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

94–992 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 114–34 

OVERSIGHT HEARING: THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL 

YEAR 2016 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 15, 2015 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RYAN JACKSON, Majority Staff Director 

BETTINA POIRIER, Democratic Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

APRIL 15, 2015 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

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

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 242 

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

statement .............................................................................................................. 242 

WITNESSES 

Burns, Stephen G., Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission ........................ 8 

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

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 23 

Response to an additional question from Senator Capito............................ 76, 106 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Fischer ......................................................................................... 77 

Senator Gillibrand ..................................................................................... 88 

Response to an additional question from Senator Sessions .......................... 93 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 104 

Senator Sanders ........................................................................................ 107 

Svinicki, Kristine L., Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission .............. 114 

Response to an additional question from Senator Capito ............................. 115 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Sanders ............................. 116 

Ostendorff, William C., Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission .......... 121 

Response to an additional question from Senator Capito ............................. 122 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Sanders ............................. 123 

Baran, Jeff, Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission ............................. 137 

Response to an additional question from Senator Capito ............................. 138 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Sanders ............................. 139 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING: THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2016 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15, 2015 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. James Inhofe (chairman of the 

committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Inhofe, Boxer, Barrasso, Capito, Crapo, Fischer, Sullivan, Carper, Gillibrand, and Markey. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. The meeting will come to order. 

We are holding this hearing to review the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2016. 

I would like to welcome Chairman Burns and the rest of you we 

have worked with in the past. It is nice to have you back. We are 

going to start getting active here. 

We will continue with the committee’s practice of 5-minute opening statements from Chairman Burns and 2 minutes for each of the 

others. Then we will start our questions. It looks like we will have 

pretty good attendance. 

The NRC’s mission is a vital one and must be adequately funded. 

I want our nuclear plants to be safe and they are safe, in spite of 

some of the things you might hear to the contrary. 

However, resources are not unlimited. As the size of our nuclear 

industry shrinks, the NRC must recognize that it can accomplish 

its mission with fewer resources. In fact, it has done so in the past. 

I conducted my first oversight hearing as Chairman of the Nuclear Safety Subcommittee in 1998. In 1998, this Commission had 

gone 4 years without any oversight. We changed that and started 

having 6-month reports. You are all very familiar with that. We go 

back a long ways on this. 

In my opening statement, I am going to mention some things 

that no one is going to understand what I am saying except you 

at the table. You are very familiar with that and if you pay attention, I have a little challenge afterwards. 

In 1997, we had 104 reactors operating in the U.S. and the NRC 

executed its safety mission with a budget of $477 million and 3,000 

employees. Since then, we experienced the tragedy of September 
2 

11th and NRC expanded its efforts on security. A few years later, 

our Country seemed poised to experience a nuclear renaissance, 

which we were all very excited about, at least I was, and the NRC 

expanded to review a surge of applications for 31 new reactors. 

Ten years ago, the NRC had a budget of $669 million and 3,108 

employees to oversee 104 reactors and review 1,500 licensing actions. For fiscal year 2016, the NRC is requesting a budget of 

$1.032 billion and 3,754 employees to oversee 100 reactors and review 900 licensing actions. 

After an increase of $363 million and 646 employees, the NRC 

is struggling with a backlog to review 40 percent fewer licensing 

actions. In 2005, the NRC reviewed 16 license renewal applications. In 2016, it plans to review nine. 

In 2005, the NRC budgeted $69 million for preparing to review 

the Yucca Mountain application. We all remember that. For fiscal 

year 2016, the NRC has not requested any funding. In 2005, the 

NRC oversaw 4,400 nuclear materials licensees versus only 2,000 

in 2016. 

What we have seen over time is an agency that has grown in 

spite of a decreasing workload and now, unfortunately, a shrinking 

industry, something we hope to reverse and turn around. 

These numbers tell us that the NRC has, in the past, accomplished more work with fewer resources. Last year, the Commission recognized the need to ‘‘right-size’’ the agency and instituted 

Project Aim 2020. Project Aim’s recommendations include reducing 

the NRC’s budget, and staffing levels 10 percent by 2020. 

It is a nice start, but the NRC has performed far more efficiently 

in the past. I have seen the NRC accomplish more with less so I 

know it can do better. I do not think there is any reason to delay 

making changes to the agency’s size and numbers until 2020. Certainly, the 2016 budget heads in the wrong direction. 

Ninety percent of the NRC’s budget is collected by fees recovered 

from its licensees. A lot of times that is used, saying these are not 

public dollars but it is the hardworking families who ultimately 

pay these costs in their electricity bills. They deserve prompt action 

to address the imbalances between your declining workload and the 

budget you have requested. 

It is incumbent upon the NRC to ensure that these funds are 

used prudently and focused on achieving genuine safety benefits. I 

will have some specific questions to ask you along that line. 

Senator Boxer. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

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

FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

We are holding this hearing to review the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2016. I’d like to begin by welcoming the commissioners 

and Mr. Burns who is testifying before us for the first time in his new role as chairman. 

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

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

The NRC’s mission is a vital one and must be adequately funded. I want our nuclear plants to be safe and they are safe. 

However, resources are not unlimited. As the size of our nuclear industry shrinks, 

the NRC must recognize that it can accomplish its mission with fewer resources. 

In fact, it has done so in the past. 
3 

When I conducted my first oversight hearing as chair of the nuclear safety subcommittee in 1998, over 4 years had passed since the Committee had last conducted 

an oversight hearing with the NRC. 

In 1997, we had 104 reactors operating in the U.S. and the NRC executed its safety mission with a budget of $477 million and 3,000 employees. 

Since then, we experienced the tragedy of September 11th and NRC expanded its 

efforts on security. A few years later, our country seemed poised to experience a nuclear renaissance and the NRC expanded to review a surge of applications for 31 

new reactors. 

Ten years ago, the NRC had a budget of $669 million and 3,108 employees to 

oversee 104 reactors and review 1,500 licensing actions. 

For fiscal year 2016, the NRC is requesting a budget of $1.032 billion and 3,754 

employees to oversee 100 reactors and review 900 licensing actions. 

After an increase of $363 million and 646 employees, the NRC is struggling with 

a backlog to review 40 percent fewer licensing actions. 

In 2005, the NRC reviewed 16 license renewal applications. In 2016, it plans to 

review nine. 

In 2005, the NRC budgeted $69 million for preparing to review the Yucca Mountain application. For fiscal year 2016, the NRC hasn’t requested any funding. 

In 2005, the NRC oversaw 4,400 nuclear materials licensees versus only 2,000 in 

2016. 

What we have seen over time is an agency that has grown in spite of a decreasing 

workload and now, unfortunately, a shrinking industry. 

What these numbers tell us is that the NRC has, in the past, accomplished more 

work with fewer resources. 

Last year, the Commission recognized the need to ‘‘right-size’’ the agency and instituted Project Aim 2020. Project Aim’s recommendations include reducing the 

NRC’s budget and staffing levels 10 percent by 2020. 

It is a nice start, but the NRC has performed far more efficiently in the past. I’ve 

seen the NRC accomplish more with less so I know it can do better. 

I don’t think there’s any reason to delay making changes to the agency’s size and 

numbers until 2020. Certainly, the 2016 budget heads in the wrong direction. 

Ninety percent of the NRC’s budget is collected by fees recovered from its licensees. However, it is hardworking families who ultimately pay these costs in their 

electricity bills. They deserve prompt action to address the imbalances between your 

declining workload and the budget you have requested. 

It is incumbent upon the NRC to ensure that these funds are used prudently and 

focused on achieving genuine safety benefits. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

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

I welcome everyone. 

Today, EPW is holding a hearing on the budget request for the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission and also oversight and some management issues. 

When I was chairman, we held 11 oversight hearings which were 

very important and informative, although I do not think they led 

to the action that we really have needed post-Fukushima which I 

will talk about. I do believe, as a result of those oversight hearings, 

this Commission has a new face. I am grateful for that. 

Among the management issues I wish to explore today are the 

slow pace at which the NRC is implementing measures intended to 

protect American nuclear plants in the wake of the earthquake, 

tsunami, and nuclear meltdowns in Japan in March 2011. The reason I think it is so critical is I believe if you want a future for nuclear power, you have to have confidence or people are not going 

to allow it. I see this happening in my State because people are 

very worried. I will get to that in a minute. 

I want to know today, you have not done really anything since 

Fukushima as far as I can tell. We do not really see any of the rec-
4 

ommendations that came out being completely taken care of. I believe there were 12, were there not? 

Senator INHOFE. I think we have 35. 

Senator BOXER. Here are the ones, 12, that I am talking about. 

Maybe there were 35 but the top 12 here—no, no, no, nothing has 

been done. I want to know today is it because you do not have 

enough money, you do not have agreement or what is the story 

there? I am going to ask you that question. 

Let me talk about what has happened in Japan. Here are the 

facts. Tens of thousands of refugees still remain barred from their 

former homes. There remains no solution for how to dispose of the 

massive volumes of radioactive waste accumulating at the plant. 

Recently, the chief of the Fukushima power plant admitted that 

the decommissioning process could take—listen to this, Mr. Chairman—200 years and they had no idea what the conditions were inside the reactors because they are still too radioactive to examine. 

The technology needed to do the job does not even exist. 

Just yesterday, a court in Japan sided with residents concerned 

about seismic safety when it prevented the restart of two Japanese 

reactors that have been shut down since the Fukushima disaster. 

I believe the only way the nuclear industry can remain a vibrant 

part of our energy mix is if it has the confidence of the public. I 

said that at the opening of my statement and I want to say it 

again. 

We have to learn from Fukushima and do everything we can to 

avoid having something similar happen here. The sad reality, 

again, is that not one of these 12 safety recommendations made by 

your own task force has been implemented. 

Some reactor operators are still not in compliance with the safety 

requirements that were in place before Fukushima. The NRC has 

only completed its own action on four of the 12 recommendations. 

You have completed your own action but the industry has not completed any. 

I remain concerned that you are not living up to your mission 

which is ‘‘to ensure the safe use of radioactive materials for beneficial civilian purposes while protecting people and the environment.’’ That is your charge. 

If we look at California’s Diablo Canyon Power Plant to see that 

the NRC has failed to live up to its mission. I would like to place 

in the record a news article that appeared in the San Francisco 

Chronicle on March 7, 2015, entitled: ‘‘PG&E Overlooked Key Seismic Test at Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant.’’ 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

[The San Francisco Chronicle, March 12, 2015] 

PG&E OVERLOOKED KEY SEISMIC TEST AT DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR PLANT

(By David R. Baker) 

Pacific Gas and Electric Co. replaced $842 million of equipment at the heart of 

the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant without first making sure the new gear could pass 

a vital seismic safety test required in the facility’s license, The Chronicle has 

learned. 

Starting in 2008, PG&E swapped out the plant’s old steam generators and reactor 

vessel heads without evaluating whether the replacements could withstand a major 
5 

earthquake on the Hosgri Fault—just 3 miles away—and a simultaneous loss of 

cooling water within the reactors. Instead, PG&E evaluated each scenario—the 

earthquake and the loss of coolant—separately, even though Diablo’s license requires that the two be considered together. A severe quake, after all, could rupture 

pipes connected to the reactor vessels and cause the water to drain, potentially leading to a meltdown. 

PG&E spotted the mistake in 2011, a year after the last replacement equipment 

was installed at Diablo Canyon, perched on a seaside cliff near San Luis Obispo. 

The utility insists that its own analysis, performed after the company found the 

mistake, shows the new equipment would survive an earthquake and loss of coolant 

after all. 

‘‘Engineering and seismic experts performed a subsequent evaluation and confirmed there is sufficient margin in the components’ design to withstand a very rare 

event of a combined earthquake on the Hosgri Fault and a loss of coolant accident,’’ 

said PG&E spokesman Blair Jones. He called the possibility of such an event ‘‘infinitesimally small.’’ 

That doesn’t comfort Diablo Canyon’s critics, who have often accused PG&E of 

overstating the plant’s strength and underestimating the seismic threats it faces. 

Earthquake safety has been a concern at the plant ever since the Hosgri Fault was 

discovered in 1971, 3 years after construction at Diablo began. Another fault that 

passes within 2,000 feet of the reactors, the Shoreline Fault, was found in 2008, 

after the plant had been operating for two decades. 

‘‘SAME MISTAKE’’ IN JAPAN

‘‘I’m frightened that they’re making almost the exact same mistake we saw at 

Fukushima,’’ said Daniel Hirsch. a lecturer in nuclear policy at UC Santa Cruz. 

The 2011 meltdown of three reactors at Japan’s Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant 

happened after an earthquake triggered a tsunami that swamped the plant, 

knocked out its power systems and led to a loss of coolant. The crippled plant still 

leaks radiation into the sea. 

‘‘There was a too-cozy relationship between the nuclear industry and regulators 

in Japan, and that led to the fiction that it was very unlikely that you’d have an 

earthquake and a tsunami and a loss-of-coolant accident at the same time,’’ said 

Hirsch, who also serves as president of Committee to Bridge the Gap, a grassroots 

nuclear safety group. 

The error comes to light as environmentalists, who tried to block Diablo’s opening 

decades ago, are pushing hard to close the facility. 

California’s only other nuclear plant, the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, 

shut down in 2013 after a small leak of radioactive steam revealed serious problems 

with the station’s own replacement steam generators, which had a different design 

than the original equipment. That doesn’t appear to be an issue with Diablo Canyon, whose new steam generators feature the same basic design as their predecessors. But San Onofre’s closure emboldened antinuclear activists. 

‘‘If key safety equipment has been installed using the wrong data, (Diablo Canyon) needs to be shut down, and we need a public, transparent investigation into 

the adequacy of the license and the safety of this plant,’’ said Damon Moglen. senior 

adviser to the Friends of the Earth environmental group. 

CRITICS BLAST REGULATORS

The plant’s government regulators are a big part of the problem, critics allege. 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which oversees the nation’s nuclear 

plants, should have caught PG&E’s mistake before the new steam generators and 

vessel heads were installed, they say. Instead, the commission learned about the 

error from PG&E, reviewed the company’s after-the-fact seismic assessment and 

agreed that the plant was safe. No fines or violation notices were issued. 

Meanwhile, the California Public Utilities Commission, which gave PG&E permission to spend its customers’ money on the replacement equipment, didn’t know 

about the missed seismic test until told about it by a Chronicle reporter, a PUC 

spokesman confirmed. And since the Nuclear Regulatory Commission—not the 

state—is supposed to regulate nuclear plant safety, knowledge of the error would 

not have affected the PUC’s decision, said spokesman Christopher Chow. 

‘‘This matter is within the jurisdiction of the NRC and not the CPUC,’’ he said. 

Friends of the Earth last year filed a lawsuit claiming the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission illegally allowed PG&E to amend the seismic safety portion of its license without public hearings. The move came after one of the commission’s own 

former inspectors at Diablo Canyon argued that the plant was no longer operating 

within the terms of its license and should be shut down until PG&E demonstrated 
6 

it could withstand earthquakes from several recently discovered fault lines, including the Shoreline. The commission rejected that idea. 

‘‘This is a regulator who’s not prepared to regulate and didn’t come down on a 

key safety issue,’’ Moglen said. ‘‘It’s a regulator who’s looking the other way.’’ 

Earthquake fears have dogged Diablo Canyon throughout its history. 

PG&E decided to locate a nuclear facility on the Central Coast after excavation 

for another proposed plant—at Bodega Bay, in Sonoma County—uncovered a fault 

line running through the site. When federal authorities approved construction of 

Diablo Canyon’s first reactor, in 1968, the company said there were no active faults 

within 30 kilometers, or 18.6 miles, according to Hirsch. 

Then oil company geologists reported finding the Hosgri, just offshore. The U.S. 

Geological Service estimated the fault could produce a magnitude 7.5 earthquake. 

It was just the first of several faults to be found in the nearby hills and seabed. 

‘‘With every study, we’re finding that the seismic threat is larger than previously 

understood,’’ said former State Sen, and Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee. who has a 

degree in geophysics and pushed for more earthquake studies at Diablo Canyon 

while in office. ‘‘It’s remarkable that the facility was put here at all.’’ 

FAULT DISCOVERED

Hosgri’s discovery in 1971 hardened public opposition to the plant and turned 

Diablo into a rallying point for America’s nascent environmental movement. It also 

prompted regulators to require seismic retrofits to the plant before it could open. 

The work didn’t go well. In 1981, PG&E discovered that some of the new seismic 

support structures had been built backward, in a mirror image of the way they were 

supposed to be. 

Diablo Canyon finally opened in 1985. Its cost had spiraled from roughly $320 

million to $5.8 billion. 

Despite the price, California came to rely on Diablo Canyon. In 2011, for example, 

the plant’s twin reactors supplied about 7 percent of the state’s electricity, all without pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. State officials worried about climate change saw it as a major asset. 

The new steam generators were designed to keep that asset running smoothly. 

The generators convert heat from the reactors into steam that turns turbines to 

produce electricity. And over time, they wear out. Without replacements, PG&E told 

the state’s utilities commission in 2005, the entire plant would have to close by 

2014. The generators were replaced in 2008 and 2009 for roughly $700 million, a 

cost passed on to PG&E’s customers. 

The vessel heads—which cap each reactor and keep radiation from escaping— 

were replaced in 2010 and cost $142 million. 

That same year, PG&E began an internal effort to examine all the plant’s systems 

and ensure that the right safety analyses had been performed for each. Owners of 

other nuclear plants built during the same era as Diablo Canyon had already performed similar evaluations, some of them as far back as the 1990s. PG&E’s effort, 

called the License Basis Verification Program, turned up the missed seismic test for 

new steam generators and vessel heads in May 2011. 

The utility told the Nuclear Regulatory Commission about the mistake. PG&E 

conducted an assessment of the gear, all of it installed and in operation for several 

years at this point, and concluded it would meet the plant’s seismic safety requirements. 

NRC OKS ASSESSMENT

That satisfied the commission. Although PG&E is still finishing a final safety 

analysis for the equipment, the commission has reviewed PG&E’s work and has 

raised no issues with it, said commission spokeswoman Lara Uselding. Nor has 

PG&E reported finding the same kind of mistake with any other equipment at the 

plant so far, she said. 

The mistake remained out of public view, however, until last fall, when California 

Sen. Barbara Boxer started delving into seismic issues at the plant. In November, 

a commission official confirmed the mistake to a staff member of the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee. Boxer alluded to it during a committee hearing in December on nuclear plant safety, in which she criticized the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s oversight of Diablo Canyon. 

‘‘Approximately 500,000 people live and work near this power plant, and it is my 

responsibility and yours to protect them,’’ she told commission officials at the hearing. 

Critics remain unconvinced by PG&E’s—and the NRC’s—assurances that the new 

steam generators and vessel heads are safe. 
7 

‘‘What really worries me is that PG&E is doing with Diablo what it did with San 

Bruno,’’ Hirsch said, pointing to the deadly 2010 explosion of a PG&E gas pipeline 

beneath the Bay Area city. ‘‘It’s cutting safety corners and relying on the capture 

of its regulators to get through.’’ 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

While the Fukushima Task Force recommended that all reactors 

be protected against the strongest earthquakes they were likely to 

face, the NRC seems to have gone out of its way to do the exact 

opposite. 

Even after learning of newly discovered strong earthquake faults 

close to the power plant, the NRC dismissed its senior inspector’s 

recommendation that the reactor be shut down if it did not come 

back into compliance with its own license, its own seismic licensing 

requirements. I am going to get into this as we get into the questions. 

The fact is I represent a lot of people and a lot of people live 

around these plants. San Onofre had to shut down. NRC did not 

do what they should have done there and I am very fearful we are 

looking at the same thing in Diablo. I will question you on that. 

Please let me know during your testimony whether you have 

enough money to do the job you are supposed to do or are you misusing it or using it on wrong things. I do not know. I need to hear, 

because this is a horrible record that after all these years, nothing 

of your own task force is happening on the ground now that you 

recommended—that they recommended. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Today, the Environment and Public Works Committee is holding a hearing on the 

budget request for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), fee recovery, and 

management issues. 

Among the management issues I wish to explore today is the slow pace at which 

the NRC is implementing measures intended to protect American nuclear plants in 

the wake of the earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear meltdowns in Japan in March 

2011. I’d be interested in the Commission’s views about the reason for this slow 

pace, including budgetary constraints. 

I welcome the new NRC Chairman, Steve Burns, as well as our other new Commissioner, Jeff Baran, to the Committee. It has been more than 4 years since the 

Fukushima disaster, and Japan has not been able to make sufficient progress in its 

clean up efforts. Tens of thousands of refugees still remain barred from their former 

homes, and there remains no solution for how to dispose of the massive volumes 

of radioactive water accumulating at the plant. 

Recently, the chief of the Fukushima power plant admitted that the decommissioning process could take 200 years, that they had no idea what the conditions inside the reactors are because they are still too radioactive to examine, and that the 

technology needed to do the job does not even exist. 

Just yesterday, a court in Japan sided with residents concerned about seismic 

safety when it prevented the re-start of two Japanese reactors that have been shut 

down since the Fukushima disaster. 

The only way that nuclear energy can remain a vibrant part of our energy mix 

is if it has the confidence of the public. I have been saying for 4 years that in order 

to earn that confidence, we must learn from the Fukushima disaster and do everything we can to avoid something similar happening here in the U.S. Unfortunately, 

the reality is that not a single one of the 12 key safety recommendations made by 

the Fukushima Near-Term Task Force has been implemented at nuclear reactors 

in this country. 

Some reactor operators are still not in compliance with the safety requirements 

that were in place before the Fukushima disaster happened. The NRC has only completed its own action on 4 of the 12 Task Force recommendations. 
8 

I remain concerned that the Commission is not doing all that it can to live up 

to the NRC’s mission ‘‘to ensure the safe use of radioactive materials for beneficial 

civilian purposes while protecting people and the environment.’’ 

We need look no further than California’s Diablo Canyon Power Plant to see that 

the NRC has failed to live up to its mission. I would like to place in the record a 

news article that appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle on March 7, 2015, entitled: ‘‘PG&E overlooked key seismic test at Diablo Canyon nuclear plant.’’ 

While the NRC’s Fukushima Task Force recommended that all reactors be protected against the strongest earthquakes they were likely to face, the NRC seems 

to have gone out of its way to do the exact opposite at Diablo Canyon. 

Even after learning of newly discovered strong earthquake faults close to the 

power plant, the NRC dismissed its senior inspector’s recommendation that the reactor be shut down if it did not come back into compliance with its seismic licensing 

requirements. 

Even after NRC learned that PG&E, which owns and operates Diablo Canyon, repeatedly failed to properly analyze earthquake risks when it replaced its steam generators and other major reactor equipment, NRC has not acted aggressively to enforce its own safety regulations. 

And even when PG&E’s own seismic analysis found an even more severe earthquake risk than was previously known, NRC still pronounced the reactor to be safe 

without even taking the time it needed to analyze these newly disclosed risks. In 

fact, I have learned that NRC drafted its press materials saying that its review of 

PG&E’s seismic study said that the plant remained ‘‘safe to operate’’ weeks before 

PG&E even submitted the study to NRC in the first place. 

I plan to raise these and other issues with you today, including the Commission’s 

continued failure to provide me with documents I have requested. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Boxer. 

Mr. Burns, this is the first time you have appeared before this 

committee as chairman. You are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN G. BURNS, CHAIRMAN, NUCLEAR 

REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Chairman BURNS. Thank you, Senator. Good morning, Chairman 

Inhofe, Ranking Member Boxer and distinguished members of the 

committee. 

My colleagues and I appreciate the opportunity to appear before 

you today to discuss the NRC’s fiscal year 2016 budget request and 

the agency’s current activities. 

The proposed budget for 2016 reflects the NRC’s responsiveness 

to the environment in which we find ourselves. Continuing with 

trends that began in fiscal 2014, the 2016 request reflects a reduction in both dollars and full-time equivalent staff from budget proposals in recent years, but still will provide the necessary resources 

to carry out the agency’s mission to protect the public health and 

safety, common defense and security. 

The proposed fiscal 2015 fee rule, which was published just recently on March 23 for public comment, is also expected to reflect 

a reduction in operating reactor fees from the proposed rule. 

Ensuring timely implementation of safety enhancements at nuclear power plants as a result of the lessons learned from the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan continues to be a 

priority for the agency and will be in fiscal 2016. 

The NRC and the industry continue to make substantial progress 

in implementing safety enhancements and the primary focus 

throughout this effort is beyond the implementation of the highest 

priority, most safety significant enhancements to maximize the 

safety benefit at nuclear power plants. 

The NRC expects that most licensees will complete implementation of the majority of the most safety significant enhancements by 
9 

or before 2016. These include safety enhancements in the following 

areas: mitigation strategies, spent fuel pool instrumentation, flooding and seismic reevaluations and interim actions, enhancements 

to emergency preparedness communications and staffing. 

Last year, the first plants completed implementation of the 2012 

Mitigation Strategies Order which requires sites to be prepared to 

respond to beyond design basis events. More than half the plants 

are scheduled to achieve full implementation by the end of 2015 

and the remaining, with limited exception, will complete the necessary actions in 2016. 

Also, in the past year, both of the industry’s National Response 

Centers in Phoenix, Arizona and Memphis, Tennessee became operational. Both centers contain multiple sets of emergency diesel generators, pumps, hoses and other backup equipment that can be delivered to any nuclear power plant in the United States within 24 

hours. 

From a broader perspective of NRC activities, we acknowledge 

that we are operating in a changing environment. Since 2001, the 

agency grew significantly to prepare for the projected growth in the 

use of nuclear power in the United States. That has not materialized, as Chairman Inhofe noted, to respond to the security aspects 

of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. 

To address our changing environment, the agency launched 

Project Aim 2020 last summer to enhance the agency’s ability to 

plan and execute its mission, while adapting in a timely and effective manner to a dynamic environment. 

The NRC staff recommended to the Commission a number of 

measures designed to transform the agency over the next 5 years 

to improve our effectiveness, efficiency and agility. We are currently considering the staff recommendations as a commission and 

are taking a hard look at how to ensure the agency maintains the 

ability to perform its critical safety and security mission while 

being more efficient. 

Although the NRC recognizes the need for change, we are also 

keenly aware that major organizational change, if not done wisely, 

can have a detrimental effect on the agency’s mission and on the 

morale of its employees. 

We have a critical mission and some of the most talented, dedicated and knowledgeable employees in the Federal Government. 

The Commission’s priority must always be focused foremost on its 

safety and security mission, but in doing so, the Commission is cognizant of its changing environment and is committed to taking a 

hard look at itself to ensure that it is prepared for its future. 

On behalf of the Commission, I thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today. I look forward to continuing to 

work with you to advance our important safety and security mission. 

I would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Burns follows:] 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 

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

Ms. Svinicki. Try to keep within our time limit if you would, 

please. 

STATEMENT OF KRISTINE L. SVINICKI, COMMISSIONER, 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

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

Boxer and distinguished members of the committee for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

The Commission’s Chairman, Stephen Burns, in his statement on 

behalf of the Commission has provided an overview of the agency’s 

budget request as well as a description of some of the key agency 

accomplishments and challenges in carrying out the NRC’s important work of protecting public health and safety and promoting the 

common defense and security of our Nation. 

The NRC continues to implement safety significant lessons 

learned from the Fukushima accident in accordance with agency 

processes, while also maintaining our focus on ensuring the safe 

operation of nuclear facilities and the safe use of nuclear materials. 

The current period of implementation of Fukushima-related Tier 

1 regulatory actions will require focus from the NRC staff as they 

review and process an extremely high volume of regulatory submittals and inspect the implementation of these requirements at licensee sites. 

At the same time, the agency will be carrying out a set of complex rulemaking activities. In short, demanding work continues before us. 

Concurrent with this, the NRC is taking the initiative to improve 

agency budget formulation, budget implementation and program 

execution; in other words, an effort to sharpen our delivery of the 

basics. 

This is truly a homegrown initiative involving the efforts and 

feedback of many hundreds of individual NRC employees who have 

demonstrated strong ownership of its core elements. These elements are: right-sizing the agency, streamlining agency processes 

to use resources more wisely, improving timeliness and decisionmaking and promoting a more unified agency purpose through 

agencywide priority setting. 

We look forward to reflecting progress on these fronts in future 

budget submittals. I appreciate the opportunity to appear today 

and look forward to your questions. Thank you. 

[Questions for the record and Ms. Svinicki’s responses follow:] 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Ms. Svinicki. 

Commissioner Ostendorff. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. OSTENDORFF, COMMISSIONER, 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Good morning, Chairman Inhofe, Ranking 

Member Boxer and distinguished members of the committee. 

The Chairman has already provided an overview of the NRC’s 

budget, the changing environment and steps we are taking to improve the operations of the NRC through Project Aim. I am in complete alignment with his testimony. 

Looking back over the actions the NRC has taken over the past 

4 years as a result of Fukushima lessons learned, I firmly believe 

that the agency has acted on a foundational basis of solid science 

and engineering. 

We have appropriately given highest priority to the Tier 1 items 

associated with the greatest safety significance. I am confident in 

the NRC’s safety actions post-Fukushima and believe we have 

made very substantial progress. 

In closing, I appreciate the opportunity to testify today and look 

forward to your questions. 

Thank you. 

[Questions for the record and Mr. Ostendorff’s responses follow:] 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, sir. 

Commissioner Baran. 

STATEMENT OF JEFF BARAN, COMMISSIONER, NUCLEAR 

REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Mr. BARAN. Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member Boxer and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear 

today before the committee. 

It is a pleasure to be here with my colleagues to discuss NRC’s 

fiscal year 2016 budget request and the work of the agency. 

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. To meet our 

responsibilities now and into the future, we need to enhance the efficiency, effectiveness and agility of the agency. 

Before I joined the Commission, my colleagues had the foresight 

to initiate Project Aim, an internal working group tasked with looking at changes NRC should make to prepare for the future. This 

is a valuable and timely effort. 

We are actively deliberating on the recommendations of the 

Project Aim team and I expect that the Commission will approve 

some prudent actions very soon. 

While we work 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 in accordance with regulatory requirements. Meanwhile, the NRC staff is beginning a rulemaking to take a fresh look at a number of decommissioning 

issues. 

NRC is continuing 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. 

The effort to address flooding hazards at nuclear power plants is 

a good example. The flooding hazard reevaluations have been proceeding more slowly than anticipated. The Commission recently decided to make some improvements to the process in order to accelerate the analysis while providing more clarity to licensees about 

the process for determining what additional equipment or modifications may be necessary to protect nuclear plants from floods. 

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 essential to accomplishing our safety and security mission. 

Thank you and I look forward to your questions. 

[Questions for the record and Mr. Baran’s responses follow:] 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you very much. 

I am going to make an observation and ask if each of you disagree. The notion that the NRC has done nothing in response to 

Fukushima just isn’t true. 

I understand the NRC has responded to congressional questions. 

I have seen the list. There have been as many as 35 postFukushima recommendations. The most safety significant of these 

either has been implemented already or will be implemented by the 

end of the year. I understand the industry expects to spend approximately $4 billion on post-Fukushima safety requirements. Clearly, we have been 

very busy. 

I would also observe that Japan was not as prepared for an extreme event as our industry was. In fact, a Japanese government 

report, their report, noted that the equipment the NRC required, 

that is us, following September 11 might have made the difference 

at Fukushima. In addition, the NRC required our plants to add 

backup power and generators to coup with station blackouts starting in the 1980s. 

Does anyone disagree with that? Thank you very much. 

You heard my opening statement. I think I probably observed accurately that you four are the only ones who understood what I 

said because it is a bit complicated, but it is a history we have to 

look at because it is real. 

According to Project Aim, the 2020 Report, the NRC’s current 

staffing level is 3,677 full-time equivalent employees, excluding the 

Inspector General’s Office. Your fiscal 2016 budget requests 3,691 

full-time equivalent employees which is a slight increase. 

Chairman Burns, if Project Aim recommends shrinking to a work 

force of 3,400 why request an increase for 2016? 

Chairman BURNS. I don’t think we are requesting an increase in 

the number of staff for 2016. I think, Mr. Chairman, the difference 

between our 2015 and 2016 proposal is this. In 2015, the appropriated amount was smaller than our request for 2016, but in 2015, 

because we had a substantial carryover, the Congress allowed us— 

I think it is on the order of $38 million to $40 million in carryover. 

Our overall request for 2016, if you compare it to that appropriated amount and that carryover amount, is smaller for 2016. We 

are looking at, I think, a reduction in 2016 of about 140 full-time 

equivalent positions. 

Senator INHOFE. I notice you are glancing at this chart. You 

know what this chart is. Do you agree with it? 

Chairman BURNS. Unfortunately, I can’t. It is hard for me to 

read, my eyes aren’t the best. 

Senator INHOFE. Staff, point out the surge that takes place about 

the fourth column over to the right. What year is that because I 

can’t see that either—2002, is it? Yes. Anyway, I want you to look 

at that and we should have had that in front of you because I think 

this is accurate in terms of its content. 

I understand what you are saying. If we do find that it is excessive, I want you to reevaluate that. 

According to the NRC’s annual attrition rate of 5 percent, this 

is what I understand it is, the NRC could reach the Project Aim 

recommended staff level in fiscal year 2017 if it began with the 
146 

2016 budget. I would ask the same thing of Chairman Burns, why 

would it take to 2020 to achieve that reduction? 

Chairman BURNS. Senator, I think part of the answer is that in 

looking at Aim, they were looking out to 2020 in terms of where 

they thought a potential staffing level would be. I think we want 

to be careful because we want to be responsible in terms of what 

it is we think we need in order to meet our objectives. 

I would be hesitant to say just flat out that in the 2017 timeframe or 2018, before that, that is where we ought to be. There is 

work we need to do. We need to bring the Fukushima improvements home. We have some new reactor licensing. 

Senator INHOFE. You are doing a lot of that now. 

Chairman BURNS. Yes, we are doing that now but there is work 

that carries through 2016 to 2017 in a number of areas. Again, I 

think given what we understand now, that is where I think the 

line or the slope is we would have. 

Senator INHOFE. How about the other three of you? Do you think 

it is unreasonable for us to expect and to go back and have something at the level of 2000 if we are using that to measure the number, the workload, and number of employees in the budget? Do any 

of you disagree with that, that you ought to be able to do what we 

did with the same thing in 2000? 

Ms. SVINICKI. I would just remark that the goal laid out for 

Project Aim was merely a staff estimate for a reduction. The Commission, itself, is right now reviewing the work that needs to be 

done and the staffing level. The Commission does not endorse that. 

It may be that it is too modest or too ambitious but we have not 

yet looked at the work scope to support the staffing but I think 

there is general acknowledgement that the staffing will be coming 

down. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. 

Yes. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Senator, I would just comment and add that I 

do believe taking a historical look at prior budget and staffing 

numbers does provide a perspective that should inform how we 

move forward. 

Senator INHOFE. My time has expired but if we do have a second 

round, I want to get into the IG report. I think you are familiar 

with that and I have some questions along that line. 

Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

I want to go back to the list of 12. The point is we were told by 

the former Chairman that a lot of these recommendations would be 

required to be implemented within 90 days of Fukushima. That is 

in the record. 

You don’t have to agree with it. I am not asking about that but 

the fact is we don’t have any required implementation by the Commission for anything until 2016. My question to all of you is, do you 

intend to extend that or are you going to stick with the ones where 

you say you will have 2016 action? Is there any intent to extend 

that period to the industry? 

Chairman BURNS. Senator, when I came on as chairman, one of 

my priorities is to see these things home. What you have in terms 

of 2016 is the schedule for implementation that I believe the Com-
147 

mission, actually, it would have been when I was general counsel, 

adopted in terms of the implementation. 

Senator BOXER. Just answer the question, do you plan? 

Chairman BURNS. I do not plan, based on what I know now in 

terms of the progress made, to do that. As I said, there are a few 

instances, to be sure we are clear and honest with each other. 

Senator BOXER. OK, fine. The answer is that you don’t intend to. 

Chairman BURNS. I don’t intend to do that. 

Senator BOXER. Also, since you have taken no action on several 

of these, there were only 12, let us be clear, from the Commission. 

There were 12 recommendations. I am going to ask you to put in 

writing, all of you, I am going to follow up, why you have not acted 

on some of these and what your intentions are. We will get that 

letter to you. 

I want to home in on a shocking situation at home. I am asking 

all of you to comment on this. I will start with Ms. Svinicki. 

On September 10, PG&E submitted a seismic safety report on 

Diablo Canyon, which it was required to do, by the State of California and the NRC. That report found that the shoreline seismic 

fault was more than twice as long as previously believed. On September 10, they submitted this report. 

What we have found out, with some diligent work by my staff, 

is that the NRC’s press office circulated internally a memo on August 24, 27 and 28, all containing talking points saying the NRC 

has reviewed the report and concluded Diablo Canyon was seismically safe. 

Let me say that again for the committee here. You do not get the 

report until September 10, actually, you got it on September 8, but 

in August, your communications people put out an internal memo 

stating that everything was cool and it was seismically safe when 

we know it is not true. 

I would like to ask each of you to respond to this. Did you know 

about this? Now that you know about this, will you investigate why 

this happened? 

Ms. SVINICKI. I did not know about this and I believe this may 

already be under investigation. 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. I agree with Commissioner Svinicki’s answer. 

I did not know about it. 

Senator BOXER. Do you know if it is under investigation, Mr. 

Burns? 

Chairman BURNS. I do not. If this happened, this occurred actually before I was confirmed. 

Senator BOXER. I understand that, so this is the first you have 

heard, but Ms. Svinicki, since you said it is under investigation, 

who is investigating it? 

Ms. SVINICKI. I believe it would be the Office of the Inspector 

General, but Senator, I am not entirely sure. 

Senator BOXER. My understanding is it is not under investigation 

and this has to be done. I am asking you, Mr. Chairman, if you will 

get back to me on this? This is appalling. It is about my people surviving if there is an earthquake right there. Will you look into this? 

Heads should roll on this. You do not writing talking points before 

you even get the document. 
148 

Chairman BURNS. I will look into it and get back to you. 

Senator BOXER. I need it in writing as well. 

This morning, I reintroduced my legislation to prevent exemptions from having to prepare emergency responses when there is 

decommissioning going on. We have examined this. 

NRC has never once rejected such a request even though the 

studies have found that the health consequences a spent fuel accident could be as bad as the consequences of a severe accident. 

I want to know from you whether you are now taking a look at 

these kinds of automatic exemptions for the plants. Are you taking 

another look at that? 

Chairman BURNS. The Commission has directed initiation of a 

rulemaking on decommissioning which would look at the process 

for entering into decommissioning which would include a look at 

the exemption process in terms of trying to develop a more transparent and regulatory framework as we go forward. 

Senator BOXER. I hope that means you are not going to automatically grant these exemptions because I have to tell you something. 

If something happens to somebody and they are hurt in a terrible 

nuclear accident because of what leaked out of the plant, it does 

not matter to them if it happened before the decommissioning or 

after. We need to not just grant these exemptions. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Boxer. 

Senator Fischer. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have a chart to put up. This was compiled by the Nuclear Energy Institute and it represents all the scheduled initiatives that at 

the Commission. Mr. Chairman, I have raised concerns about the 

impacts of regulation before and I think this chart illustrates those 

concerns really well. 

It also shows all the scheduled regulatory initiatives at the NRC, 

including the progress of the post-Fukushima Tier 1 recommendations about which Ranking Member Boxer expressed concern as 

well. 

We see a lot of new nuclear regulatory requirements, in addition 

to our expectation that plants are operated at the highest levels of 

safety every single day. This is an issue that the NRC has been 

considering since 2009 and one that the NRC staff agrees ‘‘can potentially distract licensee or entity staff from executing other primary duties that ensure safety or security.’’ 

As you know, Senator Vitter and Congressman Upton asked the 

GAO to review NRC’s cost estimating. The GAO found that NRC’s 

cost estimating procedures ‘‘do not adequately support the creation 

of reliable cost estimates.’’ 

The NRC appears to have dismissed the recommendation to use 

GAO’s cost estimating guide in favor of OMB’s, which I think is far 

less detailed. 

Considering the NRC’s pattern of underestimating costs, sometimes by more than 1,000 percent, do you think it is wise to reject 

the GAO’s guidance? 

Chairman BURNS. My understanding, with respect to our views 

or the agency’s views on the GAO’s guidance, is that the particular 

GAO guidance was designed for basically, I think project construc-
149 

tion and things like that, which are not quite a match for what we 

do. 

Having said that, this is an area in which the agency has focused 

attention. We are taking steps to try to make sure we are better 

with cost benefit analysis in the areas where it is applied. I think 

we have reached out to the industry here to make sure we have 

a better understanding of costs because I think this is an area in 

which we can do better. 

While I disagree in terms of the issue on the GAO, I think we 

are ready and I think we have been trying to take some steps that 

address some of the concerns. 

Senator FISCHER. When you look at the new regulations, again, 

you tend to under estimate the cost. The Energy Institute would 

say that the actual cost, for example, to implement worker fatigue 

rules were two to five times your estimate. The new fire protection 

regulations were six times your estimate. The new security requirements were 19 times your estimate. 

How do you respond to that? 

Chairman BURNS. Again, I think we have to make sure our processes—we have looked at the input we get from the industry on 

those questions and hopefully feed it back into the rulemaking 

process. 

This is an area where we have committed, both in the cost benefit area and the cumulative effects area, to do more work. We 

have engaged with the industry on that to move forward. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you. 

Commissioner Ostendorff, in recent hearings of the committee, I 

have asked questions about the use of qualitative factors in the decisionmaking of your commission. It is my understanding that in 

a vote on March 4, 2015, you disapproved of the expansion of the 

NRC staff’s use of those qualitative factors beyond the current context in which these factors are considered. 

I would like you to describe, first, the current role that qualitative factors play in the staff’s decisionmaking process. Second, I 

would like your views on the appropriate role for the use of qualitative factors going forward and perhaps limitations on them. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Thank you for the question, Senator Fischer. 

Very briefly, I think whenever there is an opportunity and the 

ability to use quantitative factors, we must use those factors. There 

are some areas where there is not an easily quantifiable approach 

to look at the problem. In those cases, and they are limited in number and scope, there are times when the Commission needs to be 

aware of how our staff might look at this non-quantitatively but 

through qualitative factors. At the end of the day, the decision on 

whether or not that approach would be based upon a qualitative 

approach rests with this Commission. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, sir. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Fischer. 

Senator Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank 

the panel as well. 

I want to follow up on Senator Fischer’s line of questioning in 

terms of the use of qualitative factors. 
150 

As she mentioned and you also mentioned to Mr. Ostendorff, the 

use of qualitative factors is limited historically only to those situations where the cost benefits cannot be amenable to quantification. 

The Commission recently issued direction to the staff regarding 

the use of qualitative factors in regulatory and backfit analysis 

stating, ‘‘This approval does not authorize an expansion of the consideration of qualitative factors in regulatory analysis and backfit 

analysis.’’ 

Your direction also listed the principles that you expect the staff 

to follow: one, improving its methods for quantitative analysis; two, 

developing realistic cost estimates; three, limiting the use of, as you 

said, qualitative factors to certain areas; and improving transparency of decisionmaking in the use of qualitative factors. 

I guess I would ask the Chairman, are these instructions largely 

reinforcing the existing practice, in your mind? 

Chairman BURNS. I think so. From that standpoint, again, I 

think the direction was the staff should continue under the direction it has had and that is the preference, if we have the ability 

to use quantitative information to make those judgments, that is 

what we ought to be doing. 

I would defer to my other colleagues if they want to add anything. 

Senator CAPITO. Who actually oversees the decision, making sure 

that the staff goes with the instructions that the quantitative instructions are largely in place over qualitative? Is that a decision 

you make? 

Chairman BURNS. Certainly the Commission has a role in that, 

but the Commission having given direction, we would expect our 

Executive Director for Operations, our chief staff officer, to ensure 

the Commission’s will is carried out through the staff. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. I want to add to the Chairman’s comment. 

Senator CAPITO. Yes. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. When a paper comes to the Commission for a 

decision on a policy matter, we expect, and I think it has been the 

practice, that the regulatory approach, the regulatory analysis the 

staff is using is clearly presented to the Commission so we have the 

ability to see what their thinking is. 

Senator CAPITO. And how they arrived at the decisions? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Exactly. 

Senator CAPITO. That is a part. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. A part of our process. 

Senator CAPITO. Part of the process. 

Whoever wants to answer this question, my question would be if 

qualitative analysis could be used to justify a regulatory change 

that failed a quantitative cost benefit analysis, could that open the 

door for the NRC to justify basically any regulatory change? Would 

you agree with that statement? 

Ms. SVINICKI. I think one of the reasons that we deliberated and 

issued the instruction or direction on use of qualitative factors you 

have been quoting from was just that concern, that an unlimited, 

unfettered use of soft or qualitative factors could be used to obscure 

the true cost benefit of a new regulation and therefore, we had 

these elements of maybe constraining, continuing many practices of 

the use of qualitative factors but making more explicit the identi-
151 

fication of how that was part of the analysis so that we can have 

clarity in our evaluation of any recommendations from our staff. 

It is, I think, in some ways, to be certain that we don’t venture 

near those types of abuses. 

Senator CAPITO. Any other comments? 

Chairman BURNS. I think Commissioner Svinicki submitted a 

good synopsis. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. 

Senator Sullivan. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, it is good to see you. Thanks for the work that 

you do. 

In Alaska, we don’t have any nuclear facilities, so this is my first 

hearing with regard to the NRC. I always start the hearings by 

looking at the mission, what you do, the mandate from Congress 

and the fact that you are an independent agency. 

Mr. Chairman, would you like to comment, just from your perspective around the agency, what you think it means to be an independent Federal agency in Washington right now? I think sometimes people forget that word ‘‘independent’’ and what it means 

and how important it is. 

Chairman BURNS. Thank you for the question. In my prior work 

at the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency that was often a question and 

debate, not a debate but discussion as well. 

I think to me, again, independent agencies were set up in a way 

to be bipartisan but in the sense that the expert judgment that an 

agency can bring to bear, that basically the agencies are created to 

bring to bear expert judgments in the areas of their competence. 

I think maybe that is the hallmark. 

There are probably other characteristics but certainly how they 

are structured in terms of, in our case, no more than three members can be from the same political party or registered from the 

same political party, and the openness in terms of meetings. Things 

like that, I think, enhance our independence. 

Senator SULLIVAN. With oversight from the Congress? 

Chairman BURNS. With oversight from the Congress, absolutely. 

Senator SULLIVAN. With policy direction ultimately from the Congress in the form of legislation? 

Chairman BURNS. Yes. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Not the White House or the Executive 

branch? 

Chairman BURNS. No. That is another aspect. Our appointments 

are for terms and removal can only be—except the Chairman can 

be replaced on a day to day basis. Sometimes maybe that would be 

good from my standpoint but the idea is, again, commissioners basically serve that term unless removed for malfeasance. 

Senator SULLIVAN. I want to talk just a little bit about the budget. From 2004 to 2014, your budget increased by more than $400 

million, 800 more staff and yet the NRC struggled to review 40 percent fewer licensing actions in 2014 compared to 2004. 

In particular, as you know, 90 percent of the budget to the NRC 

comes from fees paid either for license fee specific work or annual 

fees billed to operating reactors. With the Office of New Reactors 
152 

having less work, it appears—I would like you or any of the other 

commissioners to address this—and with the shutdown of two reactors, the remaining reactors are going to make up a shortfall in 

terms of an additional $100 million paid this year. Is that correct? 

How will the Commission avoid forcing current power reactors to 

pick up additional shortfalls in new reactor revenue in this year’s 

budget and in the next if there is going to be additional closure of 

facilities? 

To get to a broader point, do you think that is a sustainable 

model because it does seem that the annual fees required of the existing operating fleet become more and more and more. It seems to 

me that is a pretty significant burden and a model that might not 

be sustainable. 

Chairman BURNS. I think the model is sustainable in terms of 

looking at the size of the current fleet. That is plus or minus some 

when I say that. At one point during the agency’s history, we were 

not a fee-based agency, I think up through the mid-1980s. 

Again, it is true and that is how the fee provisions work. It depends on the number of operating reactors. That is currently 99. 

The expectation, depending on the final outcome of the reviews of 

Watts Bar II, I think the estimate is it would go into operation 

later this year. That would be back to 100. There is, I agree, some 

variability there. 

The overall, given our request, is that the fees will go down, are 

estimated to go down not only for fiscal 2015 but if you look at this 

budget proposal, in 2016 as well. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Gillibrand. 

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

Ranking Member Boxer. 

I am grateful that the NRC Commissioners are here to testify 

about the work of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

The safety of our nuclear power sector is of great importance to 

me and New Yorkers. Our State has four nuclear power plants. I 

am very focused on making sure that the NRC can provide the 

strong and consistent oversight to ensure those plants operate safely and that the lessons learned from previous tragedies are implemented. 

We discussed this in past but Super Storm Sandy wreaked havoc 

throughout the New York City region, including Westchester. One 

of the challenges during Super Storm Sandy beyond the 10-foot 

surges was the amount of downed power lines and trees, particularly throughout the Westchester region and the Hudson Valley 

coming out of New York City. 

I want a fuller discussion of an evacuation plan if you have the 

perfect storm, if you have a nuclear incident. I don’t think you have 

ever submitted an evacuation plan beyond 10 miles. The reality is 

that Indian Point has a very close proximity to 8 million people. 

Could you speak to whether you have assessed a broader evacuation plan and if not, why not and if not, will you please submit 

it in writing? Anyone can answer. 

Chairman BURNS. I will start and my colleagues may want to 

add something. 
153 

Again, the emergency planning basis that the agency adopted, 

the basic rulemaking provisions, address detailed planning, not 

just evacuation but other types of potential responses within a 10- 

mile radius and then going out to 50 miles for what are called ingestion pathway zones. 

That has generally been considered by our staff, our information 

and from working with other Federal partners to be a consistent 

and also adequate basis for planning. 

I think long term, we have always been open to potentially looking at that issue. I think parts of the Tier 3 Fukushima review 

may address it and see if there is anything else we can learn to 

address that. I will leave it there if any of my colleagues want to 

add something. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. I would just add, Senator, that NRC does this 

in concert with FEMA and FEMA has the broader national response authority to ensure coherency and commonality of approaches. I wanted to assure you that it is not just the NRC looking at the evacuation plans; it is also FEMA through their broad 

national responsibilities. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. How many other nuclear plants around the 

Nation are within a 50-mile radius of a population of 8 million? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Senator, I think it is very clear that Indian 

Point—two of my three adult kids live within that radius. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. I just think it is inconsistent with other 

evacuation plans and doesn’t have the same needs because it happens to be positioned far differently than the typical nuclear power 

plant. 

For example, the other power plants in New York State are in 

rural areas where you have significant ability to evacuate anyone 

within a 50-mile radius. You do not have that in New York City. 

You have an enormous population with very few avenues to evacuate. 

I think it is a really complex problem that needs unique attention. I do not think saying it is consistent with the rest of the 

Country is correct because there is no other fact pattern that is 

similar to where Indian Point is. 

I would like a unique approach to absolutely be planned for and 

analyzed to know what the limitations are and to think it through. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Senator, with that question for the record, may 

we have the chance to get back to you in writing? 

Senator GILLIBRAND. I would really appreciate that because I 

have raised it several times. I would like you to do a specific, specialized plan for Indian Point evacuation beyond the 10-mile radius 

that you have done because Super Storm Sandy truly is a wakeup call. With global climate change as it is, rising sea levels, rising 

sea temperatures, more intense storms have higher storm surges, 

have more rain, flooding is absolutely possible. 

The location of Indian Point geographically is problematic because it is on the Hudson Valley. It is poised just north of New 

York City. It is very close to coastal areas. We also have seismic 

activity in that region. You do have real geographical issues beyond 

the massive population base. 

I would like a thoughtful analysis about what you would do in 

the worst case scenario given Fukushima. That was the worst case 
154 

scenario, one that nobody had planned for, no one could have imagined, and it was, as a consequence, deadly. 

Please do that analysis and provide it to me. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Barrasso. 

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

Chairman Burns, thank you and I appreciate your being here 

today. 

I have some concerns about the NRC’s proposed changes to the 

fee recovery rule. I want to follow up a bit what Senator Sullivan 

talked about. 

This is the rule where the NRC charges fees to the licensees to 

recover most of its budgetary authority. A quote from the Federal 

Register back in 2005 talks about the comments objecting to the 

large increase in the annual fees for uranium recovery licensees. 

The commenters stated, ‘‘There continues to be a lack of reasonable 

relationship between the cost to uranium recovery licensees of 

NRC’s regulatory program and the benefit derived from these services.’’ 

Additionally, the commenters stated, ‘‘The NRC needs to address 

the issue of decreasing numbers of uranium recovery licenses. Specifically as more States become agreement States and/or additional 

sites are decommissioned, the number of NRC-regulated sites continues to decline leaving fewer licensees to pay a larger share of 

the NRC’s regulatory cost.’’ That was 10 years ago. It continues. 

It seems you are overseeing about half the operations facilities 

that you did in 2005, and reviewing less than half the number of 

applications reviewed as recently as 2008. NRC’s press release on 

the proposed rule on March 23, a couple weeks ago, stated ‘‘Most 

uranium recovery licensees would see an increase in their fees.’’ 

With each State that becomes an agreement State, the workload 

dropped for the NRC but the fees go up anyway. It could take up 

to 5 years for Wyoming to become an agreement State, a process 

you have noted in your written testimony. 

My State has just started. In the meantime, our uranium operators are seeing their fees go up, even though the workload is going 

down. I had a letter 2 months ago talking about an invoice they 

recently received. The invoice was roughly four times the amount 

their staff had accrued based on their estimate of the level of effort 

the NRC staff is expending on or behalf of the biweekly validation 

reports. 

You can imagine my surprise and concern with this variance but 

surprise and concern have become routine with the quarterly NRC 

invoices emblematic of a lack of fiscal accountability at NRC. 

Given the workload is down, how do you continue to explain the 

dramatic increases in fees? Is this practice sustainable? 

Chairman BURNS. Senator, I have not had a chance to see some 

of your details but again, this goes to the comments I made in the 

discussion with Senator Sullivan. In some areas where you have 

fewer licensees, that does have an impact on the fees. 

I think what we can do and try to commit to do, as part of this, 

is say the fee rule is out for comment and our deliberation and determination assure that we have done our best in terms of equi-
155 

tably reaching a decision on the final rule, taking onboard the expressed concerns. That is what I can tell you I intend to do. 

Senator BARRASSO. I appreciate that. 

Regarding the time it takes for the NRC to provide services to 

licensees, how long do you believe it should take the NRC to review 

an application for a new uranium recovery facility? Do you know 

how long it actually takes now? 

Chairman BURNS. I am not sure I can give sort of an ideal time. 

I haven’t had a chance to look at that. I had a meeting with Senator Fischer yesterday and I know her concern in terms of the 

length of time it took for renewal of the Crow Butte license. 

Quite honestly, in the uranium recovery area, some of the complications are the ancillary reviews that have to be done. I think 

this is an area I am willing to look at and see we are trying to do 

better. 

Senator BARRASSO. My final question is, I am concerned that the 

EPA is currently taking jurisdiction away from the NRC with its 

proposed and costly Part 192 rulemaking that would essentially require uranium producers to monitor water quality for up to 30 

years after the mine stops producing uranium. 

I wondered if your Office of General Counsel has evaluated the 

jurisdictional aspects of this proposed EPA Part 192 rulemaking 

and what was that evaluation? 

Chairman BURNS. I would have to discuss that with the General 

Counsel. I would be happy to get back to you on that. 

I do know from past experience, there is some jurisdictional overlap with the EPA. Unfortunately, I cannot tell you today with respect to the new rule. 

Senator BARRASSO. I would appreciate it if you would have this 

evaluated and report the findings back to this committee. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. 

Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In May 2011, I released a report, Fukushima Fallout. This report 

pointed out the problems with American nuclear power plants in 

the wake of what we have learned about the Fukushima accident. 

It talked about how we rely upon outdated seismic information 

and how our plants might be unprotected. It said that power outages in our Country could lead to Fukushima-style meltdowns or 

accidents right here in the United States of America. 

In July 2011, 2 months after my report came out, the NRC’s expert task force released 12 recommendations that all addressed 

weaknesses here in this Country, including the ones that I raised 

in my report. 

As we sit here today, not one single new permitted, seismic safety upgrade has been required to be put in place. Not a single new 

measure to prevent floods from causing a meltdown to occur has 

been put in place. Not a single new emergency response procedure 

has been put in place. That is unacceptable. 

The problems were identified in my report in 2011. The advisory 

committee, the NRC’s own expert panel, identified these same 

problems. It is continuingly impossible for me to understand why 

the NRC does not act on this area, why we haven’t implemented 
156 

the lessons that we should have already learned from the 

Fukushima accident. 

It is time for the United States to act as though we understand 

that nuclear power here has to learn from the nuclear power mistakes of other countries. I do not think we have done that up until 

this moment. 

On the issue of cyber security, after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, 

the NRC issued cyber security orders for nuclear reactors which 

later turned into even more robust regulations but the NRC did not 

require the same stringent cyber security measures for other nuclear facilities like centrifuge facilities that enrich uranium. 

Now we know that the United States and Israel used the Stuxnet 

computer virus to damage Iran’s centrifuges and slow down its nuclear weapons program. I am sure that is part of the reason why 

the NRC staff recommended that the NRC quickly issue orders to 

upgrade the cyber security requirements at American enrichment 

facilities and then do a rulemaking just like the NRC did for its 

reactors. What is mystifying though is why the NRC voted three 

to one to reject the staff’s recommendations. 

Commissioner Baran, you were the only one to support the NRC 

staff’s recommendation. Can you tell us why? 

Commissioner BARAN. Sure, Senator. The NRC staff spent years 

looking at this issue. They did site visits at our fuel cycle facilities. 

They talked with licensees for a period of 2 or 3 years largely trying to reach agreement on voluntary actions that the fuel cycle facilities would take to establish basic cyber security standards. 

After all that effort, their conclusion was that there were significant vulnerabilities that needed to be addressed in order to protect 

the health and safety. I agreed with the staff that NRC should 

issue orders and then follow with a rulemaking so that we do not 

have years where we are waiting to have basic cyber security protections in place that are enforceable. 

Senator MARKEY. I agree with you, Commissioner Baran. 

NRC is still refusing to comply with my document request that 

could be related to the indictment of five members of the Chinese 

military on charges of hacking into U.S. company systems in 2010 

and 2011 and stealing nuclear reactor trade secrets from Westinghouse. 

At the very same time these thefts occurred, Westinghouse was 

hosting dozens of unescorted Chinese personnel at U.S. nuclear reactors for months. The NRC has refused to provide me with any 

documents I have requested even though Congress is about to be 

asked to approve a new nuclear cooperation agreement with China. 

Anonymous sources have sent me some materials. For example, 

in November 2010, NRC’s Security Office recommended that additional information about each Chinese national be provided in advance of the visits so they could be checked against other security 

databases but the NRC ultimately rejected this recommendation 

and they did end up gaining unescorted access to nuclear reactors 

in this Country according to documents that were sent to me. 

The law I wrote requires the NRC to provide non-public documents to Congress. It is vitally important that Congress be fully informed about the potential risk of Chinese cyber espionage before 

it approves a new nuclear cooperation agreement with China. 
157 

Do each of you agree to follow the law and fully respond to all 

of my outstanding document requests, yes or no? Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BURNS. Mr. Markey, the prior Commission, when I understand these requests were made, we indicated we would meet 

with your staff and discuss the matter with respect to the documents and the issues with respect to it. That offer still stands. 

Senator MARKEY. Yes or no, will you provide the documents? 

Chairman BURNS. We offered to meet with your staff to discuss 

the matter. That is my answer. 

Senator MARKEY. No one has offered that. No one has provided 

that. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Markey, let me interrupt for just a moment. We are going to have a second or third 3-minute round. Do 

you want to take yours right now? You are already 2 minutes into 

it. I would be glad to give you that time. 

Senator MARKEY. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. Yes, I 

will just take that time right now. 

The other commissioners, do you believe that you should follow 

the law and fully respond to all of my outstanding document requests? Commissioner Baran. 

Commissioner BARAN. Obviously, we should follow the law. My 

view is when NRC gets a document request from a member of one 

of our congressional oversight committees, we should review the 

documents that would be responsive and we should work with you 

or whoever the requester is to provide as much information as we 

can. 

Senator MARKEY. The other two commissioners, do you agree? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Senator Markey, I agree with Chairman Burns’ 

response. 

Ms. SVINICKI. I agree with Chairman Burns’ response. 

Senator MARKEY. OK. Let me just tell you this. We are about to 

be asked as a Congress to approve a new nuclear cooperation 

agreement with China. This committee has a right to have access 

to this information. We are the committee of jurisdiction overseeing 

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

There is a huge issue with regard to China and the security of 

our nuclear secrets that is in question. There are outstanding questions going to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that have not 

been responded to. 

I believe it is irresponsible for that information not to be provided to this committee so that we can evaluate before we are 

asked to vote on a new Chinese nuclear agreement. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Markey. 

Senator Carper, you are recognized for a 5-minute round and you 

have a remaining 3 minute-round. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Hello, everyone. It is nice to see all of you and welcome a bunch 

of you back and to see others for the first time. 

In the last decade, I think we have seen a huge swing in the 

marketplace, as you know, for nuclear energy. I think in 2008, we 

had 26 applications for building plants and now we are trying to 

build four. 
158 

Both of you, Chairman Burns and Ms. Svinicki, I think were at 

the NRC in 2008 during that time. As you know, there was very 

high employee morale. In fact, you topped the charts year after 

year, the NRC, best and brightest people wanted to come to work 

at the NRC. We also saw a jump in interest in the career engineering programs at our colleges and universities across the Country. 

Things are different today. How do we ensure that the best and 

brightest still want to come to work at the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission and stay there? How can we ensure that the U.S. still 

produces the best nuclear engineers in the world? How does our 

budget, the President’s budget presented to us address those 

issues? 

Chairman BURNS. Thank you for the question. 

It is probably easier in an environment where there is a lot of 

growth to really pump up morale. But my message to employees is, 

there is a lot of important work that this agency does. It is not only 

in regulation of the operating reactor fleet. There is new reactor 

work. It is doing things like learning the lessons from Fukushima 

and implementing those requirements. 

Also, in the area of medical, we had a great meeting earlier this 

week from our advisory committee on medical isotopes. There is 

important work there understanding the beneficial uses of radioactive material and ensuring those uses are safe. Communicating 

that message, for us at the top, I think doing that helps a lot. 

Ms. SVINICKI. I appreciate the question as well. 

My understanding from our human resource specialists is that 

our recruitment is still very vibrant, that young people entering the 

field are still very interested in applying for positions at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

I think they are motivated and excited by the mission of the 

agency and the opportunity to do exciting work. 

Although you didn’t ask, as I reflect, this December I will have 

been a Federal employee for 25 years. I think I have more concerns 

that young people will perhaps not be interested in Federal Government, civil service or public service positions. 

I know to a person, all members of our Commission go out and 

meet with young people and with students to try to tell them that 

careers in government and public service are still exciting and 

gratifying. 

I do sense from some of the young people that they take a lot 

of the negative perception of Washington or public service. I personally think a lot of us advocate for the excitement of these careers. 

Senator CARPER. Good. One of the greatest sources of joy I think 

in the lives of most people is if what they are doing in life is worthwhile and the idea that we have an obligation to serve and if we 

do, we find that we are making the person being served feel better 

and it sort of comes around to make us feel a lot better about our 

own lives as well. 

Thank you all for being servants. For those from Delaware who 

are listening, thank you for letting me serve you. 

Chairman Burns, you have a fairly long history at the NRC, as 

we know. I think you mentioned in your testimony some of the ex-
159 

citement that was going on a few years ago in terms of a lot of activity and a lot of projects on the horizon. 

The NRC has to be flexible and the budget has to be flexible 

when the demand is up and a lot going on and maybe less when 

there is only four projects to be overseen, plus another 100 nuclear 

power plants. 

How does this budget allow the NRC to be flexible to meet unexpected challenges? What challenges do you believe will be the 

toughest for the NRC to tackle during your chairmanship? 

Chairman BURNS. I would mention three areas. One, it allows us 

to bring what we see as significant Fukushima enhancements 

home. It gets us there. It gets us, if not to the very end, very close 

to the end path. I think that is important. 

The second thing is it helps us work off things like the licensing 

backlog that happened due to our focus on Fukushima. 

I think the third thing is that we do position ourselves for the 

potential for either small modular reactors or advanced reactors. 

There is money in there to help position ourselves for doing it. 

All that said, it continues our vital inspection and oversight mission which is key to maintaining the safety of both reactor and materials use in the U.S. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for letting me jump in like this. We 

have the Commissioner of the IRS before our Homeland Security 

Committee today on April 15, very timely. I have been trying to adjust the hearing to come here and spend some time with you. It is 

great to see you all. 

Thank you so much. 

Senator INHOFE. In light of that, thank you for showing up. 

Senator CARPER. You bet. 

Senator INHOFE. Let me make a couple comments. First of all, 

as you can tell, you knew this in advance, we have different approaches and ideas of where in the mix nuclear should be. You 

know that I am a very, very strong proponent and feel that we 

need to catch up with some of the other countries that are able to 

provide a lot more energy from this source. I am going to be working in that direction. 

There was a report by the IG on the management directive for 

budget formulation that had not been amended since 1990 and was 

‘‘thoroughly out of date.’’ In particular, the IG observed that ‘‘lack 

of written policies and procedures that clarify the roles and responsibilities of key participants in the budget formulation process result in inefficiencies, particularly work flow disruption, confusion 

and rework.’’ 

Commissioner Svinicki, I know that you have worked to develop 

an update to that management directive I think going all the way 

back to 2008. I would like to know where we are on that and what 

your feeling is on going forward with something like that? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Thank you, Chairman Inhofe. 

This is Management Directive 4.7 within the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission and it is a long, outstanding Inspector General finding 

that this management directive is not reflective of current processes that does lead to inefficiencies. Back in 2008, then-Chairman 
160 

Klein asked me to convene a group of staff to look at updating that 

directive. 

I offer no excuse for the fact that in 2015, that directive is still 

not updated. As often happens in large organizations, we continue 

to make tweaks and changes to the process. When we sat down to 

put pen to paper and update the directive for the process, we say 

we have some additional changes on the horizon so we fall victim 

to this notion of putting off the update until all the changes are in 

place. 

Our new Chief Financial Officer has taken this on as something 

that has been outstanding for too long. I have met with her on it 

and I know that the Office of Chief Financial Officer is very committed to updating this directive. 

Senator INHOFE. Do you have any idea about how long that will 

take? The criticism the IG had way back in 2005—you have been 

working on this now for a long period of time—do you have any 

idea when we might be able to come forward with something that 

we can start using? 

Ms. SVINICKI. I am not certain of the current estimate. Could I 

provide that for the record? 

Senator INHOFE. Let us do that. How about you, Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman BURNS. Our CFO passed me a note that basically says 

the document is complete. They are awaiting completion of the related strategic plan management directive and expect to submit it 

to the Commission soon. 

Senator INHOFE. For the record, all four of you are in support of 

the change that will be coming forward. That is fine. 

Senator Boxer, we agreed we would have an additional 3 minutes. You are recognized. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Do you remember, each of you, that you answered the following 

question with a yes in a very important way? This is the question 

I am going to ask if each of you remembers you said yes to it. 

Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, documents, 

electronic and other forms of communication are provided to this 

committee and its staff and other appropriate committees in a 

timely manner? Do you remember saying yes to that? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes, I do. 

Senator BOXER. Do you, sir? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Yes, I do. 

Senator BOXER. Do you, sir? 

Chairman BURNS. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. Do you, sir? 

Mr. BARAN. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. Well, it is not happening and it is awful. You say 

yes and then you don’t come across with the materials. People are 

waiting for these materials. Senator Markey talked about his request. You said you would sit down and talk to him. 

Here is the situation with me. The NRC is still withholding two 

categories of documents related to the San Onofre investigation. 

This investigation is important because it has implications for 

other reactors and the way the NRC enforces its safety requirements. 
161 

In fact, it turns out that when Diablo Canyon replaced its steam 

generators, it also violated the very same safety regulations that 

were violated at San Onofre. Yet, NRC has not done anything 

meaningful to learn from its repeated failures to detect noncompliance with its own regulations. 

I don’t have any confidence that it will and now there is another 

issue Senator Inhofe raised about when you are getting things 

done. What is this? You put it in a folder to do sometime? This 

makes no sense. This is very serious to me because you all looked 

me in the eye, as you should now, and said that you would turn 

over this documentation. 

Ms. Svinicki, do you remember saying yes? You do. Are you willing to turn over this document which renown constitutional scholar 

Mort Rosenberg said ‘‘NRC’s reason for withholding the documents 

demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of Congress’ investigatory power and that they misstate court decisions and ignore case 

law.’’ 

Would you be willing to turn over these documents that I have 

asked for? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Senator Boxer, I have supported our offer to engage with you and your staff on providing information and briefings. 

Senator BOXER. I am asking for documents. That is not what you 

said yes to. You are considered as being sworn when you said that, 

you know, even if I didn’t say do you swear. You are sworn. 

I am asking you, will you turn over the documents, yes or no? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Senator, I have supported our previous response. 

Senator BOXER. OK. That is a no. 

Mr. Ostendorff, yes or no, the documents I am requesting? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Senator Boxer, we have responded on three different occasions in writing based on Commission correspondence to 

request to meet with your staff and be with you to discuss in detail 

some of these. 

Senator BOXER. I have asked you for documents. It doesn’t say 

do you agree to ensure that you will sit down with a Senator when 

she asks you for documents. The answer is no. 

What about you, Mr. Burns? 

Chairman BURNS. Senator, the request on this matter came up 

before I was here. 

Senator BOXER. Before your time. 

Chairman BURNS. As I said and I think we have said before, I 

am committed to work with the committee. In terms of your immediate document request, with all due respect—I said this before in 

my confirmation hearing—I think there are areas—this may be one 

where there are issues with respect to provision in certain types of 

areas. 

Senator BOXER. There are words, words, words, words. 

Chairman BURNS. The words are, I will commit to work with 

your staff to see what we can do to make the accommodation to the 

committee. 

Senator BOXER. That is not what you agreed to. You agreed to 

ensure that testimony, briefings, documents and electronic and 

other forms of communication are provided to this committee, all 

members and its staff and other appropriate committees. 
162 

I am glad you want to sit down. Great, we will sit. I will sit with 

all of you. I want the documents. 

What about you? Do you have the same answer, that you will sit 

down with us or are you going to turn over the documents? 

Mr. BARAN. The Commission, as a body, would have to decide to 

do that. My view, which I explained in my confirmation hearing 

and the last time I was here, is that our default under our internal 

Commission procedures should be that when a Ranking Member or 

a Chairman of one of our oversight committees requests documents, we should do everything we can to be responsive. 

If there are documents that are particularly sensitive, we need 

to work with you all and make sure we provide them as soon as 

possible. 

Senator BOXER. Let me say for the record, I know my time has 

expired and I am so very grateful to you, this is not a partisan 

matter. We take our roles seriously. It does not say we will—each 

of you said you would turn over documents. You didn’t caveat it. 

You didn’t say, well, it depends on the document and I will sit 

down with you. 

You are in violation of what I consider to be a sacred commitment. I know, because the law says, when you answered this question, it is as if you were under oath. Do any of you want to change 

the response you gave and just give me a yes. 

OK. Then I have to say this entire group of you commissioners, 

are not fulfilling an oath that you made. It is very disturbing because we have a job to do, whether it is a budgetary job or a safety 

job. All of your talk here is just that. 

I am asking for documents. Yes, we will have you sit down with 

my counsel and you. We will see where we go but this is distressing. 

Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Boxer. 

Since you went over, I will only take a few moments. I would ask 

if you would expand a little further. If you remember my opening 

questions to you, I observed getting back to Fukushima, two things. 

One was that we have responded in way and a number of documents have come forth and there have been requests. 

The other one I think that is not talked about enough is the fact 

that Japan was not in the same situation that we were. When I 

said they were not as prepared for the extreme event as our industry was, in fact the Japanese government report, their report, said 

the equipment the NRC required—talking about our NRC—following September 11 might have made the difference at 

Fukushima. That is huge. That is them saying this. 

You guys need to be talking about this more because you get a 

lot of criticism and I think it is unjustified. I think this is pretty 

good when their report implies if they had done it the way our 

practices are, that may not have happened. That is very significant. 

Do you guys have any response to that? Is there any reason not 

to be talking about that? I think it is very important. 

Chairman BURNS. I might offer this, Mr. Chairman. As I recall 

when we received the Near Term Task Force report, the Commission did, in 2011, one of the things it noted was the benefits of 

what we call the B5B improvements, the positioning of equipment 
163 

that was done after 9/11 which gave us a significant benefit in 

terms of safety. 

Some of the things we did after that, as I understand, there were 

inspections done to ensure that equipment was placed. What the 

industry has done in terms of these regional support centers has 

enhanced those things. 

I think you are right. I think particularly on that issue, what 

this agency had done and what the industry had done after 9/11 

put it in a good place in terms of the overall safety of plants as 

we look holistically at the lessons learned from Fukushima. My colleagues might have some thoughts also. 

Senator INHOFE. Do you have any comments to make about that? 

The impression I get from a lot of people is we all started at the 

same place and we did not. Any comments? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Commissioner Svinicki and I were the two 

commissioners here after Fukushima. We made a conscious decision by a unanimous Commission vote, five to zero, to not require 

any U.S. nuclear power plant to shut down because of safety concerns. We did not have those safety concerns. 

At the same time, we believed it was appropriate to study and 

look at where we could make some enhancements. We have done 

just that. 

Our comment with respect to seismic and flooding concerns, I 

think that was on your part, Senator Inhofe, with respect to the 

Japan situation, there has been significant work done in this Country in response to the requirement we put down 3 years ago to tell 

each licensee to submit their flooding and seismic reevaluations at 

NRC. 

That work has been largely completed. Some of it is still under 

way but there has been a lot of progress in that particular area. 

Senator INHOFE. That is good. That is specific and that needs to 

be said. 

How about you, Ms. Svinicki? 

Ms. SVINICKI. The equipment that was put in place after the attacks of September 11 made all U.S. nuclear plants inherently 

more able to respond to extreme events. It was instituted, of 

course, for a terrorist attack but that same equipment allows a facility to mitigate against an extreme natural disaster. 

I think the Japanese report you quoted is acknowledging that 

U.S. facilities had been through the 9/11 attacks and the equipment provided that capability at U.S. plants. 

Senator INHOFE. That needs to be called to the attention of the 

American people, people who are closely watching this. 

Anything else, Senator Boxer? 

Senator BOXER. I just want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, very 

much for this hearing and for continuing the oversight. 

I would say I hope to God you are right, that we are much safer, 

but I will say if you go back to the Japanese statements before this, 

they were just like yours—we are so safe, we are so safe. Just because we think something, the Japanese really thought they were 

safe. They are known for their technology and precision. I think we 

need to move forward. 

Thank you for your leadership. 

Senator INHOFE. You bet. 
164 

I think it would be appropriate to ask unanimous consent the 

Japanese government report be added to the record in this proceeding today. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 
225 
226 
227 
228 
229 
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 
238 
239 
240 
241 
242 

Senator INHOFE. I thank all of you for your service and for being 

here. We are looking forward to working in an aggressive way to 

enhance nuclear power in America. 

Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

Thank you, Chairman Inhofe, for convening this hearing on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) fiscal year 2016 budget. I’d like to welcome back the 

NRC commissioners to the committee and welcome Chairman Burns to his first 

hearing before us as chairman of the NRC. 

For this country to meet its climate and clean air goals, we must have nuclear 

in the energy mix. And in order to do that, we must ensure we have a safe nuclear 

industry here at home and around the world. 

Fortunately, the NRC is considered the gold standard when it comes to nuclear 

safety regulatory agencies. As a result, we have some of the safest nuclear plants 

in the world. However, with nuclear safety we can never rest on our laurels. Science 

and technology are constantly evolving and, in response, the NRC must adapt to ensure the public continues to be protected. I believe the NRC is up to the challenge. 

Today we have the opportunity to hear how the NRC is using its budget to update 

our nuclear safety regulations to ensure accidents like Fukushima don’t happen on 

American soil and address the many other challenges faced by the commission on 

a day to day basis. I look forward to today’s dialog with the commission and my 

colleagues. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BERNARD SANDERS, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT

There are very serious concerns about nuclear power: concerns with the safety aspects, and concerns about how the nuclear industry’s reliance on Federal subsidies 

hides the true costs of nuclear power. There are also very serious concerns about 

a potential disaster on the scale of Fukushima, which would not only cost taxpayers 

potentially billions of dollars but also do untold damage to our economy and infrastructure. 

This oversight hearing will cover a wide range of very important issues, but I 

would like to focus on one specific issue, and that is the need to provide a strong 

role for State in the decommissioning process when a nuclear plant shuts down. 

Currently, the existing rules involve only the NRC and companies who license nuclear plants to negotiate a decommissioning process. As of now, no State with a 

plant that is set to be decommissioned has a role in that process. States are merely 

observers in the process—they can hold public meetings, they can provide input on 

what is important to the communities that will be affected, but at the end of the 

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

doesn’t make sense. The people of the State, whether it’s my State of Vermont or 

any other State with a plant being decommissioned—should have the right to have 

a place at the table. 

The Vermont Yankee nuclear plant began the decommissioning process last December. I have very serious concerns about the way Entergy plans to carry out the 

decommissioning of Vermont Yankee, including worries about Entergy’s limited efforts to address radioactivity levels at the plant, and worries about Entergy’s ability 

to finance all of the work that must be done in the decommissioning process. And 

on Entergy’s timeline, decommissioning will take more than 60 years to complete. 

Imagine having a hulking mass of radioactivity in Southern Vermont deteriorating 

for 60 years. Nobody I know in Vermont wants that to happen. 

Now, the State of Vermont, which will have to deal with the consequences of the 

decommissioning process, was shut out from giving any input before Entergy submitted its decommissioning plan to the NRC, so we now have a plan that the State 

of Vermont and surrounding communities take serious issue with, but that was accepted by the NRC without any sort of official decisionmaking process. 

Because the NRC’s rules on decommissioning provide no meaningful role to States 

in crafting the decommissioning plan, Vermonters have been left outside looking in 

as the NRC and Entergy make key decisions that affect our State. 
243 

The fact that licensees like Entergy could adopt a decommissioning plan that ignores the interests and needs of Vermonters and leaves the State with no recourse 

is fundamentally unfair and unreasonable. 

This policy doesn’t just affect Vermonters. Right now, there are nuclear plants 

being decommissioned across the country—in California, Florida, New York, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. All of these States have a serious stake in making 

sure that these plants are decommissioned safely and responsibly, and their interests should be reflected in the decommissioning plan. 

There are very serious economic impacts to the surrounding communities when 

a plant closes—job losses and a decrease in the tax base. There are likewise the environmental impacts to be considered. Given how significantly these communities 

are affected during the decommissioning process, States should have a seat at the 

table when the NRC and the companies are drafting plans to decommission these 

plants. 

My bill, which is cosponsored by Senators Boxer and Markey, addresses this very 

serious flaw in the decommissioning process by requiring the NRC to review decommissioning plans before they are finalized, and to also provide the opportunity for 

States to provide feedback and shape the plans before they are accepted. 

By doing this, my bill gives States and surrounding communities a voice in the 

decommissioning process and a way to hold licensees accountable if they do not stick 

to that plan. 

This clearly is not a partisan issue, and is not even a rural or urban issue. It is 

a simple question of whether the people in these States get a seat at the table. 

I look forward to working with Senators Boxer and Markey on legislation to provide increased safety and more accountability during the decommissioning process. 

Æ