Christopher Recchia is Commissioner of the Vermont Public 

Service Department. Mr. Geoffrey Fettus is Senior Attorney at the 

Natural Resources Defense Council. Mr. Marvin Fertel is President 

and Chief Executive Officer of Nuclear Energy Institute. 

Gentlemen, you all come here with amazing credentials and we 

look forward to your testimony. We will begin with Mr. Weber. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL WEBER, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OPERATIONS, MATERIALS, WASTE, RESEARCH, STATE, 

TRIBAL AND COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Mr. WEBER. Good morning, Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member 

Vitter and members of the committee. It is my pleasure to appear 

before you today to present the views of the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

In my testimony, I would like to highlight how NRC accomplishes its safety and security mission in the safe decommissioning 

of nuclear power plants, including the management of spent fuel 

generated by those plants during operations. 

I will discuss the regulatory process for nuclear power plant decommissioning, including both our role and our engagement of 

stakeholders including individual citizens, State and local governments, tribal governments, industry and non-governmental organizations. 

NRC’s requirements and regulatory programs have evolved for 

nuclear power plant decommissioning since the agency was established in 1975. The decommissioning process commences for nuclear power plants with a formal written notification to the NRC 

by the licensee that nuclear operations have terminated and that 

fuel has been removed from the reactor core. 

These notifications are publicly available and any individual can 

remain informed as the decommissioning process proceeds. 

Within 2 years of permanent shutdown, NRC requires that licensees submit a report called the Post Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report or PSDAR. That report is publicly available. No major decommissioning activities described in the report 

can begin any sooner than 90 days after the agency receives it. 

During our review of the report, the NRC holds a public meeting 

in the vicinity of the shut down nuclear power plant to receive public comments on that report. 

9 

There are three primary approaches that licensees can use to accomplish decommissioning in accordance with the NRC’s regulations. First is immediate dismantlement or DECON; deferred dismantlement or SAFSTOR; and entombment or ENTOMB. The 

DECON option consists of prompt dismantlement and removal of 

radioactively contaminated equipment, structures and buildings. 

Under the SAFSTOR alternative, licensees may promptly remove 

some of the contaminated equipment and structures but most of 

that material remains for some period of time in a safe, stable condition until it is subsequently decontaminated to levels that no 

longer require regulatory control. 

During SAFSTOR, the spent nuclear fuel either remains safely 

and securely stored in the spent fuel pools or is removed to NRCcertified storage dry casks hosted at an onsite, independent spent 

fuel storage installation. 

Licensees make the decisions on which alternative to pursue for 

decommissioning taking a variety of factors into consideration, including insuring plant safety first and foremost, the potential dose 

to the workers, availability of decommissioning funds, access to low 

level waste disposal facilities, potential use of the site and stakeholder input. 

Anytime after decommissioning commences but at least 2 years 

before the licensee intends to seek termination of the license, the 

licensee must submit a license termination plan for the remainder 

of the decommissioning activities. 

NRC makes that license termination plan publicly available on 

its website and after a detailed regulatory review of the plan, the 

NRC will approve this plan and issue a license amendment if the 

plan demonstrates the decommissioning can be accomplished safely 

and in accordance with the NRC’s requirements. 

Because the license termination plan is approved through a license amendment, there is an opportunity for the public, including 

State, local and tribal governments to request a hearing on that 

plan. In addition, there is the opportunity for stakeholders to comment on that plan without requesting a hearing. 

Throughout the decommissioning process, the NRC continues to 

oversee the safe decommissioning as well as the security and compliance with our activities conducted by the licensee through onsite 

inspections. The NRC adjusts that level of oversight to insure safety and security as well as in response to the licensee’s performance 

in conducting the decommissioning. 

Since 1982, the NRC has overseen the successful completion of 

decommissioning at 11 nuclear power plants. Each of these completed sites was decommissioned in a safe and effective manner 

that supported termination of the license and release of the site for 

other uses. 

As already alluded, a number of plants have recently announced 

their intent to also decommission, including Kewaunee, Crystal 

River and the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Stations. Vermont 

Yankee has also announced its intent to terminate operations by 

the end of 2014. 

While the NRC believes that its regulatory program adequately 

protects public health and safety, we continually assess the lessons 

10 

learned from decommissioning to identify and make appropriate 

improvements to that process. 

I thank you for the opportunity to present testimony and look 

forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Weber follows:] 

11 


97802.001
12 


97802.002
13 


97802.003
14 


97802.004
15 


97802.005
16 


97802.006
17 


97802.007
18 


97802.008
19 


97802.009
20 


97802.010
21 


97802.011
22 


97802.012
23 


97802.013
24 


97802.014
25 


97802.015
26 


97802.016
27 


97802.017
28 


97802.018
29 


97802.019
30 


97802.020
31 


97802.021
32 


97802.022
33 


97802.023
34 


97802.024
35 


97802.025
36 


97802.026
37 


97802.027
38 


97802.028
39 


97802.029
40 


97802.030
41 


97802.031
42 


97802.032
43 


97802.033
44 


97802.034
45 


97802.035
46 


97802.036
47 


97802.037
48 


97802.038
49 


97802.039
50 


97802.040
51 


97802.041
52 


97802.042
53 


97802.043
54 


97802.044
55 


97802.045
56 


97802.046
57 


97802.047
58 


97802.048
59 


97802.049
60 


97802.050
61 


97802.051
62 


97802.052
63 


97802.053
64 


97802.054
65 


97802.055
66 


97802.056
67 


97802.057
68 


97802.058
69 


97802.059
70 


97802.060
71 


97802.061
72 


97802.062
73 


97802.063
74 


97802.064
75 


97802.065
76 


97802.066
77 


97802.067
78 


97802.068
79 


97802.069
80 


97802.070
81 


97802.071
82 


97802.072
83 


97802.073
84 


97802.074
85 


97802.075
86 


97802.076
87 


97802.077
88 


97802.078
89 


97802.079
90 


97802.080
91 


97802.081
92 


97802.082
93 


97802.083
94 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Now we turn to Hon. Don Mosier. 

STATEMENT OF DON MOSIER, COUNCIL MEMBER, CITY OF 

DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. MOSIER. Thank you, Chairman Boxer, Senator Vitter and 

members of the committee. 

Del Mar is 32 miles down wind of San Onofre, which I am going 

to call SONGS. I mention down wind because that is the prevailing 

winds and if anything goes wrong at San Onofre, we are one of the 

cities that will be impacted. There are 8 million people who live 

within a 50-mile radius of SONGS and the entire San Diego area 

is downwind of this reactor. 

We were initially pleased when the defective steam generators 

caused the closure of San Onofre but upon closer examination, we 

now realize the risk has been diminished very little because every 

fuel rod ever used at San Onofre is still onsite. That is over 4,000 

tons of radioactive waste. 

The spent fuel pools at San Onofre were designed to hold over 

1,600 fuel rods but they are already overcrowded with more than 

2,600 fuel rods. These fuel rods are of high burn up uranium, twice 

as radioactive as the original fuel rods used at the plant. When the 

spent fuel pool was designed they were designed to hold the old 

style rods. 

This lead already to significant public safety risk and that is 

what I am concerned about, the risk to our public. In 2007, one of 

the Boraflex neutron absorbing panels of the spent fuel pools degenerated leading to a situation the NRC called highly critical 

which means there was almost a spent fuel pool fire. This was because of the overcrowding and the highly radioactive fuel rods. 

Eight million people are depending on the NRC to oversee this 

plant and yet we have already had a number of incidents. This is 

only one of them. 

There are numerous challenges to moving rapidly to dry cask 

storage, which would be much safer, but this high burn-up fuel has 

never been stored safely in dry cask and there is no current design 

that assures 20 years of storage. In fact with the level of fuel at 

San Onofre, it is likely it will take the full 60 years decommissioning period to store all this fuel. 

Obviously we would like to get that fuel offsite. San Onofre is located eight miles from a major fault. It is right next to InterState 

5. If there were an earthquake or a terrorist attack, this is a very 

vulnerable site. As long as the fuel is still in spent fuel pools, it 

is very vulnerable to earthquakes and terrorist attacks. 

The city of Del Mar also believes that State and local officials 

should be involved in the regulatory process. If I could disagree 

with my colleagues at the NRC, the NRC oversight of the decommissioning process is really very weak. They do not have the ability 

to say stop, change your process, it is not good. All they can do is 

approve whatever the utility submits. 

I am very much in support of the new Senate bill introduced by 

Senators Boxer, Markey and Sanders because we do need more 

input in this critical process. These public participation panels are 

95 

great for exchanging information but they have no regulatory authority whatsoever. That is a problem. 

Again, it is the safety of the eight million people living in southern California that is our concern. History has shown that we cannot trust the NRC to insure the safety of our citizens. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mosier follows:] 

96 


97802.084
97 


97802.085
98 


97802.086
99 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

Now we turn to Commissioner Christopher Recchia from 

Vermont. 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER RECCHIA, COMMISSIONER, 

VERMONT PUBLIC SERVICE DEPARTMENT 

Mr. RECCHIA. Thank you, Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member 

Vitter. 

I particularly want to thank Senator Sanders for his leadership 

on the Vermont Yankee issues and also for the bills that were introduced yesterday. 

I really appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss 

with you Vermont’s observations about the closing and decommissioning process and lessons learned so far and hopeful expeditious 

decommissioning of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station. 

I say hopeful because I think it is in everyone’s interest to decommission this plant quickly and by decommissioning get to the 

technical points that Mr. Weber mentioned, I mean the decontamination and dismantlement of the facility in order to create a 

green field, in order to get that property back into economic use. 

Personally, in my lifetime, I would like to see that happen, not 

within 60 years. 

Left to rely on the NRC structure alone, Vermont really has precious little control over how and when decommissioning occurs and 

very little influence over how the NRC and Entergy, the owners of 

the plant, choose to proceed. I believe this needs to change and 

have some very specific and relatively reasonable suggestions on 

how to move that forward. 

Quickly, a brief history on the Vermont Yankee station. We willingly hosted the plant for 40 years during its original license term 

from 1972 to 2012. It was only when the NRC and Entergy sought 

to renew that license that we felt we needed to oppose that and yet 

it was done over Vermont’s objections. 

Our belief then and now was that the plant had served its purpose, was at the end of its useful life and that our energy future 

rested elsewhere. The State needed to be a partner in the initial 

licensing of that facility and should have been a partner in any extension. 

In 2011, under the leadership of Governor Peter Shumlin and 

overwhelming support of Vermonters, we adopted a comprehensive 

energy plan for Vermont that calls for 90 percent renewables by 

2050 across all sectors—electricity, thermal energy and transportation. 

We have our first statewide efficiency utility that has worked to 

save $1 billion in energy costs for Vermonters since its inception. 

Its parent company is now working in DC to try and accomplish 

the same for the District. 

We have made sure to put our renewable energy commitment 

into practice. I want to emphasize this point. Since March 2012 

after the original license of the plant was completed, Vermont has 

received and taken no electricity from the Vermont Yankee Nuclear 

Power Station. 

In August 2013, Entergy announced that they were closing and 

we did work to reach an agreement with them on how to proceed. 

100 

I am pleased with that agreement. It is for the benefit of 

Vermonters but nonetheless we were a little hamstrung in the ability to negotiate that agreement. 

There were things we were not able to agree on, things that NRC 

has allowed nuclear power plants to do in the past that Entergy 

wanted to retain the rights to do. In short, I would say Vermont 

was not well served by NRC’s past decisions and current approach 

to decommissioning as an underpinning of these negotiations. 

We essentially negotiated with one hand tied behind our backs 

but I think we did the best we could for Vermonters. 

As a result of that experience, the Vermont delegation, the Governor and the Attorney General did meet with Chairman 

MacFarlane to say is there a way that we could move this forward 

better? We got a response but in essence, it really focuses on the 

idea that there are opportunities to comment as Mr. Weber pointed 

out. 

One critical point I want to emphasize is this. The PSDAR that 

is the foundation of any decommissioning plan is developed by the 

owner of the plant and is sent to the NRC but the NRC does not 

have to act on that. In most cases, it does not. There is no review 

or approval by the NRC. As a result, 90 days passes and then the 

plant can proceed. 

Yes, there is public hearing, there is public input, but there is 

no responsiveness summary or any action needed by the NRC to 

response to comments that might be received. I really know of no 

other regulatory structure in which something of that significance 

is not analyzed and responded to. 

We are not suggesting that you change the authority of the NRC 

or give States more rights, if you will, over the process other than 

have a meaningful role in the participation of it, other than making 

sure that the NRC is responsive to the comments received. 

Chairman BOXER. Sir, I think I am going to have to stop you. 

Mr. RECCHIA. With that, I thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Recchia follows:] 

101 


97802.087
102 


97802.088
103 


97802.089
104 


97802.090
105 


97802.091
106 


97802.092
107 


97802.093
108 


97802.094
109 


97802.095
110 


97802.096
111 


97802.097
112 


97802.098
113 


97802.099
114 


97802.100
115 


97802.101
116 


97802.102
117 


97802.103
118 


97802.104
119 


97802.105
120 


97802.106
121 


97802.107
122 


97802.108
123 


97802.109
124 


97802.110
125 


97802.111
126 


97802.112
127 


97802.113
128 


97802.114
129 


97802.115
130 


97802.116
131 


97802.117
132 


97802.118
133 


97802.119
134 


97802.120
135 


97802.121
136 


97802.122
137 


97802.123
138 


97802.124
139 


97802.125
140 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. We put all of your full 

statements into the record. 

We will turn our attention to Mr. Geoffrey Fettus, Senior Attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF GEOFFREY FETTUS, SENIOR ATTORNEY, 

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL 

Mr. FETTUS. Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Vitter and members of the committee, thank you so much for having us. I will endeavor to be concise. 

With the gradual drumbeat of retiring reactors in the past few 

years for various aging, safety and economic reasons, it is timely 

for the committee to take up this matter and press ahead in addressing these regulatory issues that we have before us, as you see 

from the table. The bills introduced yesterday were a constructive 

and useful start. 

I will get right to the point. Chairman Boxer’s home State of 

California also hosts the Humboldt Bay Reactor. Originally, that 

facility cost about $22 million to build and the decommissioning 

manager said about $382 million has been spent on decommissioning as of last May 2013. We expect far more than $1 billion to 

be spent before it is all done. 

This is a 63 megawatt reactor not dissimilar in size from the 

small modular reactors currently envisioned by some industry proponents. Like Humboldt Bay, if it turns out as now seems likely, 

other reactors may close before the expiration of their operating licenses and the owners could let them sit like radioactive, industrial 

relics for 30 to 60 years or even longer while interest accrues in 

the reactor’s decommissioning accounts. 

Some States have expressed concern over this process as you 

have just heard. Further, there could be disagreements over these 

important issues: the extent of and safest treatment for the contamination left onsite; the firm’s plans for safely removing the reactor vessels; the ultimate destinations and transport routes for dismantled debris; and the health and environmental limits for the release of sites and license termination, including the time window 

as noted above. All of these have been contested. 

I have advocated before this committee and your colleagues in 

the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee for meaningful State regulatory roles in the waste context and I do so here in 

the decommissioning context as well. 

I actually do think States should have meaningful regulatory authority just as they do for other environmental pollutants. 

Our primary concerns today with the decommissioning process 

are two very simple ones: ensuring the rules apply for as long as 

necessary to be sufficiently protective and our primary concern goes 

directly to the most significant area of danger which is spent fuel 

which is, as all the committee members know, dangerous and highly toxic. 

For the purpose of this hearing, spent fuel remains dangerous 

while it is in over-packed pools that weren’t necessarily designed 

for the length of time they have been in use. We recommend barring such exemptions for as long as the spent fuel remains in the 

141 

pools. We are gratified to see that a bill has been introduced to do 

exactly that. 

The other major consideration, considering the time we have, is 

adequate funding. We were very informed by the recent GAO report that called into question NRC’s formula and whether or not 

it will reliably estimate adequate decommissioning costs. 

With the Humboldt Bay example, respectfully, while we have 

done 11 reactors, that is actually not a tremendous amount of experience compared to the amount of experience we have in operating 

reactors and operating a whole host of other industrial facilities. 

We see this as a relatively new issue that we hope to have a lot 

of information generated from the process going forward in 

Vermont and the process that is going to go forward at San Onofre 

and other locations. 

Put bluntly, NRDC is concerned that the States and their taxpayers could be placed in the position where they may flip significant portions of the bill and the burdens to decommission and decontaminate and restore reactor sites into greater resources. 

We should avoid such a fate and the bills introduced yesterday 

are a constructive start. This is an evolving issue and we thank the 

committee for holding this hearing. 

I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fettus follows:] 

142 


97802.126
143 


97802.127
144 


97802.128
145 


97802.129
146 


97802.130
147 


97802.131
148 


97802.132
149 


97802.133
150 


97802.134
151 


97802.135
152 


97802.136
153 


97802.137
154 


97802.138
155 


97802.139
156 


97802.140
157 


97802.141
158 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Mr. Fettus. 

We will turn to our last witness, Mr. Marvin Fertel, President 

and Chief Executive Officer with the Nuclear Energy Institute. 

Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF MARVIN S. FERTEL, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE 

Mr. FERTEL. Thank you, Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member 

Vitter, and members of the committee. 

As already mentioned, decommissioning involves decontaminating a commercial nuclear energy facility to reduce residual radioactivity, dismantling the structures, removing contaminated materials and components to appropriate disposal facilities and ultimately releasing the property for other uses. 

The nuclear energy industry has demonstrated that it has the 

technology, resources and expertise to successfully decommission 

commercial nuclear reactors. The decommissioning process, as 

overseen by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with input from 

States and local government, is a proven and appropriate method 

for ensuring that the decommissioning of nuclear energy facilities 

is accomplished in a safe and secure environmentally compatible 

way. 

The process allows licensees to choose one of three decommissioning options that Mike Weber mentioned and they must be exercised within that 60-year period. Importantly, it also does provide 

opportunities for interaction with State, local communities and 

tribes allowing the public to attend meetings, provide comments 

and have access to plant specific decommissioning information and 

request a hearing before the license is terminated. 

The closure of more than 70 test and power reactors since 1960 

including 17 power reactor sites currently undergoing decommissioning, shows the effectiveness and success of the NRC’s approach 

to regulating the decommissioning process. 

The NRC also ensures that adequate funds for decommissioning 

will be available when needed through a system that requires licensees to amass funds needed to decommission their facilities. 

Planning for decommissioning takes place over the life of the facility. Throughout the operation of a nuclear power plant from licensing through decommissioning, the licensee must provide the 

NRC with the assurance that sufficient funding will be available 

for the decommissioning process. 

As I mentioned earlier, the site must be decommissioned within 

the 60-year period of a plant ceasing operations. 

As Mr. Weber indicated, 5 years before expiration of an operating 

license, the company must provide the NRC with both a preliminary decommissioning cost estimate and a program description for 

managing used reactive fuel at the site after electricity production 

is stopped. 

Within 2 years of shutting down a facility, the company must 

submit a post shutdown decommissioning activities report to the 

NRC and the affected States. Licensees have three options to decommissioning that have been mentioned before. 

Decommissioning also includes removing used fuel from the reactor and ultimately placing the fuel into shielded dry storage conVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:31 Jan 20, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00162 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\97802.TXT VERN
159 

tainers onsite. The company that produced electricity at the facility 

remains accountable to the NRC until decommissioning has been 

fully completed and its Federal license is terminated. 

However, without the demands of running a power plant and 

with the greatly decreased risk of significant accident after fuel 

was removed from the reactor, stamping in areas such as operations, maintenance, engineering, emergency preparedness and security and other onsite resources can be reduced to be commensurate with the conditions of the plant and the reduced risk to the 

public and workers. 

Throughout the decommissioning process, regulatory oversight is 

provided by the NRC, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Department of Transportation and the Environmental 

Protection Agency. There are also multiple opportunities for public 

involvement that I mentioned before. The request for a hearing before the license is terminated offers an opportunity for extensive solution. 

In conclusion, the nuclear energy industry has proven that it has 

the technology, resources and expertise to successfully decommission commercial reactors. Decommissioning nuclear energy facilities with independent oversight by the NRC and timely interaction 

with State and local authorities has been efficiently managed and 

funded in a safe and environmentally sound manner under existing 

regulations. 

The NRC ensures that funds for decommissioning will be available when needed through a system that requires licensees to 

amass funds needed to decommission their facilities over the entire 

life of the facility. The NRC’s regulatory framework has been proven effective by the fact that every power reactor that is shut down 

and has been or is currently being decommissioned has been able 

to fund and safely perform required decommissioning activities. 

This has been the case even in situations where the licensee did 

not operate the facility to the end of its entire license term. 

Thank you very much for holding this hearing. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fertel follows:] 

160 


97802.142
161 


97802.143
162 


97802.144
163 


97802.145
164 


97802.146
165 


97802.147
166 


97802.148
167 


97802.149
168 

Senator BOXER. Thank you for all of your statements. 

Mr. Mosier, am I right on this? At San Onofre, the spent nuclear 

fuel pools were designed to hold a total of 1,600 spent fuel assemblies but currently they hold more than 2,600? You mentioned that. 

I just want to make sure that gets noticed. 

Mr. MOSIER. Yes, that is correct. That number, 2,600, was as of 

2010. Since the shutdown, the fuel rods have been moved so I don’t 

have the current count. It is higher than 2,600. 

Senator BOXER. So it is at least 2,600. It was designed to hold 

1,600. 

Mr. Weber, as the person overseeing the safety of this decommissioning, does this disturb you? 

Mr. WEBER. NRC’s focus is on safety and security. 

Senator BOXER. But does this disturb you, the fact that the fuel 

pools were designed to hold 1,600 spent fuels assemblies but there 

are more than 2,600 in there? Does that concern the NRC? Yes or 

no. 

Mr. WEBER. Yes. We ensure the safety of that spent nuclear fuel. 

Senator BOXER. Yes, that concerns you. If it concerns you, then 

why aren’t you moving now to ensure that most of the fuel in the 

pools, which is not high burn up fuel, should be moved to dry cask 

as soon as possible? Have you gotten involved in that or have you 

said to the company, you are exempted, just do what you want? 

Mr. WEBER. We have evaluated the safety of spent nuclear fuel 

since the beginning of NRC’s regulatory history in overseeing these 

facilities. About every 10 years, we have done a—— 

Senator BOXER. I am asking you about this specific plant where 

8 million people live within 50 miles. When I asked the sheriff 

there, she looked at me and said, if there is an accident, they have 

to go on the freeway. You can’t move on the freeway most of the 

day. That is not an answer. 

I am not asking you globally. I appreciate that you want to do 

the right thing. I am asking specifically about my people who are 

near a facility that has 2,600 plus spent fuel rods there instead of 

the 1,600 the plant was designed to have and why you are not moving to make sure the fuel that is not the high burn up fuel is 

moved to dry cask as soon as possible at least to get it to the point 

that it was designed to be, leaving 1,600 in there? 

Mr. WEBER. Because the fuel is safely stored today. 

Senator BOXER. Even though the facility wasn’t designed—do you 

agree with that, Mr. Mosier? 

Mr. MOSIER. No, I don’t. The NRC did issue a report on the near 

criticality reaction because of the failure of the boron plates, born 

absorbs the neutrons and all the high burn up fuel. This failure 

was a near disaster. We don’t know how often this is going to happen but the more fuel rods you put in the pool, the more boron you 

have to add—it is a technical problem that can’t be solved with the 

existing pools. 

Senator BOXER. Because it wasn’t designed to hold these many, 

is that correct? 

Mr. MOSIER. That is correct. 

Senator BOXER. That is kind of a simple point. Answering me 

with some global answer doesn’t do it for me. That, in itself, raises 

alarm bells. 

169 

In 2001, NRC studies the risk of spent fuel accidents. The study 

found that the possibility of a fire leading to a large radioactive release can never be ruled out. This is NRC. Even years after a reactor shuts down, it found that large earthquakes are the most likely 

causes of spent fuel pool accident. We know we are right near an 

earthquake fault there. 

It also found that the health consequences of a spent fuel accident could be as bad as the consequences of a severe accident at 

an operating reactor. My staff has confirmed with NRC staff that 

no more recent data or analysis has altered these conclusions. Mr. 

Weber, is that correct? Do you still stand by that finding? 

Mr. WEBER. We stand by the findings in new reg. 1738, which 

is the document you are referring to. 

Senator BOXER. I am just asking you, you stand by that finding. 

Mr. WEBER. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. Then it confuses me. Mr. Fertel, does Nuclear 

Energy agree with NRC’s analysis that a spent fuel accident could 

be as bad as the consequences of a severe accident at an operating 

reactor? 

Mr. FERTEL. Under certain circumstances that they assume in 

the new reg, yes, you can get that answer, but under the regulations and the actions that they require you to take to plant and 

particularly things being done post-Fukushima, Madam Chairman. 

There are significant additional safeguards to prevent that from 

happening at any of the plants. 

Senator BOXER. That is the question. Mr. Mosier, I don’t see that 

happening at San Onofre where they are not saying move to dry 

cask. They are essentially saying to the company, don’t worry about 

it. 

Mr. MOSIER. That is my impression. I have gone to meetings the 

NRC has held talking about decommissioning plans. Frankly, those 

were the most non-productive meetings I have ever attended in my 

life since we had hours of testimony about what the regulations are 

and none about enforcement and what they were going to do at San 

Onofre. 

Senator BOXER. That is my worry. 

Senator Vitter or Mr. Inhofe, I don’t know which one of you 

wants to go first. It is your call. 

Senator VITTER. I will go first. 

Thank you, witnesses, for being here. 

I think it is important since these three bills were just filed to 

focus on the ideas behind these three bills. They focus on emergency exemptions, State involvement and expedited transfer. 

First, on the so-called emergency exemptions, I think some of 

this is semantics. There is an attack that a company would get exemptions from regulations but as I understand it, the reason for exemptions is these are requirements that mainly apply to operating 

nuclear plants. When you turn from an operating nuclear plant to 

a non-operating plant, a plant that is being decommissioned, that 

is a very different animal, I assume. 

I am not an expert or an engineer but I assume there are big 

differences between one and the other. Is that correct, Mr. Weber? 

Mr. WEBER. You are correct, Senator Vitter. The regulations exemptions are sought from are really applicable to operating nuclear 

170 

power plants. When the plant converts to a decommissioning status, the risk posed by that operation, the security needs, the requirements for emergency preparedness are reduced compared to 

what they would be at an operating status. 

Senator VITTER. The exemptions we are talking about are specifically because we are moving from an operating plant to a non-operating plant, is that fair to say? 

Mr. WEBER. You are correct. We would not approve those exemptions unless we had confidence in the safety and the security of 

those plants. 

Senator VITTER. I think some of this is semantics. You could go 

about it a different way. You could have a different set of requirements, a different rulebook for a non-operating plant. Then you 

could say there are no exemptions. If you don’t like the word exemptions, let’s do that but some of this is semantics because there 

are exemptions from rules that are directly applicable or more applicable to an operating plant, is that correct? 

Mr. WEBER. That is correct. If I could add, back in the 1990’s 

when we faced the last wave of decommissioning, we actually considered the need for rulemaking and have proposed that to our 

commission but the events of 9/11 overtook those activities and we 

focused on the more pressing problems of the day and that was the 

security of the United States. 

Senator VITTER. In terms of SONGS in particular, obviously the 

NRC has looked at this issue of the location of the fuel. I know because of our oversight responsibility, the experts housed at the 

NRC, so I assume they were involved in looking at this, Mr. 

Weber? 

Mr. WEBER. Absolutely. 

Senator VITTER. Mr. Mosier, compared to that, you are offering 

your personal opinion about lack of safety. What is your background in terms of the nuclear energy industry and how these 

things work? What is your specific technical background? 

Mr. MOSIER. I would just like to say that the key issue we are 

addressing here is whether the safety risk for the public is diminished when the reactor stops and you are just storing spent fuel. 

The NRC itself has said that risk is not diminished, so I am 

quoting NRC documents. 

I am a scientist as well as a council member. I know a lot about 

radiation biology. I am not a physicist but I can read the documents and I have. 

Senator VITTER. What is your specific science background? 

Mr. MOSIER. I am trained as a pathologist. I work in radiation 

models. I am currently working on the AIDS virus so that is a different expertise. 

Senator VITTER. In your testimony, I think you said there wasn’t 

a clear answer about taking these fuel rods and encasing them immediately. What would you suggest immediately versus their storage at the site right now? What would you suggest be done tomorrow as the alternative? 

Mr. MOSIER. The faster we can get these rods into dry cask storage the better. There are some old rods that are not high burn up 

fuel that could be moved immediately. That would help. The new 

high burn-up fuel rods may have to stay in the pool for a considerVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:31 Jan 20, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00174 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\97802.TXT VERN
171 

able period. Any move to decrease the crowding of the spent fuel 

pool would be a positive for the safety of the people in southern 

California. 

Senator VITTER. Mr. Fertel, as I understand, this expedited 

transfer issue, which is a specific focus of one of these bills that has 

been introduced, has been looked at extensively by the NRC. As I 

understand it, they recommended it be considered a Tier 3 issue, 

a low priority issue, and more recently recommended that the commission not put time and resources into pursuing this because of 

lack of significant safety gains. Is that correct? 

Mr. FERTEL. That is absolutely correct. They issued their study 

just a few months ago. They are waiting on a commission decision. 

That is absolutely correct. 

Senator VITTER. That came out of the expertise presumably of 

the NRC? 

Mr. FERTEL. Yes. It was done by the NRC staff and was recommended to the commission. It was looking at was there a safety 

benefit to rapid removal of the spent fuel into dry cask storage or 

leaving it in a pool. Their conclusion was there was not enough of 

a safety benefit to do it. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. We will turn to Senator Sanders. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Under SAFSTOR, one of the proposals to decommission nuclear 

power plants, spent fuel rods could remain in pools at the plant for 

50 or more years. Mr. Recchia, how do you think the people of 

southern Vermont would feel knowing that spent nuclear fuel rods 

would remain onsite in the pool for up to 50 years? How would 

they feel about that? 

Mr. RECCHIA. That is probably the most critical point of 

Vermonters’ belief that fuel needs to be moved into dry cask, ideally taken away and offsite but understanding that a passive system 

that relies on the fuel just being there in casks is less risky than 

being in the pools. 

I would like to comment on the idea that the NRC has said this 

is equally safe. They have not. They have said there is a risk to 

fuel staying in the pool. Ironically, they have relied on the emergency protection zones as one reason why that is OK, to leave the 

fuel in the pool and yet another part of NRC is suggesting that 

those emergency protection zones be eliminated after closure. 

Senator SANDERS. I think the point here is that I think a lot of 

people in Vermont felt pretty good when we learned that the nuclear power plant was going to be shut down. Now we are hearing 

it is going to be shut down but not quite, that we could live with 

nuclear fuel rods in a pool for the next 50 years and that is a concern. 

I want to go to another issue. There have been claims that local 

communities and States already have plenty of opportunity to influence the outcome of the decommissioning process. In your judgment, is that true? Right now, do you think the State of Vermont 

or the State of California really has a seat at the table to really 

express the point of view of its citizens regarding the decommissioning process? 

Mr. RECCHIA. Absolutely not. We have an ability to comment but 

there is no response requirement, there is no role that those comVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:31 Jan 20, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00175 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\97802.TXT VERN
172 

ments have in evaluating how the plant moves forward with decontamination and dismantlement. 

Senator SANDERS. In other words, despite the ability to comment, 

a decommissioning process could be approved by the NRC, which 

many Vermonters would say this is not a good idea? 

Mr. RECCHIA. I wish it actually had to be approved by the NRC, 

but they don’t even have to do that. They simply have to receive 

the report. 

Senator SANDERS. From the company? 

Mr. RECCHIA. Right. 

Senator SANDERS. Let me go to another question. This is for Mr. 

Weber. Thanks so much for being here. 

When the NRC commissioners participated in an oversight hearing several months ago, all five agreed that local communities have 

a legitimate interest in decommissioning plants. I think everyone 

would agree with that. 

What you are hearing from Mr. Recchia and other panelists is 

that right now States really do not have much input. They can talk 

but it doesn’t really matter at the end of the day. Do you have any 

ideas about how we can strengthen the role of local and State governments and communities in the process? 

Mr. WEBER. I had an opportunity to participate in a rulemaking 

back in the 1990’s when we specifically considered this. We called 

it the enhancement participatory rulemaking. We considered giving 

greater weight to the input from States as well as other local stakeholders. Ultimately the commission found that it lacked the safety 

basis to justify those requirements. Those requirements were then 

issued in 1997. 

Having said that, we do work closely with the States. In fact, just 

last week, we had a webinar involving State representatives from 

around the Country. 

Senator SANDERS. I am sorry, but I have limited time. I appreciate that. You work closely with the States but at the end of the 

day, it really doesn’t matter what the States’ views are. The plan 

that can finally be developed and go into impact can be something 

the States don’t want and they really have nothing to say about it. 

They can talk about it but they have no real seat at the table. 

Mr. Recchia, the legislation that I am offering—there are three 

good pieces of legislation addressing this issue in a broad way— 

would require licensees to consult with the host State and State 

and local governments within 50 miles of the plant when drafting 

a proposed decommissioning plan. This consultation would help ensure that State and local concerns are identified and considered. 

The Act would also require the NRC to solicit public input on the 

proposed decommissioning before the document is finalized and approved. The Act would require the NRC to evaluate and formally 

adopt or reject a proposed decommissioning plan, which is not required now under current law, thereby improving accountability 

and transparency. Does that make sense to you? 

Mr. RECCHIA. It makes a lot of sense. It simply makes the NRC 

behave the way most regulatory agencies have to behave on review 

and response to a significant document. It is a good step in that 

direction. The Administrative Procedures Act calls for it in every 

other instance. 

173 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you all. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Weber, I understand that the NRC staff found that the fuel 

rod assemblies stored in pools remained in tact at Fukushima, is 

that correct? 

Mr. WEBER. That is correct. 

Senator INHOFE. I further understand that the NRC staff found 

the risk of having a spent fuel pool of fire and offset offsite dose 

consequences are extremely remote. I think in my opening statement I used 1 out of 10,000,000 years once a plant ceases operations and the last fuel is removed from the reactor and has cooled 

for a relatively short period of time. 

Would a relatively short period of time be 6 months? 

Mr. WEBER. It could be several months. 

Senator INHOFE. I had another question but I think it was adequately asked by Senator Vitter. 

Mr. Fertel, you know better than most the tough time that has 

been going on for the nuclear industry for the past couple years. 

It is my understanding that the NRC has some 50 orders and regulations being developed right now. 

In my opening statement, I might have been a little unkind to 

part of the bureaucracy but it has been my experience in the past 

that the less the workload, the greater the bureaucracy, the more 

time they have to regulate. 

While the cost of each individual regulation may not be massive, 

together with the cumulative cost, it is crippling. Added to that, 

things like the EPA’s 316(b) rule, the water rule, could add another 

$100 billion to your industry’s regulatory compliance. 

Will you comment on the cumulative cost of Federal regulations 

and how they could impact the U.S. electricity affordability and reliability? 

Mr. FERTEL. We are actually working with the NRC and others 

on trying to make sure that the cumulative impact not only doesn’t 

affect us from a cost standpoint but of equal importance, it doesn’t 

distract us from our focus on safety. 

When we have too many things coming at us and they have too 

many things they are looking at, we are probably not as focused 

on safety things as we should be. We believe right now that what 

the NRC needs to do—and we are culpable on our side too on some 

distraction—is to really look across the board as opposed to within 

each silo and make sure that from a safety standpoint what we are 

being asked to do truly has benefit for safety and is worth the cost 

to do. 

There are a number of things that probably don’t fall into that. 

Senator INHOFE. I admit I have been a bit paranoid about the 

over regulation that we have right now coming out of the Environmental Protection Agency, not just cap and trade but various emission standards where there is no technology to bring that and the 

cumulative costs. In fact, we have legislation to articulate that cumulative cost. 

One thing that hasn’t been talked about by any of the witnesses 

or any of the questions is the issue of reliability and dependability. 

174 

We have a lot of sources and I think it is important that you address this because it is my understanding if you look at what can 

happen to a source of energy in this country, the most reliable 

would be nuclear. 

The least reliable would be some of the renewables like wind. 

You could develop a level of dependency. All of a sudden the wind 

stops, what do you do? I would like to have you address the significance of the reliability and dependability issue that we should be 

dealing with now. 

Mr. FERTEL. Probably the easiest way to talk about that is to 

think back to the polar vortex that we had this past winter. We 

had a real problem in getting electricity and gas, particularly to 

New England because of infrastructure issues and because of a 

shortage. 

Nuclear plants really have fuel onsite all the time because it is 

in the core. We don’t emit any emissions of any greenhouse gases 

or any other criteria pollutants for that matter. Senator Sanders 

mentioned the good local economic impacts that a nuclear plant 

has. We also provide stability to the grid from the standpoint of 

voltage stability. 

From a reliability standpoint, we see nuclear plants as a backbone of our electricity infrastructure. Right now, in a number of 

markets, that is not at all recognized. We are hoping that more and 

more it will get recognized. 

Senator INHOFE. My time has expired, but I want to make sure 

we are focused on this because we have heard a lot of predictions 

about what could happen this summer and following summers if 

we were to have blackouts or brownouts in this country. That 

would be pretty disastrous. Are you familiar with some of the statements that have been made? 

Mr. FERTEL. Yes, I am. They are coming from people that actually look at that very hard not only the industry side but also the 

policy side. It is because we are shutting down a lot of coal plants 

because of the EPA regulations. We have a number of nuclear 

plants in jeopardy because of policies making them uneconomic, 

even though they are actually very economic plants. 

Again, if you shut down coal and nuclear plants, you really are 

shutting down the backbone of our electricity system. 

Senator INHOFE. I think that really needs to be talked about before the disaster occurs. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

It used to be that people thought nuclear energy would be too 

cheap to matter but now with cheap gas and wind, nuclear energy 

is actually too expensive to matter. The Excelon funded group Nuclear Matters is trying to convince us that nuclear energy is necessary to fight climate change, yet Excelon and other nuclear utilities are actively lobbying against policies that encourage the development of wind and solar energy. 

At the time, four nuclear reactors shut down last year and 

Vermont Yankee announced it will soon join them. A wide range 

175 

of analysts believe more retirements are coming. At this rate, nuclear soon may not matter at all. 

Meanwhile, waste continues to pile up at reactor sites all across 

the country. Most of the waste is stored in large pools of water that 

were built more than 30 years ago and not designed to hold anywhere near what they have now. 

Pilgrim’s nuclear power plant, for example, was designed to hold 

880 spent fuel assemblies and currently holds over 3,200. If an accident or terrorist attack were to occur, it could lead to radiation 

releases far greater than at Chernobyl or Fukushima. 

That is why I recently introduced the Dry Cask Storage Act 

which gives plants 7 years to remove all the waste that can be removed from the pool and put it into safer dry cask storage, and 

provides funding to help offset the cost, and increases the size of 

emergency planning zones around plants that choose not to remove 

the waste from their pools. 

Mr. Recchia, I understand that Entergy has said it would be able 

to remove all the spent fuel from the pools at Vermont Yankee 

within 7 years. Do you perceive any obstacles to meeting that deadline? 

Mr. RECCHIA. Thanks for introducing the bill that you did. 

The only obstacle that I see is a financial one. At this point, 

Entergy has agreed that it is in their financial interest and 

Vermonters’ interest to move that fuel out of the spent fuel pool 

quickly. The problem is that the United States, having taken responsibility for that fuel, the Department of Energy needs to quickly reimburse the expenses of that work. That has not happened 

regularly. 

Senator MARKEY. Given the fact that NRC studies show that the 

consequences of a spent fuel fire can be as severe as the consequences of an accident at an operating reactor, do you think removing the fuel from the pool more quickly will increase safety? 

Mr. RECCHIA. Yes, I do, absolutely. 

Senator MARKEY. Mr. Fettus, do you agree that storing fuel in 

dry casks is a safer option and can be done within 7 years? 

Mr. FETTUS. It is a substantially safer option and yes. 

Senator MARKEY. Mr. Weber, is it true that without continuous 

cooling of the pools, the spent fuel has the potential to catch fire? 

Mr. WEBER. You are correct. 

Senator MARKEY. Is it true that removing spent fuel from pools 

reduces the amount of radioactivity that could be released if a 

spent fuel fire were to occur? 

Mr. WEBER. Yes. 

Senator MARKEY. Mr. Fettus, nuclear energy has long made up 

about 20 percent of U.S. electricity supply. Last year, it dropped to 

19 percent. The Energy Information Administration anticipates 

nuclear’s share of the generation portfolio will continue declining so 

that a decade from now less than 17 percent of U.S. electricity will 

come from nuclear. 

The reason is that plants are closing faster than new ones are 

opening. Last year, six reactors announced plans to permanently 

shut down and last week, Chairman Macfarlane testified that the 

number of nuclear license applications has been reduced from 18 

to 8 in the past few years. 

176 

Wall Street walked away from financing nuclear power plants 

decades ago but now wind and cheap natural gas are undermining 

the economics of existing nuclear plants as well. 

Absent legislation such as the Waxman-Markey bill, which the 

EIA found would lead to the construction of 69 new nuclear reactors by 2030, do you agree with EIA that nuclear’s share of the 

electricity market will continue to decline? 

Mr. FETTUS. Yes. 

Senator MARKEY. We need the private sector onboard to build out 

a low carbon energy system. The government can’t finance it on its 

own. Fortunately, billions of private sector dollars are flowing into 

wind, natural gas, solar and energy efficiency. That is just not happening with nuclear. 

The only entities willing to finance nuclear plants are governments. Mr. Fettus, why is the private sector not interested in financing new nuclear power plants? 

Mr. FETTUS. Senator, I think you would have to ask the private 

sector. From NRDC’s perspective, one, nuclear power is not going 

away. It is going to exist for some time forward. Therefore, we need 

to safely regulate it. 

We also, like you just summarized, agree with EIA that there is 

very likely a declining curve. It is our perspective that renewables 

and efficiency provide a huge potential gain for major climate benefits much more cheaply and safely than new plants and keeping old 

plants running that shouldn’t be running. 

Senator BOXER. I am so sorry to cut you off but we really need 

to turn to Senator Sessions. The vote just started. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Fertel, investors that build a nuclear plant and invest in 

that operate under the assumption that they have to meet the decommissioning requirements of the NRC. Would it be a detriment 

to any construction of a multibillion dollar nuclear plant if they 

had to guarantee or acquiesce to any decommissioning regulations 

that would be imposed by local municipalities or a State regulatory 

board? 

Mr. FERTEL. We always would like the input from local folks, but 

again, the reason the Atomic Energy Act is the way it is was to 

make sure the Federal Government, through NRC, regulated this. 

Adding more uncertainty would make it much more difficult for us 

to build new plants. 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Weber, what is your policy with regard to 

listening to Mr. Mosier and others who express concern? Do you 

react to that? Do you evaluate their concerns and if they are valid, 

will the NRC act on them? Is that your understanding of your 

duty? 

Mr. WEBER. Yes, absolutely. We listen, we welcome and we consider the comments provided and they often influence how we review the decommissioning projects. 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Fertel, with regard to the cost of nuclear 

power, are you aware of any production of electricity that has a 

cost impact or CO2 impact more favorable than nuclear power? 

Mr. FERTEL. No, sir. Nuclear power has the most favorable impact on reducing emissions of any kind, including greenhouse gas 

177 

emissions. It is 62 percent of our greenhouse emission free electricity system today. 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Weber, it seems to me that NRC has 

taken the safety issue seriously. My understanding is that since 

the entire commencement of nuclear power in the United States, 

we have never had an individual killed or even one made sick from 

excessive exposure to nuclear radiation. You have a pretty good 

safety record, wouldn’t you say? 

Mr. WEBER. Yes. 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Fertel, do you agree with that? Do you 

have any comment on that? 

Mr. FERTEL. I certainly do agree with that. 

Senator SESSIONS. We just saw in the paper today hundreds of 

people in a coal mine in Turkey losing their lives. Natural gas is 

competitive price-wise. I guess you would agree, but it certainly 

emits CO2 and pipelines and other transportation and drilling 

projects create more risk than has been established with nuclear 

power, has it not? 

Mr. FERTEL. Certainly true. 

Senator SESSIONS. Are you concerned, Mr. Fertel, about a continuing series of actions by this government, including not taking 

the waste in the community or adding such burdens to the future 

of the industry that could be in jeopardy and that we could be 

missing an opportunity for continued baseload, low cost, environmentally friendly power that we will regret in the years to come? 

Mr. FERTEL. I think there is clearly that threat to our existing 

plants. If we continue to lose existing plants, it would be very hard 

to see decisions to build new plants. 

Senator SESSIONS. Madam Chairman, I thank you for that opportunity. I would note that the NRC staff issued a report in November of last year finding ‘‘The expedited transfer of spent fuel to try 

cask storage would provide only a minor or limited safety benefit 

and its expected implementation cost would not be warranted.’’ 

Mr. Weber dealt with some of the questions we are dealing with. 

The title of the report was Consequence Study of a Beyond Design 

Basis Earthquake Affecting the Spent Fuel Pool for a U.S. Mark 

I Boiling Water Reactor. A study was explicitly done on that subject, is that correct? 

Mr. WEBER. You are correct, Senator. On top of that, we broadened the conclusions to address the entire United States fleet. That 

analysis is presently pending before our commission and they are 

deciding what action should be taken on that. 

Senator SESSIONS. If they feel the report calls for additional restrictions or alterations in policy, that would be proposed? 

Mr. WEBER. That is correct. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Mr. Weber, when I asked if you agreed with the NRC finding 

about the fires, you said you did. I think it is important to note 

that the NRC paper you agree with says, there is a chance of a fire 

in spent fuel pools forever. 

Understanding that, it is very difficult for me to understand why 

the NRC has never once rejected a request from the operator of deVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:31 Jan 20, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00181 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\97802.TXT VERN
178 

commissioned reactors where they ask to be exempted from all 

emergency response requirements. 

My understanding is the Vermont plant and the San Onofre 

plant, the NRC is reviewing the request by the operator that they 

be relieved of all emergency response requirements. When you go 

back, is it your opinion that they ought to be exempted from those 

requirements in both Vermont and San Onofre since we have pointed out in both cases there are many more fuel rods sitting there 

than the plants were designed to hold? 

What are you going to say when you go back? Are you going to 

tell them that you think they ought to be granted this exemption 

or not? 

Mr. WEBER. The staff is currently reviewing those applications 

and we would not grant them unless we concluded that it was safe 

to do so. 

Senator BOXER. Will you do me a favor? Will you go back and 

tell them that Senators Boxer, Sanders and Markey are extremely 

concerned that this isn’t just some kind of rote thing. You have 

never once rejected a request from an operator of decommissioning 

reactors who has asked to be exempted from emergency responses. 

It is ridiculous. 

Dr. Mosier, Mr. Recchia and Mr. Fettus, do any of you believe 

the NRC should grant those requests that the operators be exempted from emergency requirements when the NRC admits you could 

have fires there forever? 

Mr. MOSIER. No. I would like to point out that Southern California Edison has already dismissed the security staff at SONGS 

before they notified NRC. They received a reprimand from NRC 

after the fact but nothing reversed the action. 

Senator BOXER. The NRC said that was wrong but they did nothing to order them back, is that correct? 

Mr. MOSIER. That is my understanding. 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Recchia? 

Mr. RECCHIA. We have 3,800 fuel rods in a pool that was designed for 350. We don’t think it is safe to eliminate the emergency 

protection zones until the fuel is at a minimum in the dry casks. 

I should point out that in addition to the individual plant applications for these exemptions, the staff of the NRC has proposed interim guidance to eliminate it entirely across the board as soon as 

a plant has defueled its reactor. This is a global issue for all plants. 

Senator BOXER. I agree. 

Mr. FETTUS. I concur with everything that Mr. Recchia just said 

and I would like to add one other area where it was mentioned 

there is an opportunity to request a hearing on the license termination. 

I speak as one of the few lawyers who had the foolishness to 

wade into the NRC hearing process. The bars to public or the State 

entering those hearing processes are so high, it is extraordinary. It 

is like no other Federal agency. 

One, those exemptions should not be granted until the spent fuel 

is out of the pools. Two, the process provides for no meaningful 

State or public control. 

Senator BOXER. Let me conclude my questioning in this fashion. 

I look at San Onofre where the plant was designed to hold 1,600 

179 

spent fuel rods. There are 2,600 in there. That is dangerous. I am 

not making it up. Your own Chairman wrote that if there is an accident, it could be worse than Chernobyl. It is outrageous that 

when they sent home the security teams, all they got was a reprimand, which basically says, file the papers, you didn’t file the papers. 

I am going to stay on this. I am going to California with—he 

doesn’t know it yet—Mr. Mosier and we are going to demand that 

the NRC step up to the plate. I am not going to put 8 million people in jeopardy. If the NRC wants to do it, they are not either because we are not going to let them do it. The public opinion is ridiculous. 

My friend, Senator Inhofe—with whom I have the best friendship—on these issues, we part ways. He is worried about overregulation of air, water, nuclear safety. I want to be clear, never in all 

the years I have been in the Senate—that is 20 years, add on 10 

in the House, 6 in local government—never has anyone come up to 

me and said, Barbara, the air is too clean, the water is too clean 

and the nuclear power plant is just fine. Don’t worry about it. 

It is the opposite. People want reasonable regulation, not over 

regulation, not stymie the economy but we know what happens 

when there is a horrific accident with one of these things. It destroys the industry. It is in the industry’s best interest. 

I just want to thank Senators Sanders and Markey. They are 

passionate on this and we are not going away. Could you give that 

message to your friends at the NRC—our friends at the NRC? 

Thank you. 

Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I appreciate your concerns for your constituents. It becomes a serious and emotional issue but I do believe the NRC has a proven 

record of success in regulating these matters. We endanger this 

weak economy driving up the cost of energy, by closing plants that 

could be productive for a decade or more longer, and blocking the 

creation of new nuclear plants. 

Those are not going to be good for America and not going to add 

to the environmental improvement of America. In fact, it is going 

to place us at greater risk. We are not going to be able to replace 

with renewables any time soon the baseload power we get from nuclear power. It would all be replaced by some other fossil fuel. That 

is pretty obvious. 

To me, nuclear power is environmentally positive, as well as economically feasible. 

Mr. Fertel, if we had as much subsidy to nuclear power per kilowatt as wind and solar, would nuclear power be competitive today? 

Mr. FERTEL. It probably would be but I think our attitude right 

now would be we should just remove subsidies and let everybody 

compete fairly in the markets they are in. 

Senator SESSIONS. I would agree. I am not saying you should get 

that subsidy. I am just raising the point that somebody pays those 

subsidies. The American people pay them. There is no free lunch 

here. 

180 

Madam Chairman, thank you for raising an important issue. I 

know you are concerned about it. Your leadership is relentless and 

I am sure NRC has gotten that message. 

Senator BOXER. Good. 

Senator Sanders. 

Senator SANDERS. I think Senator Boxer and I feel so strongly 

about this issue we are going to miss a vote. 

Mr. Fertel, you just said something and my ears perked up. Let 

me see if I got you right. You said that we should remove subsidies 

in terms of energy and I presume let the free market do its thing? 

Mr. FERTEL. I am talking in the electricity market. 

Senator SANDERS. The electricity market. Will you join me in legislation that I am proposing to end the Price-Anderson legislation— 

repeal Price-Anderson legislation? 

Mr. FERTEL. No, sir, I won’t because Price-Anderson isn’t a subsidy. Price-Anderson is the best third party liability program in the 

world. 

Senator SANDERS. Mr. Fettus, why isn’t the nuclear industry taking advantage of the free market and going to Wall Street for insurance, because I have heard over and over from my conservative 

friends—maybe Mr. Fertel will talk about—get the government out 

of energy. Let the free market work. 

In terms of nuclear power, how much nuclear power will we have 

in this country if we let the free market work and we got the government out of the nuclear industry? 

Mr. FETTUS. If the government did not back up liability insurance? 

Senator SANDERS. Yes. 

Mr. FETTUS. If the government did not assume responsibility for liability insurance pasts $12.7 billion, if the government did not assume the responsibility to pick up the waste and if the government 

did not assume an astonishing array of subsidies that were passed 

during previous Administrations, like nuclear power 2010 and the 

loan guarantees with no credit subsidy costs, I don’t know how 

much nuclear power there would be but it has been a governmentcreated process for years. 

Senator SANDERS. Is it quite possible the entire industry would 

collapse without those subsidies? 

Mr. FETTUS. I find it hard to imagine the industry expanding. 

Senator SANDERS. Here is the point. Most people don’t know this. 

Mr. Fettus, correct me if I am wrong. 

If, God forbid, there were ever a Fukushima in this country, it 

was a real disaster, who picks up most of the liability costs? 

Mr. FETTUS. Certainly the taxpayer would. 

Senator SANDERS. The taxpayers. I have just heard from Mr. 

Fertel and my conservative friends they want to get the government out of the energy business. If the taxpayers of this country 

have to pick up the cost of a disaster, they are very much involved. 

Second of all, what impact on the ability of the nuclear industry 

to borrow is Price-Anderson sitting there? Does that have an impact, do you think, and enable them to get cheaper money than 

otherwise would be the case? 

Mr. FETTUS. Yes. 

Senator SANDERS. Mr. Fertel. 

181 

Mr. FERTEL. Price-Anderson, as a rule, requires—and Geoff got it right—about $12.7 billion in obligation. Then it says that the 

Congress will decide if more money is necessary as to whether the 

industry would pay it or whether someone else would pay it, so it 

does not default to the taxpayers. 

If you look around the world, no one has a third party liability program that has an obligation anything like $13 billion. 

Senator SANDERS. Why should the taxpayers have to be the ones? 

Mr. FERTEL. The taxpayers don’t have any obligation right now— 

only if you give it to them, Senator. 

Senator SANDERS. Mr. Fettus, did you want to respond to that? 

Mr. FETTUS. I cannot imagine in the event of—hopefully it will 

never happen—a dreadful nuclear accident, Congress would not 

make sure that wherever that accident happened, that all efforts 

would be taken to support those communities and those people in 

that environment damaged. 

Senator SANDERS. I agree with you. 

Mr. Recchia, Entergy, as Senator Boxer mentioned a moment 

ago, has joined many other nuclear plant operators in requesting 

an exemption from key safety protection requirements. Correct me 

if I am wrong. Vermont Yankee was originally proposed to have 

350 rods? 

Mr. RECCHIA. Yes, that is my understanding. 

Senator SANDERS. How many nuclear rods do we have? 

Mr. RECCHIA. Over 3,800. I think it is 3,879. 

Senator SANDERS. So it is like a tenfold increase. Mr. Weber, are 

we right on that or is that not the case? 

Mr. WEBER. I am sorry, Senator, I don’t have the numbers in 

front of me. 

Senator SANDERS. Despite what we think may be a ten times increase in the number of nuclear rods on the premises, Entergy is 

requesting an exemption from key safety requirements. What is the 

State’s position about an exemption from key safety requirements? 

Mr. RECCHIA. The State’s position is that until the fuel is moved, 

at minimum, in to dry cask storage, that emergency protection 

needs to be kept. There is the potential for offsite emergencies to 

occur. 

I want to emphasize that the real key problem here—and we 

haven’t gotten to the subtleties—that that as merchant facilities, as 

opposed to a public utility owned facility, there is no money to do 

that after the plant closes according to Entergy except for the use 

of the decommissioning trust fund which, by the way, the NRC 

tends to grant exemptions to go into that fund for various purposes, 

spent fuel and a variety of things. 

It is unconscionable that during the life and operation of the 

plant that there is no a fund established and funding mechanisms 

to deal with these issues aside from a decommissioning trust fund 

which, by the way, the ratepayers of Vermont put every penny into. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. I will just speak briefly; there is a roll call 

going on. 

I would just say that right now the nuclear industry’s liability is 

capped in the event of a catastrophic accident. The industry is eliVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:31 Jan 20, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00185 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\97802.TXT VERN
182 

gible for billions of dollars in taxpayer loan guarantees for the construction of new nuclear power plants. 

Owners of nuclear facilities are allowed favorable tax treatment 

that permits accelerated depreciation of new reactors and reduced 

tax rates on nuclear decommissioning trust funds. That is a lot of 

money that the taxpayers are guaranteeing. 

The extent to which all of a sudden with the rise of wind and 

solar, the nuclear industry becomes concerned that the government 

might be playing a role in helping to subsidize an energy source 

while simultaneously the oil and gas industries are receiving $7 

billion a year but not a peep is going to be heard from the utility 

industry on that part, it just shows you that here there is a threat 

and once you level the playing field and allow the new energy 

sources to finally compete after 70 years, we are now having that 

revolution. 

The original revolution in nuclear was government subsidized, 

let’s be honest about it. They were given favorable treatment but 

solar and wind were strangled year after year after year after year. 

What we have seen in the last 5 years is that 80 percent of all new 

solar has been deployed. The last 7 years, 80 percent of all wind 

has been deployed because the tax treatment has been more favorable. State laws are more favorable. 

The nuclear industry is frightened, as they should be. Adam 

Smith is spinning in his grave listening to the nuclear industry 

protest. Adam Smith is spinning in his grave so quickly that he 

would qualify for a tax subsidy as a new energy source in protest 

to the hypocrisy on stilts of the nuclear industry in making those 

arguments. 

All I can say is nuclear get ready to meet your maker in the marketplace. It is coming. It is renewables, it is energy efficiency and 

unfortunately, as I said earlier, the Waxman-Markey bill had $75 

billion worth of funding for new energy technologies which nuclear 

would have qualified for but that bill died, killed by the coal industry. It turns out one of the collateral victims of this might be the 

nuclear industry because that was a pathway to the future, putting 

that cap on carbon. 

I thank you all. I thank you, Madam Chairman, for this hearing. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Here is the thing. My understanding is that the NRC allowed 

these three companies—I am focused on Pilgrim, Yankee and San 

Onofre—to increase the number of fuel rods, am I correct? 

Mr. WEBER. You are correct. 

Senator BOXER. The NRC said it was perfectly fine for Pilgrim, 

who was licensed for 800, to have 3,300 spent fuel rods; Yankee to 

have from 300 to 3,000 and SONGS from approximately 1,600 to 

2,600, is that correct? 

Mr. WEBER. Again, I don’t have the numbers in front of me. 

Senator BOXER. Assuming my numbers are right, NRC did approve this change, is that right? 

Mr. WEBER. Based on our safety conclusions, yes. 

Senator BOXER. Based on your safety conclusions. You very clearly say that a fire in the spent fuel rods would be, according to Allison Macfarlane, more dangerous than Chernobyl and that you 

183 

could never say there wouldn’t be a fire. That is what the NRC has 

stated and you have confirmed that is correct. 

I think even Mr. Fertel agrees with that finding, although one 

of your vice presidents said there could never be a fire, so I will 

ask for that for the record. 

My point is, think about this like a normal person, not doing 

what I do or what you do, a person on the street that says well, 

the plant was designed for these fuel rods and they allowed them, 

in many cases, 300 times more than designed for, is that right— 

ten times more. 

Do you think, since we now know you could always have a fire, 

forever the threat exists, do you think these plants should be exempted from having to have emergency plans for the community? 

I think the average person would say, you have to be kidding. You 

still have a grave threat of a fire, a danger, especially when you 

have an earthquake fault, and yet they have never said no to anyone. 

I have to tell you this raises huge concerns to me about who the 

heck the NRC is and whose side are they on. Are they on the side 

of the public who they are supposed to protect or are they on the 

side of industry because industry says, it will cost us money. Yes, 

think about how much money it will cost you if there is a fire and 

anything like what happened in Fukushima, but you don’t really 

worry because the taxpayers would bail you out of that. Say what 

you want, Mr. Fertel, that is what Price-Anderson is. 

I believe it is morally unjustified for the NRC to abandon these 

communities such as the one that City Councilman Mosier represents by telling these companies yes, we allowed you to just over 

the limit that we thought was safe for the fuel rods, but now just 

too bad, you don’t have anymore requirements for an emergency 

plan. 

I know this is under discussion now but there will be hell to pay 

if the NRC does what it has done in the past. I need you to take 

back that message. I am sure you don’t agree with me. That is your 

right. I am sure Mr. Fertel doesn’t agree with me. That is fine too. 

Guess what? I don’t work for the nuclear industry, I work for the 

people. I have 8 million people within 50 miles of a plant that has 

been shut down that has more spent fuel rods than it was designed 

to hold. There is no rhyme or reason other than I am going to save 

a few dollars for the utility. That is absolutely pennywise and 

pound foolish because something horrible could happen. I don’t 

even want to think about it. 

People say, we have done such a great job so far. They did in 

Japan too. Senator Sanders said to me, this is an industry where 

you can’t have 99 percent perfect. You have to be pretty close to 

perfect because of what could happen. Therefore, if you are going 

to bend, bend toward safety. Don’t bend toward the risk. 

We have a lot more questions but we are going to be watching 

what the NRC does, the three of us if not others. We don’t expect 

them to say to these operators, you are off the hook, don’t worry 

about evacuation plans, don’t worry about sirens, don’t worry about 

warnings. We expect the NRC to stand up for safety. We expect the 

chairman who wrote that paper years ago, to stand by what she 

believes is true, that a fire there could be worse than Chernobyl. 

184 

This has been a very important hearing. I just want to say to our 

panel, I have never seen a panel that truly all of you had the facts 

and were able to speak to your expertise. It means a lot to us all, 

Minority and Majority. 

This isn’t over. We have a few bills now that we are dealing with. 

My bill is quite simple. We are saying NRC has no right to tell an 

operator they are off the hook on emergency plans just because a 

plant is shut down. I am just trying to think of an analogy that 

is as dangerous as that. It is totally ridiculous. 

I guess it is like saying if you have a jail that was being protected as it should be, because one of the dangerous prisoners got 

out, you just said, OK, we don’t need to protect anyone. When a 

plant shuts down, one risk is definitely gone from that daily operation but you still have this unbelievable risk made worse by the 

NRC and the operators when they ask to put in more of these 

spent fuel rods than the plant was safely designed for. 

Thank you very much, everybody. We will be back with more of 

these hearings. We hope you will all stand by to help us as we 

move forward. 

We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:46 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

Æ