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

97–999 PDF 2016

OVERSIGHT OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER 

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE 

ECONOMY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 

Serial No. 114–71 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

(II) 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

Chairman 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

GREGG HARPER, Vice Chairman 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

Ranking Member 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

Chairman 

GREGG HARPER, Vice Chairman 

Vice Chairman 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

Ranking Member 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

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

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

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

of Kentucky, opening statement ......................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4 

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

opening statement ................................................................................................ 5 

Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

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

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

WITNESSES

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

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

Answers to submitted questions 1 ................................................................... 56 

Kristine L. Svinicki, Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2 ............. 23 

William C. Ostendorff, Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2 ......... 23 

Jeff Baran, Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2 ............................ 24 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Chart, ‘‘Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Runaway Regulatory Growth,’’ submitted by Mr. Flores ............................................................................................ 49 

1The information has been retained in committee files and also is available 

at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/20150909/103923/HMTG-114- 

IF18-Wstate-BurnsS-20150909-SD057.pdf. 2Ms. Svinicki, Mr. Ostendorff, and Mr. Baran did not submit statements 

for the record. 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER

JOINT WITH THE

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

The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m., in room 

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

Members present: Representatives Whitfield, Shimkus, Harper, 

Olson, Barton, Murphy, Latta, McKinley, Kinzinger, Johnson, 

Long, Ellmers, Bucshon, Flores, Mullin, Hudson, Upton (ex officio), 

McNerney, Tonko, Green, Capps, Castor, Sarbanes, Welch, 

Loebsack, and Pallone (ex officio). 

Staff present: Gary Andres, Staff Director; Will Batson, Legislative Clerk; Leighton Brown, Press Assistant; Allison Busbee, Policy 

Coordinator, Energy and Power; Tom Hassenboehler, Chief Counsel, Energy and Power; A.T. Johnston, Senior Policy Advisor; Dave 

McCarthy, Chief Counsel, Environment and the Economy; Chris 

Sarley, Policy Coordinator, Environment and the Economy; Dan 

Schneider, Press Secretary; Peter Spencer, Professional Staff Member, Oversight; Andy Zach, Counsel, Environment and the Economy; Christine Brennan, Democratic Press Secretary; Jeff Carroll, 

Democratic Staff Director; Jacqueline Cohen, Democratic Senior 

Counsel; Tiffany Guarascio, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and 

Chief Health Advisor; Rick Kessler, Democratic Senior Advisor and 

Staff Director, Energy and Environment; and Alexander Ratner, 

Democratic Policy Analyst. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I ask my colleagues to take their seats, and I am 

going to call the Joint Subcommittee on the Environment and the 

Economy and Energy and Power to order. And I would like to recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening statement, which I will 

share with Chairman Whitfield. 

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

Thank you for attending this morning’s hearing to discuss the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The NRC is responsible for licensing and regulation of our fleet of nuclear power plants as well as 

management of nuclear materials which impact our lives daily. 

2 

This is a critical responsibility and our congressional oversight of 

the Commission is vital. 

My home State of Illinois generates the most nuclear energy in 

the country. However, the State’s nuclear power generation faces 

strong economic challenges. With low-cost natural gas and minimal 

growth in electricity demand, I am concerned that the economic impact associated with an increasing price of regulatory compliance 

will disproportionately affect those economically distressed nuclear 

power plants. 

The nuclear industry’s cost of complying with regulatory action 

has doubled over the last 10 years. The cost of compliance results 

from a layering of regulatory actions on nuclear power plants 

which become more burdensome. I am pleased the NRC recognizes 

the need to consider the regulatory impact on licensees and minimize the cumulative effect of regulation. 

I commend Chairman Burns for acknowledging this principle in 

a recent vote on containment protection rulemaking. Your vote to 

supply the policy, and I quote, ‘‘most in line with the Agency’s efforts to reduce the cumulative effects of regulation in which there 

is little to no additional safety benefit to be gained by proceeding’’ 

deserves recognition. 

In addition to reducing the cumulative effects of regulation, the 

nuclear industry needs certainty in interacting with a reliable and 

efficient regulator. NRC must assure its actions are clearly justified, and NRC staff follows established processes which adhere to 

NRC’s principles of good regulation. 

I look forward to hearing from the Commission other proposals 

for NRC to improve the efficiency in which it functions as a regulator. Used fuel management continues to remain the top priority 

for this committee. Proceeding with a permanent repository, Yucca 

Mountain maintains strong bipartisan support. I applaud NRC 

staff for recently releasing the draft supplemental environment impact statement on potential groundwater impacts for Yucca Mountain. The draft—environmental impact statement, again, verifies 

the repositor can safely operate for 1 million years and affirms the 

site is the best solution to permanently dispose of spent nuclear 

fuel. The Federal Government’s inability to fulfill its legal obligations established by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act continues to increase every year Yucca Mountain is delayed. The NRC and Department of Energy must resume consideration of the Yucca Mountain license application and reach a final decision whether the site, 

as science has indicated, can safely store spent nuclear fuel. 

In upcoming months, we consider other important components of 

a used fuel management system, issues such transportation, benefits for host States and communities, the role of consolidated interim storage and linked to a long-term repository, and system of 

budgeting and funding challenges should be thoughtfully examined 

to inform used fuel legislation. 

I look forward to hearing from the Commissioners today, and I 

thank you for your service. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:] 

3 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS

Thank you for attending this morning’s hearing to discuss the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC). The NRC is responsible for licensing and regulation of our fleet 

of nuclear power plants, as well as management of nuclear materials which impact 

our lives daily. This is a critical responsibility and our Congressional oversight of 

the Commission is vital. 

My home State of Illinois generates the most nuclear energy in the country. However, the State’s nuclear power generation faces strong economic challenges. With 

low cost natural gas and minimal growth in electricity demand, I am concerned the 

economic impact associated with an increasing price of regulatory compliance will 

disproportionately affect those economically distressed nuclear power plants. 

The nuclear industry’s cost of complying with regulatory action has doubled over 

the last 10 years. The cost of compliance results from a layering of regulatory actions on nuclear power plants, which become more burdensome. I am pleased the 

NRC recognizes the need to consider the regulatory impact on licensees and minimize the cumulative effect of regulation. 

I commend Chairman Burns for acknowledging this principle in a recent vote on 

containment protection rulemaking. Your vote to support the policy ‘‘most in line 

with the agency’s efforts to reduce the cumulative effects of regulation’’ in which 

‘‘there is little to no additional safety benefit to be gained by proceeding’’ deserves 

recognition. 

In addition to reducing the cumulative effects of regulation, the nuclear industry 

needs certainty in interacting with a reliable and efficient regulator. NRC must assure its actions are clearly justified and NRC staff follows established processes, 

which adhere to NRC’s Principles of Good Regulation. I look forward to hearing 

from the Commission other proposals for NRC to improve the efficiency in which 

it functions as a regulator. 

Used fuel management continues to remain a top priority for this committee. Proceeding with a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain maintains strong bipartisan support. I applaud NRC staff for recently releasing the draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) on potential groundwater impacts for Yucca 

Mountain. The draft SEIS again verifies the repository can safely operate for 1 million years and affirms the site is the best solution to permanently dispose of spent 

nuclear fuel. The Federal Government’s inability to fulfill its legal obligations established by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act continues to increase every year Yucca 

Mountain is delayed. The NRC and Department of Energy must resume consideration of the Yucca Mountain license application and reach a final decision whether 

the site, as science has indicated, can safely store spent nuclear fuel. 

In upcoming months we will consider other important components of a used fuel 

management system. Issues such as transportation, benefits for host States and 

communities, the role of consolidated interim storage, and system budgeting and 

funding challenges should be thoughtfully examined to inform used fuel legislation. 

I look forward to hearing from the Commissioners today, and thank you for your 

service. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And with that, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much, Chairman Shimkus. And 

I want to thank the Commissioners for being with us today. We 

genuinely appreciate your being here and the job that you do. 

I think it is quite clear that the NRC does have a reputation of 

a gold standard since its establishment over 40 years ago in 1975. 

Your reliance on the principles of good regulation, independence, 

openness, effijciency, clarity, and reliability are the foundation of 

its credibility and as it protects public health and safety through 

licensing and regulation of nuclear power plants. 

However, proposed regulatory actions such as the mitigation beyond design basis and the containment protection rulemaking reVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:17 Jan 04, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X71NRCOVERSIGHTSENDEMAIL010416\114X71NRCOVERSIGH
4 

cently threatened, in some of our views, to deviate from these principles, and potentially diminish the Commission’s credibility. 

In fact, I sent a letter with Chairman Upton expressing concerns 

over the inappropriate use of qualitative factors by the NRC to justify rulemakings in the absence of any quantitative cost benefit justification. We have not received a response yet from the Commission about that. 

It has been encouraging that the Commission recognized the 

need to ensure that regulatory requirements are appropriately justified, and that the Commission adhere to its regulatory framework 

and uphold the principles of good regulation, as Commissioner 

Ostendorff highlighted recently. 

We are, of course, concerned also about appropriately aligning 

NRC’s budget and staffing levels with the organization’s workload, 

which has changed dramatically over the last number of years. So 

we look forward to your testimony and your insights, and thank 

you once again for joining us. And my time is expired. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD

Good morning and welcome to this morning’s hearing with the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC). I want to thank the Commissioners for being here with us 

today. 

The NRC’s reputation as the ‘‘gold standard’’ nuclear regulator was established 

over the 40 years since its creation in 1975. The Commission’s reliance on its principles of good regulation—independence, openness, efficiency, clarity, and reliability—are the foundation of its credibility as it protects public health and safety 

through licensing and regulation of nuclear power plants. This reputation was wellearned, even as the industry experienced milestone events such as the nuclear 

emergency at Three Mile Island and the terrorist attacks of September 11th. 

However, proposed regulatory actions such as the mitigation-beyond-design-basis 

and the containment protection rulemaking recently threatened to deviate from 

these principles and potentially diminish the Commission’s credibility. In fact, I had 

sent a letter with Chairman Upton expressing concerns over the inappropriate use 

of ‘‘qualitative factors’’ by the NRC to justify rulemakings in the absence of any 

quantitative cost-benefit justification. Unfortunately, we have not yet received a response from the Commission. 

It was therefore encouraging that the Commission recognized the need to ensure 

that regulatory requirements are ‘‘appropriately justified’’ and that the Commission 

‘‘adhere to its regulatory framework and uphold the principles of good regulation,’’ 

as Commissioner Ostendorff highlighted. 

I also appreciate the Commission’s commitment to serve as a reliable regulator 

by resolving actions in a timely manner. Both the NRC and the nuclear industry 

responded to the 2011 accident at the Fukushima plant in Japan with a robust reexamination of safety, emergency preparedness and have reinforced our confidence in 

the safe operation of our nuclear power plants. The Commission’s direction to develop a plan to now resolve the remaining post-Fukushima recommendations is an 

appropriate step to providing reliability in the regulatory regime. 

I am concerned about the need to appropriately align NRC’s budget and staffing 

levels with the organization’s workload. Over the previous 10 years, NRC’s budget, 

staff, and backlog of licensing actions have steadily increased while the number of 

operating reactors and total licensing actions has decreased. These trends are troubling and are not indicative of an organization committed to efficiency. The NRC 

now has a number of initiatives underway to examine the cause of these trends and 

recommend a strategy to improve performance. I look forward to hearing how the 

Commission will consider these efforts in an effort to improve the organization’s efficiency. 

Thank you again for appearing before us today, and I look forward to hearing 

your testimony. 

5 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank my colleague, and now I recognize the 

ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes. 

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

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, and good morning. I thank Chair 

Shimkus and Chair Whitfield for holding this hearing, and certainly to Chairman Burns and Commissioner Svinicki and Commissioner Ostendorff and Commissioner Baran, thank you for appearing before the subcommittee today. 

And, Commissioner Baran, congratulations on your new position 

with the Commission. It is great to see you again here at the committee in a new role. 

The electric utility sector is undergoing significant changes, and 

the nuclear power industry certainly is affected by these given 

changes. The utility model that has prevailed for over the past century is now in great midst of change. Overall electricity demand is 

stable; power plants have aged; new technologies and markets are 

changing grid management; renewable power has grown; and the 

relationship between utilities and their customers is, indeed, 

changing. 

Policies to encourage greater energy efficiency and lower emissions are also important factors, along with the expansion in domestic natural gas supplies. And we are experiencing shifts in 

weather and climate. All of these factors are working together to 

reshape this vital sector of our economy. 

Chairman Burns’ testimony includes some statistics that illustrate the current situation for nuclear power. Five reactors began 

the process of decommissioning, and 14 others are in some stage 

of that process. Economic conditions may result in additional plants 

being shut down. These retirements are not being offset with any 

new units. Chairman Burns’ testimony cites five new plant authorizations and another six active applications for new licenses. In 

some areas, similar trends can be seen for older coal and oil-fueled 

generation. 

The nuclear industry also continues to face the difficult problem 

of waste disposal. We still have not resolved this issue, and I believe that an exclusive focus on the Yucca Mountain facility will 

not provide the comprehensive solution that we need and that we 

deserve. Nuclear power still accounts for a significant amount of 

our baseload generation. And in some areas, it plays an important 

role in the mix of power supply and to ensure, indeed, reliability. 

But for nuclear power to continue as a viable power generation 

option, we need to look beyond the traditional policy framework 

that has been with us for decades and consider how nuclear power 

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

One thing, however, has not changed: The need for strong safety 

standards and rigorous enforcement of those standards. The Commission’s role in regulating this industry is crucial to public safety 

and to the future of this industry. The industry clearly is facing 

some economic challenges, but these challenges cannot and should 

not be overcome by sacrificing safety. This is an interesting and 

challenging time for the nuclear power industry and for the ComVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:17 Jan 04, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X71NRCOVERSIGHTSENDEMAIL010416\114X71NRCOVERSIGH
6 

mission. And I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses 

today about the Commission’s efforts to guide the nuclear industry 

through its transition that is underway. 

Again, I thank all of you for appearing before the panel here 

today, and I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman yields back the balance of his time. 

The Chair is looking for the chairman of the full committee, but 

he is going to submit his opening statement for the record. 

Does anybody on the majority side seek time for an opening 

statement? 

Anyone on the minority side? 

Chair recognizes ranking member of the full committee Mr. 

Pallone for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the 

ranking members as well for holding this hearing. 

This is a critical moment in time for the nuclear industry and its 

regulators. The Commission should be commended for its ongoing 

efforts to adapt the size and structure of the NRC to today’s regulatory realities. And it is clear that moving towards a safe, efficient, and modern nuclear fleet should be an important part of our 

Nation’s effort to combat climate change. And that is why I am 

pleased to see progress is being made on the construction and licensing of the first four new commercial power reactors in decades. 

Advancements in nuclear technology, particularly in the area of 

small modular reactors, hold the possibility of a newer safer generation of nuclear power. 

However, nuclear power and technology still have challenges to 

overcome. For new reactors, the test is to show that such units can 

be brought online in a timely and cost-effective manner; a question 

that, for now, remains unanswered. 

For existing units, it is critical that they be able to meet the safety needs of a post-Fukushima world, the security challenges of a 

post-9/11 world, and the financial requirements of a market characterized by some of the lowest natural gas and renewable prices in 

recent history. 

We also still need to address the storage and disposal of nuclear 

waste and the rapidly accelerating phenomena of decommissioned 

units. I believe there is an important role for nuclear energy to 

play in addressing global climate change, but I want to make perfectly clear that safety must come first. I am, therefore, both interested and concerned about recent votes by the Commission to reject 

the recommendation of the NRC’s professional staff with regard to 

certain post-Fukushima safeguards. In no way, shape, or form can 

safety take a backseat to cost or competitive pressures, and that 

would be a recipe for disaster. 

So the job of the Commission is to regulate nuclear power for the 

benefit of all Americans, not just one industry or sector. So we 

must work together to find a way forward for nuclear energy without sacrificing safeguards. 

7 

And, again, I thank the Commissioners for coming today and 

look forward to their testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR. 

I want to thank the subcommittee chairmen and ranking members for holding 

this Nuclear Regulatory Commission oversight hearing. Welcome Chairman Burns, 

Commissioners Svinicki and Ostendorff, and welcome back to the committee Commissioner Baran. 

This is a critical moment in time for the nuclear industry and its regulators. The 

Commission should be commended for its ongoing efforts to adapt the size and 

structure of the NRC to today’s regulatory realities. 

And it’s clear that moving toward a safe, efficient and modern nuclear fleet should 

be an important part of our Nation’s effort to combat climate change. That is why 

I’m pleased to see progress is being made on the construction and licensing of the 

first four new commercial power reactors in decades. Advancements in nuclear technology, particularly in the area of small modular reactors, hold the possibility of a 

newer, safer generation of nuclear power. 

However, nuclear power and technology still have challenges to overcome. For 

new reactors, the test is to show that such units can be brought online in a timely 

and cost effective manner —a question that, for now, remains unanswered. For existing units, it’s critical that they be able to meet the safety needs of a postFukushima world, the security challenges of a post-9/11 world, and the financial requirements of a market characterized by some of the lowest natural gas and renewable prices in recent history. We also still need to address the storage and disposal 

of nuclear waste and the rapidly accelerating phenomenon of decommissioned units. 

As I stated previously, I believe there is an important role for nuclear energy to 

play in addressing global climate change, but I want to make perfectly clear that 

safety must come first. I am, therefore, both interested in and concerned about recent votes by the Commission to reject the recommendations of the NRC’s professional staff with regard to certain post-Fukushima safeguards. In no way, shape or 

form can safety take a back seat to cost or competitive pressures. That would be 

a recipe for disaster. The job of the Commission is to regulate nuclear power for the 

benefit of all Americans, not just one industry or sector, so we must work together 

to find a way forward for nuclear energy without sacrificing safeguards. 

Again, I want to thank the Commissioners for coming today, and I look forward 

to hearing the testimony. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. 

The Chair now would like to welcome the full—well, the NRC 

Commission as presently seated, and recognize Chairman Burns 

for a 5-minute opening statement. 

STATEMENTS OF STEPHEN G. BURNS, CHAIRMAN, NUCLEAR 

REGULATORY COMMISSION; KRISTINE L. SVINICKI, COMMISSIONER, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION; WILLIAM C. 

OSTENDORFF, COMMISSIONER, NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION; AND JEFF BARAN, COMMISSIONER, NUCLEAR 

REGULATORY COMMISSION 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN G. BURNS 

Mr. BURNS. Thank you, Chairman Shimkus and Chairman 

Whitfield and Ranking Member Tonko and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today 

to discuss NRC licensing and regulatory activities. 

Just as we did 40 years ago when the agency first began operation, NRC finds itself in a changing environment. Over the past 

15 years, the NRC grew to meet a variety of challenges. In response to industry’s announced plans in the early 2000’s to construct a new fleet of reactors, the NRC recruited staff and restrucVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:17 Jan 04, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X71NRCOVERSIGHTSENDEMAIL010416\114X71NRCOVERSIGH
8 

tured the agency’s licensing organization for reactors. The NRC 

needed additional resources following the terrorist attacks of September 2001, with a focus on security, safeguards, and emergency 

preparedness. And also affecting agency priorities were the implementation of safety enhancements as a result of the March 2011 

accident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power station in Japan, 

as well as the unexpected decommissioning of several reactors before the end of their licensing term. 

It is a different picture today, particularly in the new reactor 

area. The projected workload has scaled back, with now only six 

applications remaining active out of the 18 combined license applications that were filed. 

The Commission, in acknowledging these changing priorities, recently endorsed a number of recommendations from our staff on 

changes the agency could make now, and over the next 5 years to 

its structure, workforce, and regulatory processes. While these efforts are ongoing, the Commission will continue to emphasize both 

the importance of our safety and security mission and the excellence with which we strive to achieve it. 

After the Fukushima Dai-ichi accident, the NRC assessed the 

significance of the event for the U.S. nuclear fleet, and developed 

with industry and stakeholder comment proposed actions to enhance the safety of plants in the United States. We have been diligent in ensuring that priority is given to implementation of the 

most safety-significant of the post-Fukushima enhancements, and 

most licensees will complete the majority of the high priority enhancements by the end of 2016. And this is a significant achievement. 

In the rulemaking area, the Commission recently directed the 

staff to provide a proposal for increasing the Commission’s involvement in the early stages of the rulemaking process. The staff’s proposal is due to the Commission by mid October. The agency’s use 

of quantitative and qualitative factors in regulatory decision making has been of high interest to stakeholders in recent years, and 

I acknowledge the committee’s interest, as demonstrated by the letter we received, and you will be receiving an answer in the near 

future. 

The Commission recently approved the staff’s plans for updating 

guidance using the—regarding the use of qualitative factors to improve the clarity, transparency, and consistency of the agency’s regulatory and back-fit analyses. 

Finally, I want to note in the area of advanced reactors, being 

prepared to evaluate potential applications for light water-based 

small modular reactors and non-light water reactor technologies 

presents some challenges to the NRC. But we are prepared to receive and review any such applications under our existing framework. The NRC expects to begin reviewing one small modular reactor design application in late 2016. Our current licensing framework is adequate for conducting reviews of the advanced reactor 

application, but we recognize that some work needs to be done with 

respect to establishing acceptance criteria for non-light water technologies. Within the constraints of our budget, the agency is working on advanced reactor activities with the Department of Energy, 

9 

industry standard-setting organizations, and with the Generation 

IV International Forum. 

In conclusion, the NRC, through its long history, has been a responsible regulator. Our staff have always represented the best of 

the best in terms of competence, professionalism, and dedication to 

the agency’s mission to protect public health and safety and the 

common defense and security. The world at large often looks to the 

NRC as a standard for nuclear regulation. We are reshaping the 

agency to meet the changing environment in which we find ourselves, while retaining the right skill sets to fulfill our unchanging 

and challenging safety and security mission. 

I thank you and I will be pleased to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Burns follows:] 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes Commissioner Svinicki for 2 minutes 

if you have any opening statement to give. 

STATEMENT OF KRISTINE L. SVINICKI 

Ms. SVINICKI. Thank you, Chairman Shimkus and Ranking Member Tonko for the opportunity to appear here today. 

Chairman Burns has given an overview of a number of important 

issues before the Commission. I think I will just share one observation. 

I was privileged to join this Commission in 2008. So I have been 

observing the NRC and participating in these activities for a long 

time now. That has validated me in a conclusion that for large organizations, performance is generally cyclic in nature. And so I 

have the burden and the blessing of knowing the very high levels 

of performance that NRC is capable of as an organization. But we 

have had a lot on our plate, and I think now we have not been perhaps as agile at times as external events might have made us be. 

So Project AIM, to me, is—it is a challenge, but it is also a very 

sincere opportunity for NRC to refocus on some of its internal processes and perhaps do that inward look. And as we right-size and 

adjust our resources, I am very, very confident that this is an opportunity for the NRC to tackle a number of internal challenges. 

And if we are successful at that, I think we can be very proud of 

it. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Commissioner Ostendorff for 2 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. OSTENDORFF 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member Tonko, 

and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to be here today. 

Chairman Burns has already provided an overview in his testimony of key issues in the budget, Project AIM, and the changing 

nuclear industry environment. I am in complete alignment with his 

testimony. I do, however, want to expand a bit upon the status of 

post-Fukushima safety enhancements. 

Along with Commissioner Svinicki, I have been involved in all of 

the Commission’s decisionmaking related to what safety changes 

should be resulting from Fukushima lessons learned. Looking back 

over the actions of the NRC over the last 4 years as a result of 

Fukushima, I firmly believe the agency has acted on a foundational 

basis of solid science and engineering. We have also acted consistently with the NRC’s principles of good regulation. Most importantly, the Commission has evaluated new requirements in a structured manner, faithfully adhering to the NRC’s longstanding regulatory framework. 

Specifically, new requirements beyond those required for adequate protection cannot be imposed unless they constitute a substantial increase in the overall protection of the public health and 

safety, and this satisfies a cost-benefit analysis. 

The Commission recently approved what I consider to be the capstone rule of our response to Fukushima, the mitigation of beyond 

24 

design basis events rulemaking. This rulemaking codifies significant enhancements for station blackout, spent fuel pool safety, onsite emergency response capabilities, and emergency preparedness. 

As evidence of our disciplined approach and adherence to the agency’s back-fit rule, the Commission did not approve a proposed regulatory requirement for Severe Accident Management Guidelines 

over similar industry voluntary initiatives because such a requirement was not cost-justified. 

Seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, the Commission also 

directed the staff to provide a plan to us by late October to resolve 

remaining Fukushima action items. 

I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and look forward 

to your questions. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. 

And the Chair now recognizes Commissioner Baran. Welcome, 

and you are recognized for 2 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JEFF BARAN 

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

Ranking Member Tonko, and members of the subcommittees, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify today. It is a real pleasure 

to be back in this hearing room, this time with my fellow Commissioners, to discuss NRC’s work. 

First and foremost, NRC is focused on our mission of protecting 

public health and safety. Yet the agency faces a different environment than what was expected just a few years ago when substantial new reactor construction was anticipated and no licensees had 

yet announced plans to shut down any reactors. 

To meet our responsibilities now and in the future, we need to 

enhance the efficiency, effectiveness, and agility of the agency. Toward this end, the Commission has approved implementing a number of the Project AIM recommendations. This is a critical effort for 

NRC that will continue to require significant Commission and staff 

attention in the coming months and years. While we take steps to 

increase the agency’s efficiency and agility, we need to ensure that 

NRC also maintains its focus on its ongoing safety work. 

Currently, five new reactors are being built in the United States, 

and five reactors recently ceased operations and are entering decommissioning. At the construction sites, NRC is conducting oversight to ensure that the new plants are built safely and meet regulatory requirements. Meanwhile, the NRC staff is beginning their 

rulemaking to take a fresh look at a number of decommissioning 

issues. 

NRC continues to address post-Fukushima safety enhancements 

and lessons learned. Progress has been made in several areas, but 

we recognize that more work remains to be done. NRC also is responsible for having an efficient and effective licensing process for 

new designs and facilities. While NRC continues its work on pending applications for new reactors, we need to be ready to accept and 

review applications submitted for new technologies. NRC is already 

reviewing an application for a new production facility for medical 

isotopes and anticipates additional applications of this type in the 

future. We also, as Chairman Burns mentioned, are expecting to 

25 

receive the first application for a small modular reactor design in 

late 2016. 

In closing, I recognize that our congressional oversight committees are more interested than ever in NRC’s mission and the way 

we are carrying out that mission. I firmly believe that NRC can 

provide Congress with the information it needs to perform its oversight duties while preserving the independence that is essential to 

accomplishing our safety and security mission. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you very much, and I will now recognize 

myself 5 minutes for starting the questioning. So here we go. 

On August 25, 2015, the Commission released the votes concerning the cumulative effect of regulation process enhancement 

and risk prioritization initiative. From a review of the votes, it appears that Commissioners Svinicki and Ostendorff voted to approve 

staff option one, which is the continuation of NRC efforts to address the cumulative effects of regulation. On the other hand, 

Chairman Burns and Commissioner Baran approved one aspect of 

staff option two, which is to allow licensees to request compliance 

schedule changes using a risk prioritization methodology. 

Chairman Burns, with the vote split as it was in this manner, 

can you help the committee understand how the NRC staff will 

proceed in this manner? What exactly has the staff been directed 

to do? 

Mr. BURNS. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. Essentially, the staff will 

continue, and that was part of the instruction that we gave in our 

staff requirements memo, our direction to the staff, that it should 

continue the ongoing efforts with respect to the cumulative effects 

of regulation. And I think that—in simplest terms, that is the outcome. This was not an effort to sort of draw back the staff, but I 

think there was a difference of view as to the value added of one 

of the suggested options that the staff gave us. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. 

Commissioner Ostendorff, in your vote, you support a status-quo 

approach and emphasize that the NRC staff can already apply riskinformed decision making in reviewing licensee exemption requests, and that risk insight should be considered through existing 

agency processes. Do you believe current NRC regulations and 

guidance provide adequate risk prioritization authorities for the 

staff? And are there other improvements that could be made to ensure that the focus of NRC work remains on safety-significant actions? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Yes, sir. I believe, Chairman Shimkus, that the 

staff does have existing authority to use risk insights in making decisions. In particular, with respect to the timing of completion of 

individual nuclear power plant compliance with various requirements. And though there was a 2/2 split on the vote, I would say 

there is a lot of consensus among the four of us, if I can just add 

my personal view here, and that we were somewhat hesitant, Commissioner Svinicki and I, to look at adding an additional bureaucratic step to the process that we don’t think was necessarily needed. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Great. Thank you. 

26 

Chairman Burns, what will the next steps procedurally be when 

the Commission receives the staff paper expected in October concerning the remaining post-Fukushima Tier 2 and Tier 3 activities? 

Will the Commission close out any of these? 

Mr. BURNS. I think we have to wait to see what the paper says. 

But in requesting that paper, I think you can—from my sense, at 

least, it sort of foreshadows. I think the Commission is interested 

in seeing what do we have left with respect to the Tier 2 and Tier 

3, and are we at a point where we can make the judgment about 

value added, if any, of pursuing some of those options. So I would 

expect the Commission to give careful consideration to what the 

staff puts before us in terms of looking at a path forward. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. 

The Commission is currently developing its fiscal year 2017 

budget request. As you all know, the courts directed the NRC to 

resume consideration to fulfill its statutory obligation to review the 

Yucca Mountain license application. You have previously stated the 

current plan activities will use the remaining available funding for 

Yucca Mountain and need approximately $330 million to complete 

the license. 

I would like to ask each of you individually for a simple yes-orno answer. Will you support requesting funding in the NRC’s budget to continue review of the Yucca Mountain license application? 

Mr. BURNS. For me, no, not in the absence of other indication 

that the agency, the Department of Energy, would also be going 

forward with it. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. Commissioner Svinicki? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes, consistent with my previous votes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Commissioner Ostendorff? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Yes, consistent with my previous votes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Commissioner Baran? 

Mr. BARAN. No. I don’t support requesting funding because as a 

practical matter, I don’t see how the adjudicatory process at NRC 

could work if the Department of Energy does not support its own 

efforts. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. But we do all agree that the Nuclear Waste Policy 

Act is the law of the land, which states that the long-term repository in the statute is to find this Yucca Mountain. Correct? 

Chairman Burns? 

Mr. BURNS. The Waste Policy Act identifies Yucca Mountain as 

the one for evaluation. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. 

Commissioner Svinicki? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes. It is the law until modified or changed. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Commissioner Ostendorff? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And Commissioner Baran? 

Mr. BARAN. Yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I only have 12 seconds left. I will yield back my 

time, and yield to the ranking member, Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Commissioner Baran, I believe we agree with each other that 

safety at nuclear plants is of paramount importance. I want to ask 

27 

you about the way in which our changing climate affects safety and 

operations at nuclear power plants. 

In July, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

confirmed that 2014 was the hottest year on record. The world experienced record high surface temperatures, ocean temperatures, 

and continued sea level rise all in 2014. A number of areas in our 

country are experiencing prolonged severe drought conditions, and 

since greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, these trends are 

likely to continue or worsen going forward. 

So it is not surprising that this summer, the Pilgrim nuclear 

power plant in Massachusetts was forced to shut down because its 

cooling water supply was too hot. The NRC license for Pilgrim requires that the intake water be less than 75 degrees and that the 

discharge water not exceed 102 degrees. The intake water was 

above 75 degrees and the discharge water was at 101.2. Also, this 

is not the first time that the water there has risen above those permitted levels. It happened twice in 2013 as well. And the Pilgrim 

facility is not the only one to have experienced this problem in recent years. So I ask: What exactly happened at Pilgrim and should 

we expect that it could happen again? 

Mr. BARAN. Well, thank you for the question. I think you articulated this particular event very well. We have seen a number of 

plants temporarily shut down, reduce power, or seek regulatory exemptions when their cooling water supplies either got too warm or 

were insufficient. And we have seen several instances of that over 

the last several years, as you mentioned, at a number of different 

plants. Currently, those issues are evaluated on a case-by-case 

basis. So the technical specifications ofeach of those plants, as you 

indicated, indicate the temperatures that are acceptable for cooling 

water intake and discharge, and the plants have got to meet those 

technical specifications. 

If they can’t because the wateris too hot or there isn’t enough of 

it, they are going to scale back power, they are going to shut down, 

or they are going to come to the NRC and say. ‘‘We think it is safe 

to operate a little bit warmer than that with the water’’ and seek 

an exemption. And then we at the NRC, the staff, would look at 

that exemption request on a case-by-case basis. 

Mr. TONKO. So the plants are given a 30-year license, and most 

designs require significant availability of water for the cooling process. So what is the NRC doing to ensure that proposed plants will 

have sufficient water and sufficient cool water to operate? And, 

again, spanning over a 30-year plant. 

Mr. BARAN. Well, it is an interesting question because, as you 

point out, with the time scales, we could see changes in that on climate. You know, another piece of this that I want to raise is related to the climate risk of flooding. And so there is a lot of analysis being done at NRC right now on that issue as a result of the 

post Fukushima flood hazard re-evaluations. Right? So for plants 

across the country, the current flood hazard based on the latest 

science is being re-evaluated, and that is going to include all the 

latest information of what to expect in terms of flooding issues. 

Mr. TONKO. OK. And does the NRC review of a license application consider water availability and competition for water use withVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:17 Jan 04, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X71NRCOVERSIGHTSENDEMAIL010416\114X71NRCOVERSIGH
28 

in the watershed or coastal zone in the plant’s proposed location 

over the 30-year span of the license? 

Mr. BARAN. I believe all those issues would be addressed in the 

environmental impact review, environmental impact statement. 

Mr. TONKO. And Chairman Burns, and to our other two Commissioners, your thoughts on this matter as we look at a 30-year window that reviews a license review or application, given the climate 

change challenge, what are your thoughts as to how we proceed 

forward? 

Mr. BURNS. Well, Mr. Tonko, as I think Commissioner Baran 

said, those issues are taken into account in terms of the licensing 

review, and actually, our licenses are issued generally for 40 

years—it is a 40-year license that is generally issued. So those are 

looked at whether from—and there may be safety as well as environmental aspects to it. Part of the licensing of the plant does look 

at longer term in terms of not just operation today, but operation 

over a period of time. So I think those would be taken into account 

in that regard. 

Mr. TONKO. So has there been an adjustment in the thinking in 

the applied science of all of this with the changed data compilation 

that we have understood to be making a statement now? 

Mr. BURNS. Well, I think what there is, there is an evaluation. 

I would hesitate, and I have to check with the staff and we could 

probably provide you an answer for the record with respect to how 

that has changed. As Commissioner Baran says, there are—on occasions, there have been plants that may experience the high temperatures in the water source, and that license conditions and all 

deal with that. I don’t know that we have actually looked at a particular trend or seen a particular trend. 

Mr. TONKO. Are existing plants assisting them in any way? 

Mr. BURNS. Pardon me? 

Mr. TONKO. Is there any effort to help existing plants to adapt 

to changing water temperature and drought? 

Mr. BURNS. Well, I think, again, that what they look at is what 

those parameters are, and there may be an assessment of what the 

margins are in terms of the levels or the temperature levels, I 

would expect. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back the time. 

The Chair now recognizes the chairman emeritus of the full committee, Joe Barton from Texas, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

What happens to high-level waste at civilian reactors that are 

decommissioned, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Burns? 

Mr. BURNS. Currently that waste is stored at the site. 

Mr. BARTON. Permanently? 

Mr. BURNS. Well, until there is a repository or a consolidated 

storage site to take it to. 

Mr. BARTON. OK. I listened to the answers that each of the Commissioners gave to Chairman Shimkus’ question about Yucca 

Mountain, and, you know, you were all agreeing that it was a repository, but you weren’t sure if you could put any funding for it. 

Wouldn’t it be—and I support Yucca Mountain as a final repository. So there is no daylight between Chairman Shimkus and myVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:17 Jan 04, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X71NRCOVERSIGHTSENDEMAIL010416\114X71NRCOVERSIGH
29 

self on that. But I do think that given the status of Yucca Mountain or the lack of status, you might say, that it might be prudent 

to consider some sort of an interim storage solution. 

Mr. Chairman, each of the Commissioners, what are your 

thoughts about moving forward with interim storage while we hash 

out the final resolution to permanent, given the fact that we are 

beginning to decommission these reactors? And I don’t think it is 

a good solution at all to have a high-level nuclear waste at a decommissioned civilian reactor site out in the country. So what are 

your thoughts on let’s try to figure out a way to do interim storage 

while we hash out permanent storage. 

Mr. BURNS. Well, Mr. Barton, the NRC, as you know, is the regulatory—is a regulatory body. And what will come before us, whether it is an application for the repository Yucca, or whether interim 

storage facilities, we are prepared to look at that and make a safety and security judgment on that. We have, in the past, we did consider the licensing and approve the licensing of an interim storage 

site which did not go forward, the private fuel storage site I believe 

in Utah, and we have had expressions of interest, and we may get 

an application from waste control specialists—— 

Mr. BARTON. Chairman, you are open to it. 

Mr. BURNS. We will do what, as you say, in that area, we are 

prepared to receive an application and consistent with the law—— 

Mr. BARTON. Let’s hear the other three Commissioners. Ms. 

Svinicki? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Sir, again, as a safety regulator, our obligation is 

to make sure that if there is no alternative and this fuel ages in 

place for very, very long periods of time, that we have the safety 

judgment that it can be safe on the sites where it is located right 

now. So as a Commissioner, that is our singular focus, is on whether or not it can be safely stored in the absence of other national—— 

Mr. BARTON. You all are very good at not answering questions. 

Ms. SVINICKI. I don’t have a—— 

Mr. BARTON. I just asked a straight question. You know, you are 

citizens. You all are some of the smartest people. You know more 

about nuclear storage than anybody else in the country. I am not 

asking for the Obama position, I am just asking generally, if you 

are open to an interim storage proposal. You know, that is all I am 

asking. So far I am 0 for 2. 

Ms. SVINICKI. I am confident that it is safely stored, but as a citizen, I think that if it could be stored in fewer locations, that would 

be desirable. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Congressman Barton, I am open to an interim 

storage solution with the caveat that I think our storage security 

right now, those practices at operating as well as decommissioned 

sites, is being done safe and securely now. 

Mr. BARTON. OK. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. BARAN. Congressman, this is, as you know, ultimately a policy question for Congress. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommended consolidated interim storage as part of the overall solution to the Nation’s high-level waste problem. You know, as a citizen I could say that interim storage could allow some decommisVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:17 Jan 04, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X71NRCOVERSIGHTSENDEMAIL010416\114X71NRCOVERSIGH
30 

sioned reactor sites to close completely. It would create a place for 

the spent fuel that is being kept on site to go. And it could reduce 

the FederalGovernment’s liability for failure to take title to the 

waste. 

I just want to mention, though, that currently under the Nuclear 

Waste Policy Act, I think you’d have to have a change in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to allow the Department of Energy to take 

title to that waste, which I think would be likely kind of a necessary predicate for interim storage as you are imagining it. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you. I will say it is refreshing, Mr. Chairman, to hear people say that it is a policy question for the Congress 

to address. That is a good thing. And I appreciate their openness 

to it. With that, I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California, Mrs. 

Capps, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. CAPPS. All right. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you all for your testimony today. I represent Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant in 

San Luis Obispo, California. And this is a power plant that is 

owned and operated by PG&E, a key part of our local economy supporting hundreds of quality jobs in the area, and also supplying efficient clean energy for a lot of people. 

But it also sits very close to two significant earthquake faults, 

the Hosgri Fault was discovered during construction of the facility, 

but the Shoreline Fault was only discovered in 2008, and it comes 

within just a few hundred yards of the power plant. These faults 

have raised numerous important safety questions, particularly in 

the wake of the Fukushima disaster. These question are particularly important as NRC considers PG&E’s applications to re-license 

Diablo Canyon’s two reactors for an additional 20 years. 

After Fukushima, I urged the NRC and PG&E to suspend this 

process, this renewal process, until seismic risks at Diablo were 

better understood. And consideration of re-licensing was suspended 

soon after, but now the NRC has recently started the process. 

So, Chairman Burns, can you provide a status update on the license review process, and also outline the next steps and the 

timeline going forward. 

Mr. BURNS. Yes, ma’am. There are two primary aspects to the review: a safety review and the environmental review required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act. The staff re-initiated the safety 

review I think earlier this spring, and more recently, published a 

notice on it with respect to the scoping process for the environmental statement. And I think we are about at the end of that 

comment period for the scoping. I believe that the timeline for the 

decisionmaking would be for the staff to make a decision by about 

2017 with respect to the renewal. Now separately, I think as you 

know, we are also—and this comes in part out of post-Fukushima 

actions, but also, I think, the ongoing interests with respect to an 

evaluation on seismic issues—we also have a seismic evaluation 

underway. 

PG&E provided information like other licensees did with respect 

to the seismic re-analysis, and we have accepted that for review, 

31 

and we are doing that, and I think that is about on the same timeframe. 

Mrs. CAPPS. And would you highlight the steps that NRC is taking and has taken to ensure the public participation and transparency in this process? As you know, there is a great deal of interest in the communities surrounding the Diablo Canyon facility. 

Mr. BURNS. Yes, ma’am. Again, we have had a number of public 

meetings, some related to the seismic analysis as well as license renewal. The license renewal, I believe that there is formal intervention in the proceeding, so that public hearing process would go on. 

We have a couple other issues with respect to how to treat—I guess 

the easiest way to say it—how to treat PG&E’s updates as a seismic review, whether as a legal matter that involved a license 

amendment. I believe that is still pending—that issue is still pending. 

So that, again, is a participation process, and I know our regional 

administrator has gone out as just part of the normal process of the 

performance of the plant and will try to engage the public. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Great. Thank you. And after the discovery of the 

Shoreline Fault, I worked with then-State Senator Sam Blakeslee, 

who is a physicist who has studied these things, and others, to require additional seismic testing of the areas surrounding Diablo 

Canyon and the State did comply. And the results of these studies 

were released last year by PG&E. 

These studies will be examined by NRC and by an independent 

panel of experts appointed by the State. I know you are aware and 

part of that. I know that there are experts that you have as well, 

but this independent—I have always said, you know, if you are 

going to study something, have an outside third party, independent 

team to come in and assess the seismic risk. Can you assure us 

that no decision regarding re-licensing will be made until the 

State’s independent review of the seismic data is competed? 

Mr. BURNS. Ma’am, my understanding is we are taking into account the information developed by all the reviews with respect to 

the seismic characteristics of this site. That is my understanding. 

Mrs. CAPPS. And I know my time is out, but is this going to— 

are these results going to be incorporated into your own analysis? 

Mr. BURNS. I believe we would take them into account, yes. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentlelady yields back her time. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. 

Harper, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to each of 

you for being here, and certainly your agency is charged with a 

very important mission. It is important for the security of our country, and it is an agency that must function properly. And I would 

like to ask you a few questions, if I could, Mr. Chairman. In 2012, 

the Advisory Commission on Reactor Safeguards recommended the 

Commission not undertake any revisions to the limits of occupational radiation exposure. Are you aware of those recommendations? 

Mr. BURNS. In general terms I am, yes. 

Mr. HARPER. OK. And do you support this recommendation? 

32 

Mr. BURNS. Well, I think we would take that recommendation 

and evaluation into account in determining whether to go forward 

with any particular changes to our rules. I think this would probably bear mostly on our exposure, or radiation protection, rules and 

in 10 CFR Part 20 of our regulations. 

Mr. HARPER. And are you aware that on March 18, the Commission published an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking to receive public comment on revising these standards? 

Mr. BURNS. Yes, I am. 

Mr. HARPER. What was the basis for pursuing this rulemaking 

giving the ACRS recommendation? 

Mr. BURNS. Well, the rulemaking, as I recall, involves more than 

the question of whether or not occupational standards ought to be 

changed. In part, I think the question is whether they ought to be 

changed in conformance with some international recommendations. 

But there are other aspects, as I recall, of the rule that might be 

considered. And right now at this point, the point of the advanced 

notice is to receive public comment to determine whether or not we 

ought to go forward at all with a proposed rule, much less a final 

rule. And we haven’t gotten to that point as yet. 

Mr. HARPER. So what other aspects may have been considered? 

Mr. BURNS. I think there are ways of dose calculation. There is 

some—some, say, probably more administrative type changes. I 

would be happy to provide that for the record. But it is more than, 

as I recall, more than just a question of whether or not to reduce 

the permissible occupational dose. 

Mr. HARPER. And I would ask that you provide that additional 

information for the record and the purposes of this hearing. 

And if I may ask you also, Chairman Burns, due to the Federal 

Government’s inability to open Yucca Mountain, utilities currently 

store spent nuclear fuel in dry cask storage at reactor sites in what 

are known, as you know, independent spent fuel storage installations. In 2007, the Commission directed that the design basis 

threat for these facilities were adequate and safe. However, there 

is now an effort to impose new security requirements upon licensees which will necessitate licensees incurring significant costs and 

require additional safety and training requirements. Has the design basis threat changed since 2007? 

Mr. BURNS. I am not aware that it has. 

Mr. HARPER. So the answer would be no, is what you are saying, 

Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. BURNS. I believe so. 

Mr. HARPER. OK. And if not, why is the Commission pursuing 

additional safety requirements on dry cask storage facilities? 

Mr. BURNS. I presume—and some of my fellow Commissioners 

may have something to say on that—that in looking at it, this is 

in terms of trying to assure that the design basis threat is met and 

that other upgrades that we deem necessary through the public 

comment process. 

Mr. HARPER. OK. But it hasn’t changed, and so, but now we have 

got these additional safety requirements. Yes, sir, Mr. Commissioner. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Congressman Harper, if I may add, the design 

basis threat review did not indicate a change to the design basis 

33 

threat. What we have as an agency, it is called implementing guidance, which is used by licensees to execute our regulations. So 

there are clarifying steps taken in that guidance. It is my understanding—I was briefed on this just 2 weeks ago—it is my understanding there is not any ratcheting up of standards in this new 

guidance. 

Mr. HARPER. I believe my time is up. I yield back. 

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

now recognizes the gentlelady from Florida, Congresswoman Castor, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning NRC 

members. Thank you very much for your service to the country and 

for being here this morning. 

In Florida, consumers are still quite angry over—due to the fact 

that they are on the hook for repairs and closeout to the Crystal 

River nuclear plant. This will blow your mind, but customers are 

on the hook for over $3 billion because the utility in a repair situation did some things out of the norm on their own and, in essence, 

broke the plant. They sometimes refer to it as the ‘‘Humpty Dumpty’’ plant. 

As the nuclear plants across the country age, and more of these 

type of repairs have to be done. At Crystal River this was the 

steam generator. I guess it’s—one, a former NRC member called 

this a mega screw up. They said something similar about San 

Onofre as well. 

Could you go through right now what is the NRC’s role when a 

utility embarks on these type of repairs? 

Mr. BURNS. Essentially, our role is an oversight role. We may inspect, observe what what changes or, in effect, construction type 

activity at a site. In some respects, we have an approval role with 

respect to issuing amendments to a license if that is necessary, because the nature of the repair or the change to operation is such 

that it is beyond the current license and it requires a change to the 

license. 

Ms. CASTOR. So in a case like Duke Energy and its predecessor 

and Florida Power at Crystal River, when they embarked on doing 

some repair that was out of the norm. At that point, does the NRC 

have oversight? Do you have the ability to come and say, you know, 

what you are doing does not meet the current standards there 

where we—can you say, no, do not proceed with that repair, we do 

not agree? 

Mr. BURNS. We have—again, if it is an activity that would not 

be within the scope of their current license, we would have a role 

in terms of reviewing a proposed change before it is implemented. 

But there are many types of activities at a plant which are—which 

can be done within the scope of the license. What the licensee is 

supposed to do is to do an adequate and high quality evaluation of 

the nature of that activity. 

Ms. CASTOR. Do any of the other members have a comment? Yes, 

sir. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Thank you for the question. I had a chance to 

visit Crystal River back in 2010 when I first joined the Commission. What we had here, think of a sphere that is made of concrete 

called containment, and there is a tensioning cable that went 

34 

around the circumference of the sphere. Detentioning that cable is 

part of a maintenance period. There is criticism as to the technique 

that was used to detention this cable, resulting in concrete cracks. 

NRC does not, from a regulatory standpoint, go and micromanage 

exactly how the licensee conducts its maintenance. We do make 

sure that plant is safe to start up. 

Ms. CASTOR. OK. How many nuclear plants are there in the U.S. 

right now? 

Mr. BURNS. There are 99 operating plants in the United States. 

Ms. CASTOR. Are there many being built now, new plants? 

Mr. BURNS. There are five under construction. One, Watts Bar 

plant, the Tennessee Valley Authority, will probably enter operation next year. 

Ms. CASTOR. And most of the nuclear plants that are in existence 

today were constructed during what time period? 

Mr. BURNS. 1980s. 

Ms. CASTOR. So these are aging plants. And it is likely, over 

time, to meet their useful life that they are going to need repairs. 

Do you feel that the NRC has the capability now? I know you said 

your responsibility is just to—you don’t want to micromanage, but 

this is a $3 billion cost to customers in Florida. They are on the 

hook for it, even though it was the responsibility of the utility. We 

have got to do a better job. Don’t you see any future now with the 

NRC with these aging plants, you have to take a more active role 

in ensuring that the utilities meet a standard of care? 

Mr. BURNS. Well, we do take an active role, we have rigorous requirements quality assurance in terms of activities, in planning for 

the way activities are undertaken. We have a maintenance rule 

that focuses on equipment in the plant and the license—to the extent plants go into license renewal, we focus on the aging of components. I think, as Commissioner Ostendorff said, at some point, the 

operation and maintenance of the facility is the responsibility of 

the licensee, they need to conduct it in conformance with our safety 

requirements, and that is where it is. I think from my standpoint 

and the Commission’s standpoint, we have significant requirements 

that address—— 

Ms. CASTOR. Would you be willing to look into this moving forward so that customers can avoid these kind of major costs that are 

passed on to them? 

Mr. BURNS. And part of our oversight of plants, we certainly will 

look at the question of maintenance and the quality in terms of 

how operations and maintenance operations are conducted. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentlelady’s time has expired. The Chair now 

recognizes the gentleman form Kentucky, Chairman Whitfield, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much. On August 3rd, EPA finalized its Clean Power Plan under section 111(b) of the Clean Air 

Act. Of course, that regulation has created a lot of controversy 

around the country, and many people think illegal lawsuits have 

been filed. And as you know, EPA arbitrarily selected CO2 emission 

limits for each State, but also, they allow for power upgrades— 

uprates in that regulation. 

And I was just curious if you all, or maybe you, Mr. Burns, or 

anyone else would like to comment, tell me, did EPA actually talk 

35 

to you all about that plan before it was finalized? Did anyone from 

EPA come and discuss this with you before they finalized it? 

Mr. BURNS. No, not that I am aware of. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. Now, what is the NRC’s normal timeframe 

for reviewing and approving these power uprate requests? 

Mr. BURNS. I think it will depend on the complexity of it, but I 

usually think within probably a couple years. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Now you all have some pending uprate requests 

before you? 

Mr. BURNS. I think we might, but I would have to check for the 

record. It certainly is addressing power uprates and reviewing it is 

something we have done over the years. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Have you all given thought whether or not you 

need to adjust or otherwise accelerate your process for reviewing 

and approving these power uprate applications as a result of the 

Clean Power Plan? 

Mr. BURNS. No. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK, OK. Well, your Web site says you have four 

pending applications for power uprates. And there is a table showing seven expected applications for power uprates. And I am—of 

course, I don’t know how many States going to go submit their 

State implementation plans on time or anything else. But this is 

an area is that obviously States are looking vigorously for ways to 

meet the CO2 standard, or limits. And if you can produce more nuclear power, obviously that is one way to do it. So I think that certainly is very important issue to be focused on. 

Let me ask you another question. We hear a lot about modular 

nuclear power plants, would you give me your—are you all taking 

the applications for modular nuclear plants or is that premature, 

or—I know there are groups that are meeting with DOE on a regular basis about modular plants, so what is your all’s perspective 

on that? 

Mr. BURNS. We do expect an application for a design certification 

for a small modular unit. I think the application will be filed in 

late 2016. And also, the Tennessee Valley Authority has indicated 

it will seek what we call an early site permit, basically a site approval, at the Clinch River site, the site for a small modular reactor. 

The other thing I would emphasize, Mr. Whitfield, in fact, we 

had a workshop, I guess, last week jointly sponsored with the Department of Energy where we are trying to engage the community 

that may be interested in a small modular reactor or advanced reactors to assure that when the time comes we are prepared in 

terms of looking at the acceptance criteria and things like that. So 

as I say, we have a couple of things coming, coming and then we 

are trying to make sure we are prepared for the longer term. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At one time I heard that the Commission was 

not in a position regulatory to deal with these issues. Is that accurate, or is that just a wild rumor that I heard? 

Mr. BURNS. What I think we are prepared for from the licensing 

process, I am confident we can manage these types of applications 

with the licensing process. What the difference is—and these are 

some of the issues we have been working on with DOE—is because 

some of the technology, the current is nonlight water reactor techVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:17 Jan 04, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X71NRCOVERSIGHTSENDEMAIL010416\114X71NRCOVERSIGH
36 

nology, so that is where you want to see what the gaps are in 

terms of the acceptance criteria, things like that. 

Department of Energy, in its R&D role, has prepared some reports they shared with us, and as I say, we are keeping an open 

dialogue there with them and as well as those who may be interested in the industry. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Do you want to—— 

Mr. BARAN. Sure. I just wanted to add, there are some differences between small modular reactors and larger traditional reactors, and those differences raise some technical and potentially 

some policy issues that the agency is actively working through. 

There are questions about control room staffing, the size of emergency planning zones, how our annual fee is going to work. And so 

the Commission, actually, briefly addressed a couple of those issues 

with rulemaking and looking at the fee question, and the emergency planning question, and the staff interacting with the Commission are looking at these other issues as well, so that there is 

good regulatory certainty for potential applicants about what is the 

path forward to get a license if you have a small modular reactor 

design. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair now 

recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I want to congratulate Mr. Baran on your confirmation. I wouldn’t want to go through that process myself. 

Mr. Chairman, is the NRC capable of managing its significant 

growth in nuclear power if the Nation should decide to go down 

that path? 

Mr. BURNS. I think we are capable of managing that. One of the 

issues we are dealing with today is trying to look out 5 years, this 

is the Project AIM 2020 from the standpoint of looking at what do 

we need to prepare for as well as looking at where we are today. 

And because we grew a lot in the last decade, we have, in terms 

of on our plate, a fewer number of reactor applications. We had the 

discussion with Mr. Whitfield. One of my concerns is that we are 

prepared if we get additional applications, not only for small modular reactors or advanced reactors—— 

Mr. MCNERNEY. You get upgrades, you get new power plants, 

you get small modular reactors. You get a whole slew of things. 

Mr. BURNS. Yes. I think part of what we want do and what we 

are trying to look at through our Project AIM at positioning ourselves that we maintain the technical expertise that we need in 

those areas. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Commissioner Svinicki, could you explain 

Project AIM briefly please? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Well, as Ranking Member Tonko and a number of 

members of the subcommittees addressed in their opening statements, we have seen a very dynamic electricity industry over the 

last few years. As a large organization, we lag a little bit behind 

in adjusting as the regulator to the changes to the regulated industry. So we find ourselves right now at resourcing and staffing levels, and an organization not always aligned to the regulatory work 

that is in front of us. So Project AIM is a whole set of initiatives 

looking at bringing, simply put—our H.R. Director said we need to 

37 

move expertise in alignment with the work in front of us and look 

at being able to be efficient and effective, but maintain the expertise to be agile, because based on the Clean Power Plan and other 

things, it is very difficult for us to forecast 5 years from now or 10 

years from now exactly how we need to be staffed and resourced, 

but we are going to work on that efficiency and agility piece. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. Commissioner Baran, is there a cumulative effect of regulation on the new licensing process? In other 

words, is there an effect that would require licensing to take another 5 years or something like that? 

Mr. BARAN. Well, we have several processes in place to look at 

cumulative effects of regulation issues. One of the things we do, for 

example, and these were instituted prior to my arrival on the Commission. When a proposed rule for a new requirement now goes out 

at NRC, that is accompanied at that time with proposed implementation guidance, so that licensees have a very clear sense of what 

is likely going to be required of them. That makes it much easier 

for them to comment, it also makes it easier for them to plan, to 

provide us with cost estimates about what it might cost to comply. 

So that is one of the things that we are doing already on an ongoing basis. 

You know, licensing of new reactors and new reactor designs, in 

some cases, it has taken a number of years. Typically, in recent 

years, it has not been the fastest process, and there are a variety 

of reasons for that. From my point of view, and if I am looking toward a small modular reactor being an application that we would 

expect next year, what we, I think, as an agency are emphasizing 

to applicants is you need to submit a high-quality application, and 

then we need to be ready for it, and both sides really have to bring 

their A game to it if we are going to get it done in a reasonable 

timeframe. 

Part of that is also thinking ahead, as I was mentioning to 

Chairman Whitfield, what are the potential issues and the potential challenges that we would need to resolve on a particular license or type of application? Let’s get that going well in advance 

so that when that application actually comes in, a lot of work has 

already been done to move us toward a timely result. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. Commissioner Baran, what would it 

take to get the Yucca Mountain project to move forward? 

Mr. BARAN. You are talking about for NRC’s review of it? 

Mr. MCNERNEY. To get the project moving forward. 

Mr. BARAN. For NRC’s review of it, the estimate that the staff 

came up with for the cost of our adjudicatory proceeding is somewhere in the range of 300 to 350 million. That would be, I believe, 

the largest adjudication. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. This isn’t just about money, the economic 

project. There are other impediments in the way. 

Mr. BARAN. Well, as I mentioned earlier, and the reason I 

haven’t supported asking for that money is, you have to have an 

applicant that’s committed to their application. And so, you are 

looking at years of an adversarial trial-like process to get that license. I believe it’s currently 288 contentions or claims. That number could go up if the adjudication resumed. And if you don’t have 

an applicant that wants to defend its own application, ultimately, 

38 

they have the burden of demonstrating that their application is 

going to be safe, I just don’t see how that process works. 

So, you’d have to have an engaged applicant. DOE would need 

money to do that, we would need money to do that. There are a 

lot of things you need to make the process work. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time is expired. The Chair now 

recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Olson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. OLSON. I thank the Chair. Welcome to our witnesses. Nuclear power is an important part of America’s energy portfolio. Not 

far from my home is the south Texas project in Bay City. It is a 

stable and reliable source of power to the entire Gulf Coast, and 

a cornerstone of our grid. Either one came online August 25th of 

1988 to June 19th of 1989. The electricity prepared provides 1,200 

good-paying jobs for our local economy, and brings prospects for the 

next generation of science and engineering students. As I have 

mentioned to this committee before, local schools, like Wharton 

County Junior College led by President Betty McCrohan, have 

stepped up to train the next generation of nuclear power workers. 

As older employees retire from the plant, where they have 

worked for decades, since it opened in late 1980s, training like this 

is more critical than ever to fill these gaps. Nationwide nuclear 

power is critical, as one continues to shut down based on power, 

nuclear helps keep our grid running. 

We love wind in Texas. We are number 1, but you can’t run an 

entire grid on wind. 

My first questions are for Chairman Burns. We are not building 

nuclear plants these days, new ones, the applications for unit 3 and 

4, NRC—at NRC for south Texas were filed on September 20 of 

2007. They are going nowhere quickly. So older plants remain incredibly important. 

In the coming years a number of these plants will begin the process of asking for another extension beyond the typical 30-year extension. How the Commission approached these requests to extend 

the life of these older plants? What sort of time line does NRC use 

to sort out these issues? 

Mr. BURNS. Thank you for the question. I had the pleasure of 

going to South Texas site a few months ago and visiting down 

there. I know what the support—I talked to some folks down there 

in terms of the support in the community and the importance with 

which they see it. 

Our license renewal rule essentially provides for initially a 20- 

year life extension. We are also in the process of considering, and 

there has been research done—again, this is something that the 

Department of Energy has also supported—that looks at the potential for extension up to 80 years. That is still on the horizon. We 

may hear something from industry within the next few years, but 

we are trying to position ourselves in terms of the research and all 

on that. But we have a well-tested licensing renewal process. Now, 

about 75 of the 99 units currently in operation, I believe, have received renewed licenses under that process. 

And we have others either in the review process or expect to 

come in the review. So I think we are well-equipped to handle and 

have demonstrated the effectiveness of the license renewal process. 

39 

Mr. OLSON. Question for Ms. Svinicki and Commissioner 

Ostendorff: If you could pick one change of law at the NRC that 

would put that in place immediately—you are the all-powerful king 

or queen—what would that be? Ms. Svinicki? Mr. Ostendorff? You 

are the king, what would you want to do? What would you want 

to change, one change? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Well, that is a great question. I wish I had a 

pithy answer to respond to you, Congressman. I would like to give 

it some thought so I can get back to you. 

Mr. OLSON. Ma’am any ideas through you head? You are the 

queen for a day. 

Ms. SVINICKI. I would do the same. I think Commissioner 

Ostendorff and I were both also congressional staff in earlier parts 

of our career, so I put aside my thought of changing law, and now 

I just focus on complying with it. 

Mr. OLSON. OK. Chairman Burns, if this is not the Commissioners’ ideas, what would you change as a citizen, any ideas? No? 

Mr. BURNS. One of the issues—and I know we, not struggle with, 

but have had a lot of attention to, and I will venture a guess—is 

that there is a provision that applies with respect to power reactors 

on foreign ownership, domination and control. And while that has, 

I think, a role, I think there is actually greater flexibility in the 

materials area. This has been an interesting area for investment 

and all. And it is something, to some extent, it is a little bit out 

of what I call the normal wheelhouse of the NRC. 

So, I wondered if that is—but that is not a fully gelled thought, 

maybe, but that is something I think about. And the reason I think 

about that is because I remember—I think it may have been in the 

Energy Policy Act—for example, originally we had antitrust responsibilities which were also being done by the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice, and that was something that, I 

think, that we were relieved from. Because again, if we are focused 

on safety and security, that is where we want to be focused. So that 

is just sort of a random idea. 

Mr. OLSON. Well, thank you. I am out of time. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman’s time is well expired. 

Mr. OLSON. You have the crown on. For the record, what you 

want to do, for the record, please, sir. 

Mr. BARAN. I am a small ‘‘r’’ republican. I leave it to you all to 

write the laws and we will implement them. 

Mr. OLSON. I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of 

the full committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Baran, 

my questions are to you. I understand that the nuclear industry developed Severe Accident Management Guidelines, or SAMGs, in 

1996 to respond to severe events involving multiple failures of safety equipment in nuclear plants. So my question is, I have four, but 

first: What are the benefits of emergency planning at nuclear 

power plant facilities? And how can the focus on safety protect the 

public and prevent the massive costs associated with the 

Fukushima-style disaster? 

Mr. BARAN. Well, I think everyone agrees, and I don’t think there 

is any question, that Severe Accident Management Guidelines, that 

40 

kind of emergency planning, is crucial and really valuable. The debate we had recently was about—or, the question we had presented 

to us recently is, Should we make that a requirement? It has been 

a voluntary initiative, as you mentioned, it went into effect basically 1998. It wasn’t really inspected by NRC from 2000 on until 

after Fukushima. I think you could ask industry, you could ask 

anyone who is a player in this area, and they would tell you these 

are really important planning tools, and SAMGs are a very good 

idea you want to have at a plant. 

Mr. PALLONE. Well, can I ask you second, have these requirements led to increased plant safety or increased protection for public health and safety? 

Mr. BARAN. Yes, I think everyone views the Severe Accident 

Management Guidelines as an enhancement to safety. And the 

question is, really, Should they be enforceable? My view is that 

they should be. The experience that we had in that period where 

it was a—it still is a volunteer initiative—where it was a volunteer 

initiative, we hadn’t inspected; after Fukushima, NRC inspectors 

went out to plants. And for the first time in maybe 12 years, they 

had looked at what was the status of these voluntary SAMGs. And 

it was pretty troubling what they found. There were SAMGs that 

were outdated, hadn’t been updated in years. There were emergency responders that weren’t trained on the SAMGs. And as a result of that, the near-term task force after Fukushima and NRC 

staff both recommended making that a requirement so that it 

would be enforceable. I agree with that view. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. So obviously there they are still voluntary, 

you answered that question. 

Mr. BARAN. Yes, yes. 

Mr. PALLONE. Can the Commission make them mandatory? Are 

you moving in that direction? Do you have that power? 

Mr. BARAN. We could, we are not moving in that direction. There 

was a recent Commission vote on a proposed rule that covered, 

more broadly, a number of areas that Commissioner Ostendorff referred to earlier post-Fukushima mitigation issues. So it is a larger 

safety rule. The staff recommended that in that proposal, we include a proposed requirement, for the first time, for Severe Accident Management Guidelines. And I supported including that as a 

requirement. I was the minority on that. The majority felt we 

should not include it. And from my point of view, that is a mistake. 

Everyone agrees you get a safety benefit from it, and enforceability 

has a lot of value. And when we had a Commission meeting on 

this, a public Commission meeting, I asked industry representatives, Well, is this going to be a burdensome thing to require this? 

The answer we got back was ‘‘Well, no, we are doing this voluntarily now.’’ It will not be a burdensome cost, it is little or no additional cost to make it enforceable. From my point of view, when 

you have a substantial safety enhancement and you have something that is not burdensome, that is something we should include 

in a proposed rule and the public should have an opportunity to 

comment on that. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. Well, I appreciate that. Let me just ask 

one more thing. It may be the right answer. After Fukushima, was 

there another review of these SAMGs and has that made a difVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:17 Jan 04, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X71NRCOVERSIGHTSENDEMAIL010416\114X71NRCOVERSIGH
41 

ference in terms of updating the guidelines or training personnel 

in response to Fukushima? 

Mr. BARAN. Yes, that was the review I referenced. After 

Fukushima, there was an inspection of the status of the SAMGs in 

all the plants across the country. And it was spotty, so they—every 

plant had SAMGs, and the overall conclusion from the staff was 

that they thought they would be effective. But recently, when 

looked at the question should they be made enforceable, we asked 

the staff, well, are you confident that we would have effective 

SAMGs at every plant of the country if we ever needed them if it 

remains a voluntary initiative? And the answer I got back was no, 

we are not confident, based on the history that they would be there 

when you needed them. For me, that means it should be a requirement, or we should at least propose it as a requirement and the 

public should have an opportunity, all stakeholders should have an 

opportunity to comment on it. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and 

Chairman, Commissioners, thanks very much for being with us 

today. Appreciate your testimony. 

And over the work period, I was at Davis-Besse, which is really 

a stone’s throw from my district. And when I was there, I saw firsthand some of the really significant investments that have been 

made or are making—post Fukushima. And this mass construction 

taking was the emergency water feed system, where I learned 

about how nuclear facilities are working with the NRC to continue 

their safe operations. I mean, there is a lot of investment going on 

out there. 

But if I could, Mr. Chairman, if I could start with you. If I could 

ask this question: It has been touched on a little bit by Chairman 

Whitfield. But I would like to approach a little different area. You 

stated that last week that the NRC and Department of Energy had 

a 2-day public workshop with stakeholders for options for increased 

efficiency from both a technical and regulatory perspective and the 

safe development and deployment of innovative reactor technology. 

I know that Chairman Whitfield talked to you mainly on this 

small modular reactor. I would like to ask is more how can the 

Commission establish a regulatory and licensing framework for advanced technologies that reasonably assures private industry a 

pathway towards commercial development? And I know that you 

talked about, in regards to Chairman Whitfield saying that you 

could manage it, and also—but if you could really get into the advanced technologies and how you could get some detail in that 

place? 

Mr. BURNS. Certainly. Again, what we tried to do with the workshop, which we jointly sponsored with the Department of Energy, 

was to engage those who are thinking about potentially pursuing 

the advanced technology. Again, what I try to say is, I think the 

basic ‘‘how to license’’ and the framework we have for licensing, 

that is essentially sound. Whether you use the one-step licensing, 

which the larger evolutionary reactors, such as the AP 1000 being 

42 

built that some are using, or you use the older two-step-type licensing. 

I think a couple of things, one of the things I think the staff 

heard during the conference was whether there are ways of perhaps, maybe stepwise, looking at systems and basically getting to 

the point you are not so much issuing a license because you issued 

a license for the entire facility, but you get to some sort of a design 

approval or a stepwise process. I think that is something I think 

the staff wants to explore some more. 

The other piece of this is, too—and this is the report I alluded 

to that came in from the Department of Energy at the beginning 

of this year to us—is to make sure that our general design criteria, 

also acceptance criteria for the technology, are they really in sync 

with what we are going to see with the new technology? 

The general design criteria have been there for many years. They 

have served us well in terms of light-water technology, but looking 

at how we may need to adjust that, so we are continuing to engage 

with that. 

Mr. LATTA. Let me follow up with that, because this is important 

for a lot of folks out there is that how can the NRC establish the 

organization be responsive to the potential applicants, but not forcing the existing licensees to fund those costs as part of the annual 

fee assessment? 

Mr. BURNS. I think you put your finger on it in terms of we are, 

I think as you know, we are basically a fee agency. Ninety percent 

of our appropriation is recovered in fees, primarily from the industry and the operating fleet. 

There are probably ways, I think this is probably a discussion 

with the Department of Energy in terms of whether, again, because 

in their role in research and development, whether there are ways 

in terms of providing assistance that way. I know the DOE has 

done some of that. 

Mr. LATTA. I saw Commissioner Ostendorff, you were shaking 

your head on that, would you like to respond to that? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. I would agree with the Chairman’s comments, 

I would just add that there are other technologies out there that 

we have not received license applications for or design certifications 

for, pebble bed reactors, molten salt, sodium-based cooling systems. 

And these are technical areas that we might have, at best, three 

or four people in the agency that have some knowledge of these 

new technologies. And as we are going forward looking at our feebased rule requirements under law, it is very difficult for us to justify, under our current fee recovery arrangements, spending dollars 

for expertise that is not going to benefit an existing or likely applicant in the near term. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. LATTA. My time has expired, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, 

Mr. Green, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, like my colleague 

from Texas, I wasn’t happy that south Texas project didn’t expand. 

Of course, the market conditions changed with Fukushima and 

Tokyo power, but I appreciate our Regulatory Commission being 

here today. 

43 

Chairman Burns, with regards to Yucca Mountain, the NRC 

safety evaluation report recommended should not authorize construction because of certain land and water ice. I have been to 

Yucca Mountain a couple years ago with our subcommittee, and it 

is in the middle of Federal land owned by DOD and DOE. Exactly 

what are the land and water rights requirements that the safety 

evaluation report references? 

Mr. BURNS. The specifics, Mr. Green, unfortunately, I don’t 

know. We can certainly provide for the record, but they would be, 

I think, outlined in the safety evaluation report. I presume that 

they have do with State or local rights. And again, that is what the 

staff is identifying, they are identifying a legal constraint. 

Mr. GREEN. The Federal Government doesn’t own the water 

rights to that land? 

Mr. BURNS. Again, I can’t speak specifically to it. I think the 

State owns the water. 

Mr. GREEN. I can see the water there, but I can see the—— 

Has the NRC determined the funding level necessary to complete 

the application, including adjudicatory hearing on contested issues? 

If so, what is the amount that would finish the application? 

Mr. BURNS. Again, our estimate would be somewhere on the 

order of 300 to 330 million to complete the review, which would be 

the adjudication and the outcome of any steps that would be necessary at the outcome of the adjudication. 

Mr. GREEN. Is that money available? 

Mr. BURNS. It has not been appropriated to the NRC. 

Mr. GREEN. If that was appropriated, how long do you think it 

would take for the NRC to complete proceedings, including adjudicatory? 

Mr. BURNS. I don’t have a firm guess. You would have to sort of 

reengage the participants. Again, if I am looking at what the original conception was under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, I would 

imagine it is a 3- to 4-year period, but that is a guess. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Would the gentleman yield for one second? It 

would be helpful if the NRC would place that in their budget request so then we would get it authorized and then we would get 

it appropriated. I yield back. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you. Obviously I support long-term interim 

storage—I mean, long-term storage, now would go to interim storage. 

This year the NRC received two letters of intent to file for consolidated energy storage facility, including one in Andrews County, 

Texas, can you outline what the NRC’s current regulation for authorizing an interim storage facility? 

Mr. BURNS. Yes, the regulations that we have in place, particularly that apply to that type of facility, they would be applied. And 

as I indicated in answering an earlier question, we actually have 

gone through a licensing process for a similar-type facility some 

years ago to private fuel storage which did not go into operation. 

So the basic licensing safety framework, if you will, is there. 

Mr. GREEN. Under current regs, I assume a public hearing would 

be required? 

Mr. BURNS. It is not required, but an opportunity would be noticed. 

44 

Mr. GREEN. Would the NRC request funds for fiscal year 2017 

for the review of consolidated interim storage applications? 

Mr. BURNS. It is not in the budget that was submitted, because 

basically when we got the letters of intent, that was after the budget was in the process. What we would do is, I think, we would look 

at our resources and reprioritize within—to the extent it would 

begin in 2017. 

Mr. GREEN. Well—— 

Mr. BURNS. And if we were going on beyond—I mean, part of this 

is a problem of timing, in terms of the development of reviewed 

process of the budget was well underway before we had the applications come in, but within our resources, we would look and—— 

Mr. GREEN. Court decision—in light of the court decision, I would 

hope the NRC would move not only on long term, but also interim 

storage as required in the funding. First, you have to ask for it to 

get it. Although maybe we could do that; but, again, we are not the 

Appropriations Committee. But, Mr. Chairman, I know I am out of 

time, but it is a frustration we haven’t been able to move to either 

interim storage or, obviously, even long-term storage. Thank you. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank my colleague. The Chair recognizes the 

gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. McKinley, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. During the recently 

concluded Iranian nuclear deal, France and Russia both made offers that if the Iranian government would suspend its nuclear enrichment program, that they would provide them with reactor rods, 

reactor fuel, and would process the spent fuel rods. An interesting 

concept. Were you all approached from the NRC, the American side 

that said—also say whether or not that—that was an alternative 

to the Iranians continuing their enrichment program? Were you approached to see whether or not America would join in that? 

Mr. BURNS. No, we were not. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Really? Interesting. Mr. Chairman, you also said 

that you went down to the nuclear facility down in Texas. I guess 

out of the 3,700 employees you have, probably numbers of times, 

are out inspecting nuclear facilities; is that correct? 

Mr. BURNS. I am sorry, I couldn’t hear your question. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. I am assuming of the 3,700 employees or so you 

have or whatever that final number is today, that some of your 

spending time inspecting nuclear facilities; is that correct? 

Mr. BURNS. That is correct. We have resident inspectors. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. So my question is, what if you weren’t able do 

that, would you be comfortable in having the perspective utility 

companies just give you a report, or would you insist on doing an 

inspection yourself? 

Mr. BURNS. No, I think we would be uncomfortable. I think inspection as well as reporting is an important part of oversight. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. I would think so. So should we be uncomfortable 

with this agreement that the Iranians are going to provide us with 

their own inspection of their nuclear facilities and prevent western 

nations or others to come in and do this inspection? Should we be 

uncomfortable with that? 

Mr. BURNS. I think that is something—as the NRC, we are not 

involved in the issues. 

45 

Mr. MCKINLEY. I can hear the music starting and the dance is 

starting. I want to know, you wouldn’t be comfortable with it in 

America, so why should we be comfortable with it in Iran? And I 

think it is pretty simple you set forth. Thank you on that. 

My last question to you is, has to do with this archaic process 

of burying our waste. I am an engineer, a licensed engineer, and 

I have problems with municipal waste, where we are burying it; we 

are burying batteries and motor fuel; we have the issue of carbon 

sequestration, we are burying that into the ground; medical wastes 

are being thrown into the ground; and now we have coal slurry 

that potentially is causing some issues. 

Why are we perpetuating this idea with our spent fuel rods of 

having to program where we are going to bury that way. I know 

France is recycling their material. And everyone says it is very expensive and the French acknowledge that it is, but isn’t that better 

than burying our material and telling our grandchildren its your 

problem to deal with later on? 

Mr. BURNS. The question—President Reagan in the 1980s lifted 

the ban on reprocessing of nuclear waste at the time, but basically 

said it would have to be a commercial enterprise. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Is France wrong? 

Mr. BURNS. I am not saying France is right or wrong, but 

France, in terms of the economy and its structure, is very much different than the United States. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. But if we subsidized our alternative fuel so dramatically, why aren’t we doing that with spent fuel rods instead of 

burying it and allowing the next generation to have to deal with 

it? 

Mr. BURNS. I think that is a policy choice. It can be safely disposed of. There is a possibility of reprocessing, but it, again, that 

is a choice outside the purview of the NRC. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you very much. I yield back my time. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time has expired. The word is retrievable, not buried, just to help out here. 

Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont, Mr. Welch. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you very much. I am delighted to be here 

with the Commission. As you may know, I represent the State of 

Vermont, and this is my opportunity on behalf of the Vermonters 

I represent to talk about a couple of issues related to the decommissioning of Vermont Yankee, an Entergy plant. 

A little bit of background, as I understand it, this is the first 

merchant plant that is going through the decommissioning process. 

It is long, involved, expensive, and, obviously, very consequential to 

Vermont. It is going to cost, by current estimates, $1.42 billion. 

And that is going to take decades to be accomplished. 

But there are two recurring issues that I think it is timely to discuss with you, not just because of the implications they have for 

Vermont, but for this process going forward of decommissioning 

plants. It is new and you are going to have to make some critical 

decisions. 

The two issues that have emerged in Vermont are one, public 

participation and how extensive will that be or how limited will it 

be. 

46 

And then second, are the decisions that your Commission must 

make about the use of the decommissioning fund. There is an inherent conflict, to some extent, between the merchant generator, in 

this case, Entergy, which want to put as many costs on that as possible, and the community that wants strict limitations related to 

managing the radioactive contamination situation. 

Just a couple of things, and on the question of local community 

involvement, the nuclear industry is involved through the NEI, as 

you know. And recently, the Commission had a teleconference that 

lasted several hours, about 2 1⁄2 hours were devoted to hearing from 

NEI, which was essentially Entergy, and only 20 minutes for the 

Vermont Public Service Department. We have got a Governor who 

is very engaged from our public service department, very engaged. 

And, of course, this community in southern Vermont, it is critical 

what is going to happen. 

So the question I have for you, I want to finish with my statement here, is how extensive are you going to allow legitimate public representatives to have a seat at the table? Right now, it appears to be almost limited to the public comment period, and I am 

sure you read the comments and take those into account, but when 

there is actual discussion having our attorney general, or public 

service department that is appointed by our Governor, and certainty community representatives from the southern Vermont area, 

is really consequential to considering the decision—getting evidence for the decisions you are going to make. 

Second, the decommissioning fund, how is that Trust Fund going 

to be used? Among the positions advocated by Entergy was to allow 

for spent fuel management and to store this in dry caps. They are 

also asking for attorney fees to be paid, membership dues at NEI. 

And our view is that this should be strictly tied to the purposes 

that are allowed by the statute. 

So the two things, as I mentioned, that we are really seeking in 

Vermont is one, a seat at the table for legitimate representatives 

of the community and the State through the public service department. And number two, strict monitoring and limited uses of that 

decommissioning fund itself. 

And then, finally, this whole question of SAFESTOR, which will 

have a 59-year lifespan minimum, means that site restoration is 

going to be postponed literally for generations, and there is a real 

big question as to whether or not we should try to proceed with decommissioning sooner rather than later, in 5 years rather than 60 

years. 

So that is my opportunity to speak to you on something that is 

an enormous concern to our Governor down to the select boards in 

the region of southern Vermont where Entergy is exposed. 

So, Mr. Commissioner, I will start with you. Thank you all for 

your service. What can you tell me that I can tell my Governor and 

my select boards about their ability to have a seat at the table in 

an ongoing way as this decommissioning unfolds? 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And you have 5 seconds to do that. No, no, no. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you. 

Mr. BURNS. Thank you for the question. What the NRC tries to 

do is ensure through part of its oversight program that there are 

opportunities for public engagement, public information and the 

47 

like. There are, for example, I believe the attorney general has 

sought to intervene or raise contention in proceedings, one of our 

proceedings, I think, actually related to some of the decommissioning funding issues. So that is a more formal opportunity to participate, and that is a real opportunity to the extent there are 

issues that are within the scope of the particular action under consideration, the amendment, license or the like. Those are, I think, 

real opportunities to participate. 

With respect to SAFESTOR, our regulations allow for different 

options on for decommissioning, and that includes SAFESTOR, 

which is a longer period, in effect, into, if you will, stabilization of 

the facility until ultimate decommissioning occurs. 

From the NRC standpoint and the safety standpoint, we believe 

that that is a safe and legitimate way to go. Whether other means, 

for example, more immediate decommissioning, occurs is probably 

more a matter of the dialogue between the State and the company 

itself, because we have found that SAFESTORs is legitimate. 

Mr. WELCH. Well, legitimate, but you understand there is a huge 

price that the community pays for that. You basically have this 

very important facility and location, in this case, along the banks 

of the Connecticut River, that essentially cannot be used or developed, and there is an enormous economic impact on the community 

when it loses the jobs that is associated with a nuclear plant; that 

is something they will have to contend with. 

And the aspect of your answer that is of some concern to me, is 

yes, you come to the conclusion that that is safe, but the question 

I am asking is, Are there other safe ways to do this that don’t impose such an ongoing burden on the community where they can’t 

use this resource and redevelop it? 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time is close—I mean, way over, 

but if the Chairman would respond. 

Mr. BURNS. Essentially, the options are primarily SAFESTOR or 

going to a more immediate decommissioning and—— 

Mr. WELCH. Right. 

Mr. BURNS. But again, the NRC, because it has found either of 

those options to be a safe option, we don’t compel one versus the 

other. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The Chair—— 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The reason I 

do—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. No. It is very important to you, I know. 

Mr. WELCH. This is going to face all of us who have any kind of 

nuclear facility, and having a legitimate way for the community to 

be heard through their Representatives, I think, is absolutely essential to the decommissioning process. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes. 

Mr. BARAN. Mr. Chairman, could I take just 10 seconds to add 

one more thing? 

Mr. SHIMKUS. If you take 10 seconds. I got my colleagues who 

have been waiting patiently. 

Mr. BARAN. I just want to make sure that Mr. Welch knows we 

now have initiated a rulemaking to take a fresh look at a number 

of these issues, including what is the appropriate role for State and 

local governments and the public, when—is the current level public 

48 

participation adequate; and also, looking at this question of right 

now there are these three options generally for decommissioning, 

including SAFSTOR. Is that appropriate or is that something we 

should reconsider? We are going to have an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, looking at those and other decommissioning 

issues. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Flores, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Do I get 8 1⁄2 minutes too? 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Maybe 9 if you are nice. 

Mr. FLORES. I am just teasing. 

I want to thank the Commissioners for joining us today. I have 

got a slide I would like to have up on the screen if we could, please. 

While the slide is coming up, I wanted to talk about macro 

issues, and this is the overall size and efficiency of the NRC. Look, 

I am a pro-nuclear person. I think it is the ultimate green fuel. It 

is the path forward for a low-carbon future, particularly when it 

comes to the generation of baseload electric power. But I have been 

somewhat concerned about the expansive growth of the NRC to fit 

what we thought was going to be a growth in nuclear generated 

electrical facilities, but it hasn’t materialized. But nonetheless, the 

agency continued to grow. Hopefully this graphic will make it up 

pretty quickly. 

And so the growth that materialized because of market conditions, natural gas got very competitive in terms of generation capability, and there was some change in the regulatory environment 

that I think had an impact. 

[Chart follows.] 

49 

50 

Mr. FLORES. If you look at this chart, you will see that the number of reactors and the number of licensing actions in 2005 is about 

1,600, different metrics that the agency, the Commission, was dealing with. Today there are, you said, 99. In 2016, I think there is 

going to be another one coming online. So you will have 100. And 

then we are down to 900 licensing actions. 

So the total drop in activity for the NRC is around 38 percent 

on a weighted average basis. But, the head count has grown by 21 

percent over that time period. And the budget has grown by a 

whopping 54 percent. So, I mean, this squarely fits with what 

Reagan used to talk about when he talked about how the only 

thing that continues to—that have eternal life and to continue 

growing is a Federal agency. 

So my questions are this, and also some of the things I saw when 

you provided the document that is called the NRC Fiscal Year 2016 

High-Level Impacts in Further Reduction, the Commission talked 

about these dire things that would happen for just a 3 percent cut 

in its budget, or 4- or 5 percent cut in its budget, and I was surprised. Was this document approved by the full Commission before 

it was sent to this committee? Chairman Burns, we will start with 

you. 

Mr. BURNS. The document—again, I am sorry—— 

Mr. FLORES. The document was entitled ‘‘NRC FY 2016 HighLevel Impacts in Further Reduction.’’ And what it says, it purports 

to describe anticipated reductions in NRC activities with staffing at 

various levels of funding reductions. For example, the document 

claims that a reduction of $30 million, or just 3 percent of the 

NRC’s current budget, and a reduction of 140 full-time equivalents, 

which, again, has grown by 21 percent over the last 10 years, 

would result in a long list of severe impacts, including a reductions 

by 25 percent in NRC investigations of alleged criminal wrongdoing 

and termination of the program to supply potassium iodide tablets. 

So are you familiar with that document? 

Mr. BURNS. Yes. And I think we provide—we developed that document, or staff developed that document, to give a picture of the 

impacts of budget levels at different levels. 

And, again, I think what—as we have tried to discuss here this 

morning through Project AIM, through our processes of planning 

and forecasting out, we are trying—we are taking steps to be more 

efficient. We see a longer term, a smaller NRC, that talks about 

3,754 FTE. The Commission has put as a control point at the end 

of 2016, to be at 3,600 employees. 

Mr. FLORES. Correct. 

Mr. BURNS. So those—I think those are responsible, again, responsible steps. What I want to say, too, is we are looking at that 

in terms of, I think the priority of some of the work we need to get 

done. And some of that is working off, for example, licensing 

backload. And I think our staff has gone a great job doing that. So 

I think we are trying and taking the steps to be a responsible regulator recognizing the changed environment we are in, and we recognize we are going to be smaller in the long term. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. Well, I mean. OK. Well, let me give you one example that says ‘‘The new reactor’s office is budgeted to review 14 

applications, and is likely to have nine at most.’’ And so it looks 

51 

like that the Commission is over budgeted in just that one area by 

$30 million for work that really won’t happen in 2016. So that is 

money that could be used somewhere else to help catch up and not 

cause all the dire consequences for a 3 percent cut in the budget. 

I have other questions, but I will submit those for the record in 

the interest of time. Again, I thank you for being here. Look, I 

want to reiterate. I am a pro-nuclear person, but we can’t have this 

kind of unregulated growth when the market is saying: Hey, we 

are not there anymore. So thank you. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I want to thank my colleague, and appreciate his 

focus. 

I would now like to turn to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson. But before I do so, he spent his summer being an Undercover 

Boss. So I hope the NRC will not allow him to be an undercover 

boss in a nuclear control room. 

Mr. JOHNSON. That was on my list. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes. I hope not. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I wouldn’t want to be. I wouldn’t want to be. Trust 

me. 

Well, thank you folks for being with us today. Very, very important things we are discussing. 

You know, on August 27 of this year, the Commission released 

the voting record on mitigating strategies for severe accident scenarios. A majority of the Commission voted to exclude Severe Accident Management Guidelines, or SAMG, S–A-M–G, from NRC requirements primarily because SAMGs are not necessary for adequate protection and converting these voluntary industry efforts to 

a mandatory requirement supported by the kind of quantitative 

cost-benefit analysis mandated by the back-fit rule. 

Commissioner Ostendorff, in your vote on mitigation strategies, 

you expressed surprise that the staff decided to include new reactor 

design requirements as part of their proposal. Your vote explained 

that, and I quote, ‘‘This provision should have been raised to the 

Commission as a separate matter in advance of the draft proposed 

rulemaking package,’’ unquote. There were also significant concerns with the staff’s reliance on various qualitative factors. 

So here is the question: Is there a tendency within the staff 

ranks to, perhaps, engage in mission creep, to take on activities or 

make proposals that are beyond the scope of the task that the 

Commission has assigned the staff? And how does the Commission 

guard against that tendency? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Thank you for the question. I personally believed in the context of this vote that the staff proposal to the Commission for a new reactor piece was outside the scope of what the 

Commission had previously directed. I would say that that is not 

a routine occurrence. It has happened just on a rare occasion, but, 

in this case, I disagree with what the staff did and I—I don’t want 

to say I called them out on the vote, but I said I did not agree with 

how the staff approached it in this vote. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. So this is not a—this is not a routine type occurrence by the staff. I would say it is rarely done. At the same 

time, we also want to foster an atmosphere at the NRC where the 

52 

staff feels free to raise their best ideas, recognizing at the end of 

the day the Commission will make a decision. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Sure. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. That is what we did. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I get that. I get that, that this may have been an 

outlier. But what is the proper role of the Commission in overseeing and directed the work of the NRC staff? Do you think this 

kind of thing could be prevented? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. In this particular case, and, again, I think it 

is a little bit of an anomaly, Congressman, the Commission provides direction via what we call staff requirements memorandum 

that represent a majority view of the Commission that provides 

written direction to the staff. I think that process works very, very 

well. And I would say, by and large, our staff has been very diligent in complying with the staff requirement memorandums from 

the Commission. From time to time, there may be a difference of 

opinion. We don’t want to squelch these other ideas, recognizing at 

the end of the day, the decision rests with the four of us at this 

table. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. The NRC folks has a long list of rulemakings 

in various stages of development. Will the Commission review all 

ongoing activities to prioritize and eliminate rulemakings with no 

safety-significant benefit as a part of the Project AIM baselining? 

Any of you? 

Mr. BURNS. We look at the rulemaking, and in terms of our development process, but one of the—I think we will be looking at in 

terms of the re-baselining, and there is also what we call an add/ 

shed process. You know, if you are going to add new things in, 

what—how it helps in terms of priorities. So we will be looking at 

that, I think, as part of that process. What we are getting from the 

staff is a proposal for how to do the re-baselining and which 

would—the Commission will act on. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. A 2014 Government Accountability Office report found the NRC had an average annual attrition rate of 5.4 

percent between 2004 and 2012. This equates to nearly 200 NRC 

staff leaving the organization each year. However, Project AIM has 

a target of 3,600 staff for fiscal year 2016, a reduction of less than 

100 from current staffing levels, and has suggested that only a 

slow and modest workforce reduction is achievable. So how is the 

Commission encouraging NRC staff to provide ambitious and 

achievable recommendations? 

Mr. BURNS. With respect to attrition, it is not always where you 

want it or necessarily want it to be. For example, if you have in 

one area—you know, one of our, I think, challenges is in the administrative area, but not all those who decide to go to another job 

or retire go that way. So what we are trying to do is smartly focus 

that. We are looking at early outs and buy-outs using those authorities in consultation with the Office of Personnel Management. 

But, again, the Commission set this sort of a target point at 3,600 

for the end of fiscal year 2016. And, again, we hope we smartly can 

do that. 

Part of it is, too, is when you get some of that attrition, for example, if you have resident inspectors or inspectors attrited, those are 

things you want to replace to keep, you know, the key oversight asVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:17 Jan 04, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X71NRCOVERSIGHTSENDEMAIL010416\114X71NRCOVERSIGH
53 

pects available. So it is not as easy sometimes as just the pure drift 

down from the 5 or 5.4 percent. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. All right. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 

Kinzinger, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you 

all for being here and the service that you do. Really appreciate it. 

You know, given that efficiency is one of the NRC’s core values 

regarding the principles of good regulation on its Web site, one of 

which states that the American taxpayer, the rate-paying consumer, and license fees are all entitled to the best possible management and administration of regulatory activities. I have a few questions regarding the budget and rulemaking process at the Commission as things currently stand. 

As a fee-based agency, your Commission is statutorily required 

to recover 90 percent of your budget through the annual collection 

of fees from licensees. And referring back to the value of efficiency 

as one of the NRC’s principles of good regulation, it is pretty obvious that the need for an established credible process for developing 

a budget based on workload projections is necessary to determine 

responsible fee assessments. Unfortunately, the lack of an effective 

budget development process has long been an issue. In 2013, the 

NRC Inspector General found that the Commission had an incomplete implementation of planning, budgeting, and performance 

management process, and noted that the budget formulation and 

execution process are not actually aligned. 

Today, the lack of an effective budget development process is 

something that is still outstanding, which is why I raise this issue 

of particular concern through a letter to the GAO. In that letter is 

a request for the GAO to study and make recommendations on how 

best to improve the budget process for the NRC. 

Mr. Chairman, what is the status of the Commission’s implementation of a new budget process? 

Mr. BURNS. I believe a revised management directive, if it has 

not been issued, is pending. And I think it was created to address 

that aspect of—— 

Mr. KINZINGER. So it is done? It is fixed? 

Mr. BURNS. I need to just consult with our CFO just to confirm, 

but I believe that was a process underway. Whether that revised 

management directive has been issued, I am just not sure. Be 

happy to provide that—— 

Mr. KINZINGER. Any other—go ahead. 

Ms. SVINICKI. Under standing Commission direction, the revision 

to this budget process will have to be a vote of our Commission. 

Although I believe the chairman is probably reflecting the fact that 

the staff has prepared something for our consideration, it has not 

been submitted to us yet. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. I would just say, Congressman, that we agree 

that there are some areas of needed improvement in the budget 

process. Maureen Wylie is our new chief financial officer who was 

brought into the agency from elsewhere in the Federal Government. We are very confident, under her leadership, we will be able 

to move forward and make these improvements. 

54 

Mr. KINZINGER. So you all think by 2017 this is going to be the 

case? We are going to be in good shape on the budget process? 

Mr. BURNS. I couldn’t—— 

Mr. KINZINGER. By 2017 we are going to be good? Hopefully? 

Mr. BURNS. I think we will be. 

Mr. KINZINGER. OK. Good. 

Mr. BURNS. I am confident. 

Mr. KINZINGER. I like to hear that. The NRC last updated its 

management directive governing the long-range planning budget 

formulation and resource management in 1989. Since that time, 

the organization has seen significant changes, both internally and 

with industry. NRC’s inability to update this directive resulted in 

an inefficient process that complicates the overall effectiveness of 

the organization. Do you have any idea when the Commission will 

finalize updating its management directive? 

Mr. BURNS. This is the one I was referring to, and Commissioner 

Svinicki reminded me, too, needs to come to the Commission. 

Again, the timing—we expect by the end of the year. That would 

be the objective, by the end of the year. 

Mr. KINZINGER. OK. And so I guess more generally, how can the 

Commission ensure that it is responsible to the—or responsive to 

the changing environment of the nuclear regulatory industry? 

Mr. BURNS. Well, I would let others speak as well, but I think 

part of it is us listening, engaging with industry, other stakeholders. Some of what I think we have described here today in 

terms of thinking in the future in terms of are we going to get new 

types of applications, being open and hearing what people are 

thinking, what is on the minds of the industry. I think being responsive in things like the cumulative effects of regulation, that is, 

again, a way of us, I think, getting better doing our work in a more 

effective way and still focusing on what, at the end of the day, is 

our core mission: safety and security. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Good. Well, I appreciate, again, all your work. I 

have four nuclear power plants in my district. So this is very important to ensure that, you know, these are successful. They provide a lot of power for Illinois, lot of power for my district, and 

good-paying jobs. So we appreciate the security and safety, but we 

also appreciate you doing it without unnecessary burden on these 

fantastic power plants. So with that, I will yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. And one of 

the questions I was going to ask, but I am not, I am just going to 

make a statement, is that when plants get decommissioned, if we 

don’t look at adjusting the rate to pay for the process, the burden 

can get so high then you may have unintended consequences. So 

that is part of the budgetary questions I think my colleagues were 

trying to point to. 

But I want to thank you, right off of our break to be able to be 

in here, sit through two subcommittees for as long as you have. We 

appreciate the work you do. We appreciate the responses you provide to us, and also the work you do for this country. 

I want to remind you all that the hearing record will remain 

open for 10 business days. You may receive additional questions 

submitted for the record. We would ask you respond to any of those 

questions in 10 business days. 

55 

And with that, seeing no other members, I will call this hearing 

adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:09 p.m., the subcommittees were adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

Today we continue our oversight of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and 

thank the Commissioners for joining us today. I would especially like to welcome 

Chairman Burns and Commissioner Baran on their first appearance with us since 

being confirmed a year ago. 

Clean, safe nuclear energy is, and will continue to be, a vital component of our 

diverse energy portfolio. Currently, 99 operating nuclear power plants generate approximately 20 percent of the electricity we consume. In 2016, the first new nuclear 

power plant in a generation is expected to begin operations in Tennessee, while four 

more reactors continue to make significant construction progress in Georgia and 

South Carolina. 

Just last week I visited the Cook Plant with my friend and former colleague, West 

Virginia Senator Shelley Moore Capito. Cook is one of the two nuclear power sites 

along the shoreline of Lake Michigan in my district. During our tour, we saw firsthand the safety and emergency preparedness upgrades that have taken place over 

the last 4 years as a result of the Commission’s response to the Fukushima accident 

in Japan. NRC’s ‘‘lessons learned’’ process was a beneficial reexamination of the 

United States’ nuclear fleet and identified improvements in safety and performance. 

While the Commission resolves the remaining safety significant post-Fukushima 

priorities, I encourage the NRC to next address issues and take action to increase 

the efficiency of the organization. Like all Government agencies, the NRC has a responsibility to be a good steward of taxpayer resources, be responsive in a transparent and timely manner to its licensees, and adhere to its organizational principles to execute its mission. An NRC well positioned for the 21st century will help 

ensure nuclear continues to help power the United States for generations to come. 

56 

[Mr. Burns’ response to submitted questions for the record has 

been retained in committee files and also is available at http:// 

docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/20150909/103923/HMTG-114- 

IF18-Wstate-BurnsS-20150909-SD057.pdf.] 

Æ