[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
A REVIEW OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION'S LICENSING PROCESS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
July 29, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-35
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
___________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
97-575PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
________________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., ZOE LOFGREN, California
Wisconsin DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
DANA ROHRABACHER, California DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois AMI BERA, California
BILL POSEY, Florida ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
RANDY K. WEBER, Texas DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan PAUL TONKO, New York
STEVE KNIGHT, California MARK TAKANO, California
BRIAN BABIN, Texas BILL FOSTER, Illinois
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
GARY PALMER, Alabama
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
------
Subcommittee on Energy
HON. RANDY K. WEBER, Texas, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
STEVE KNIGHT, California ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
C O N T E N T S
July 29, 2015
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Randy K. Weber, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 6
Written Statement............................................ 7
Statement by Representative Alan Grayson, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 8
Written Statement............................................ 9
Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 9
Written Statement............................................ 10
Witnesses:
The Honorable Stephen Burns, Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission
Oral Statement............................................... 11
Written Statement............................................ 13
Discussion....................................................... 26
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
The Honorable Stephen Burns, Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission..................................................... 38
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Document submitted by Representative Randy K. Weber, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 50
A REVIEW OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION'S LICENSING PROCESS
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 29, 2015
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:04 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Randy
Weber [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. The Subcommittee on Energy will come to
order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recesses of the Subcommittee at any time.
Welcome to today's hearing titled ``A Review of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission's Licensing Process,'' and I recognize
myself for five minutes for an opening statement.
Good morning, Chairman Burns. Welcome. Welcome to this
hearing on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's licensing
process as it relates to the Department of Energy's nuclear R&D
programs. Today, we're going to hear from the Honorable Stephen
Burns, Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC), regarding the extent to which the NRC and the DOE may
actually cooperate to enable vital nuclear energy research.
Chairman Burns, we're looking forward to your testimony.
Over the next five minutes or so, I want to give you a
quick overview of this Subcommittee's previous hearings that
have actually led us to hold this hearing today. Last December,
we heard from a startup company and an environmental
institution explaining that tech companies trying to develop
the next generation of nuclear technology need greater
regulatory certainty to raise capital in today's market. They
suggested that the DOE should use its national labs as a forum
to allow private developers to carry out this work--interesting
suggestion.
In May, we heard from another tech company explaining that
research infrastructure to provide versatile neutron
irradiation capabilities is vital for universities and the
next-generation tech companies to research new materials and
fuels. We also heard from the Director of DOE's Nuclear Energy
Innovation Hub that the increased capabilities to model and
simulate nuclear reactions will allow researchers to eliminate
assumptions, which can speed up and lower the cost to develop
new technologies across the board.
So what does all this mean? I'll keep it simple: we have
the best engineers in the world that want to take on commercial
risk and develop these next-generation technologies if we just
give them the opportunity. These new technologies can do five
things: number one, mitigate proliferation risk, which is
important; number two, increase fuel utilization; number three,
reduce waste yields; number four, achieve higher safety
margins; and number five, reach higher levels of thermal
efficiency.
The United States is at its best when we provide a clear
path for our for our technology innovators to do what they do
best: find creative solutions to the world's challenges.
So now I'll explain what we intend to discuss in today's
hearing. This Committee has often found bipartisan support for
the nation's open-access user facilities that provide unique
capabilities for both basic and applied R&D. This is a
particularly good model because the users ultimately take on
whatever form of commercial risk they so choose while the
government simply provides the infrastructure capability. The
prospective DOE user facility we're considering today would be
a fast-reactor-based neutron source. As a practical matter, the
construction of such a facility will almost certainly require
some form of technical assistance from the NRC, and that will
be an interesting topic to explore.
Another issue, and perhaps the most challenging question
for the Subcommittee, is how can the federal government can
make the process simpler for entrepreneurs to conduct
experiments that would enable them to translate theories for
alternative reactor concepts into reality. The NRC has a
regulatory process for non-power reactors, but the time
required to issue a license appears to have created somewhat of
a barrier to investment. So this raises a couple of important
questions relevant to our discussion today. Number one, can the
DOE use its authority to host private developers to conduct
novel experiments advancing next-generation nuclear technology?
And number two, could the NRC benefit in any way by allowing
its staff to provide technical expertise and gain firsthand
knowledge of such reactor experiments?
It is important that we work together to find solutions to
these challenges. America cannot and must not lag behind our
global competitors in this area of critical technology.
Again, we want to thank Chairman Burns for his testimony
today, and we look forward to hearing from you on the NRC's
role in advancing nuclear energy for our nation.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Weber follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee on Energy
Chairman Randy K. Weber
Good morning and welcome to today's Energy Subcommittee hearing on
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's licensing process as it relates to
the Department of Energy's Nuclear R&D programs. Today, we will hear
from the Honorable Stephen Burns, Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC), regarding the extent to which the NRC and
DOE may cooperate to enable vital nuclear energy research. Chairman
Burns, we thank you for your attendance today.
Over the next five minutes or so, I want to give a quick overview
of this Subcommittee's previous hearings that have led us to hold this
hearing today.
Last December, we heard from a startup company and an environmental
institution explaining that tech companies trying to develop the next
generation of nuclear technology need greater regulatory certainty to
raise capital in today's market. They suggested that the DOE should use
its national labs as a forum to allow private developers to carry out
this work.
In May, we heard from another tech company explaining that research
infrastructure to provide versatile neutron irradiation capabilities is
vital for universities and the next generation tech companies to
research new materials and fuels. We also heard from the director of
DOE's nuclear energy innovation HUB that the increased capabilities to
model and simulate nuclear reactions will allow researchers to
eliminate assumptions, which can speed up and lower the cost to develop
new technologies across the board.
So what does this all mean? I'll keep it simple: we have the best
engineers in the world that want to take on commercial risk and develop
these next generation technologies if we just give them the
opportunity.
These new technologies can:
Mitigate proliferation risk
Increase fuel utilization
Reduce waste yields
Achieve higher safety margins
And reach high levels of thermal efficiency
The United States is at its best when we provide a clear path for
our technology innovators to do what they do best - find creative
solutions to the world's challenges. So now I'll explain what we intend
to discuss today.
This Committee has often found bipartisan support for the nation's
open-access user facilities that provide unique capabilities for both
basic and applied R&D. This is a particularly good model because the
users ultimately take on whatever form of commercial risk they so
choose while the government simply provides the infrastructure
capability. The prospective DOE user facility we're considering today
would be a fast-reactor based neutron source. As a practical matter,
the construction of such a facility will almost certainly require some
form of technical assistance from the NRC and that will be an
interesting topic to explore.
Another issue, and perhaps the most challenging question for the
Subcommittee, is how the federal government can make the process
simpler for entrepreneurs to conduct experiments that would enable them
to translate theories for alternative reactor concepts to reality. The
NRC has a regulatory process for non-power reactors, but the time
required to issue a license appears to have created a barrier to
investment. This raises several important questions relevant to our
discussion today. Can the DOE use its authority to host private
developers to conduct novel experiments advancing next generation
nuclear technology, and could the NRC benefit in any way by allowing
its staff to provide technical expertise and gain firsthand knowledge
of such reactor experiments?
It is important that we work together to find solutions to these
challenges. America must not lag behind our global competitors in this
area of critical technology.
Again, I thank Chairman Burns for his testimony today, and I look
forward to hearing from you on the NRC's role in advancing nuclear
energy for our nation.
Chairman Weber. I now recognize the Ranking Member, the
gentleman from Florida, for an opening statement.
Mr. Grayson. Thank you, Chairman Weber, for holding this
hearing today, and thank you, Chairman Burns, for testifying
this morning.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has a vital role to play
in ensuring the health and safety of the American people. The
importance of this role in protecting health and the
environment cannot be overstated.
I look forward to learning more this morning about how the
NRC is applying lessons learned during the Fukushima disaster
in 2011, and lessons learned during the premature degradation
of parts of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in 2012,
as well as similar incidents and accidents around the world.
Today we'll discuss new, advanced nuclear technologies that
address the safety, waste, and cost issues associated with
previous generations of nuclear power plants. Given that the
bulk of NRC's expertise and resources are focused on licensing,
and ensuring the safety of, current light-water reactors, the
path for developing, commercializing, and licensing newer
technologies is less clear. Should a breakthrough in nuclear
fusion be achieved in the next decade, the path toward
licensing a fusion reactor is to be determined. I look forward
to working with you, Chairman Burns, to address these issues as
they arise.
New technologies have a potential to change the world's
energy landscape radically. They have the potential to meet our
energy needs while significantly reducing the threat of climate
disruption. We must give these new energy options the chance to
prove themselves while also ensuring that they are not
compromising our health or our safety in any way.
Chairman Burns. I look forward to hearing your testimony,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grayson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee on Energy
Minority Ranking Member Alan Grayson
Thank you, Chairman Weber for holding this hearing today, and thank
you to Chairman Burns for testifying this morning.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has a vital role to play in
ensuring the health and safety of the American people. The importance
of its role in protecting the environment, particularly in a time where
recent events have led some to question the future of nuclear power,
cannot be overstated. I look forward to learning more this morning
about how the NRC is applying lessons learned during the Fukushima
disaster in 2011, and lessons learned during the premature degradation
of parts of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in 2012, as well
as similar incidents around the world.
Today, I hope you will discuss the potential for new, advanced
nuclear technologies that address the safety, waste, and cost issues
associated with previous generations of nuclear power plants. Given
that the bulk of NRC's expertise and resources are focused on
licensing, and ensuring the safety of, current light water reactors,
the path for developing, commercializing, and licensing newer, and
potentially far superior, technologies is less clear. Should a
breakthrough in nuclear fusion be achieved within the next decade, the
path toward licensing a fusion reactor is murky, at best.
I look forward to working with you, Chairman Burns, to address
these issues as they arise. Advanced fission, and especially fusion
energy, technologies have the potential to radically change the world's
energy landscape. They have the potential to meet our energy needs
while significantly reducing the threat of climate disruption. We must
give these new energy options the chance to prove themselves while also
ensuring that we are not compromising the health and safety of our
citizens in any way.
Thank you, again, for being here, Mr. Burns. I look forward to
hearing your testimony, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Mr. Grayson, and I recognize the
Chairman of the full Committee, the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Smith.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today's hearing will examine opportunities for advances in
nuclear fission and fusion energy technologies. We will hear
from the Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Stephen Burns, who will provide the regulatory perspective on
matters of policy for the next generation of nuclear energy
technology.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is an independent
regulatory agency that licenses and regulates America's
civilian nuclear material and technology. The NRC was
established in 1974 when Congress separated the supportive
nuclear research and development aspects of the Atomic Energy
Commission from its regulatory side.
Currently, the Department of Energy supports nuclear R&D to
advance nuclear science while the NRC licenses new technologies
as the private sector brings them to the market.
Today we will get a better understanding of how DOE can
more effectively advance innovation in nuclear energy and align
its R&D priorities to fill gaps where the NRC is not permitted
to do so.
Nuclear energy provides reliable, zero-emission power. This
technology represents a great opportunity for innovation to
increase our nation's economic prosperity and global
competitiveness. Yet the status quo is not working to bring new
reactor concepts to the market. One challenge is that the NRC's
licensing mechanism for alternative reactor concepts is not yet
fully developed. This is not necessarily a fault of the NRC, as
it must first oversee the safety of its licensees, which fund
90 percent of the Commission's budget. The NRC's strict mission
focus has helped the U.S. nuclear industry attain one of the
safest working environments in the world.
The Committee's responsibility, however, is to look beyond
today. We must search for opportunities where our nation's R&D
can help make our future brighter.
The DOE national laboratories provide vital capabilities
for the private sector to invest in innovative energy
technologies. This includes its open-access user facilities,
which are one-of-a-kind machines that allow researchers to
investigate fundamental scientific questions. These facilities
enable a wide array of researchers from academia, defense, and
the private sector to develop new technologies without favoring
one type of design. This represents a better approach than
simply picking winners and losers through energy subsidies.
DOE's labs also provide the fundamental research
capabilities that lead to scientific publications or
proprietary research. For nuclear energy R&D, this research is
especially challenging because of the inherent regulatory
burden that comes with using nuclear material. For this reason,
the DOE and NRC should cooperate where appropriate to ensure
that the R&D investments we make today will reach the market
for the benefit of all Americans tomorrow.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Full Committee Chairman Lamar S. Smith
Today's hearing will examine opportunities for advances in nuclear
fission and fusion energy technologies.
We will hear from the Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Stephen Burns, who will provide the regulatory perspective
on matters of policy for the next generation of nuclear energy
technology.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is an independent
regulatory agency that licenses and regulates America's civilian
nuclear material and technology. The NRC was established in 1974 when
Congress separated the supportive nuclear research and development
(R&D) aspects of the Atomic Energy Commission from its regulatory side.
Currently, the Department of Energy (DOE) supports nuclear R&D to
advance nuclear science while the NRC licenses new technologies as the
private sector brings them to the market.
Today, we will get a better understanding of how DOE can more
effectively advance innovation in nuclear energy and align its R&D
priorities to fill gaps where the NRC is not permitted to do so.
Nuclear energy provides reliable, zero-emission power. This technology
represents a great opportunity for innovation to increase our Nation's
economic prosperity and global competitiveness.
Yet the status quo is not working to bring new reactor concepts to
the market. One challenge is that the NRC's licensing mechanism for
alternative reactor concepts is not yet fully developed. This is not
necessarily a fault of the NRC as it must first oversee the safety of
its licensees, which fund 90 percent of the Commission's budget. The
NRC's strict mission focus has helped the U.S. nuclear industry attain
one of the safest working environments in the world.
This Committee's responsibility, however, is to look beyond today.
We must search for opportunities where our Nation's R&D can help make
our future brighter. The DOE national laboratories provide vital
capabilities for the private sector to invest in innovative energy
technologies. This includes its open--access user facilities, which are
one-of-a-kind machines that allow researchers to investigate
fundamental scientific questions.
These facilities enable a wide array of researchers from academia,
defense, and the private sector to develop new technologies without
favoring one type of design. This represents a better approach than
simply picking winners and losers through energy subsidies.
DOE's labs also provide the fundamental research capabilities that
lead to scientific publications or proprietary research. For nuclear
energy R&D, this research is especially challenging because of the
inherent regulatory burden that comes with using nuclear material.
For this reason, the DOE and NRC should cooperate where appropriate
to ensure that the R&D investments we make today will reach the market
for the benefit of all Americans tomorrow.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and I yield back.
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Chairman.
Our witness today is the Honorable Stephen Burns, Chairman
of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Mr. Burns served as
General Counsel of the NRC from May 2009 until April 2012 after
having served as the NRC's Deputy General Counsel from 1998.
Mr. Burns received his bachelor's degree in German magna cum
laude from Colgate University and his J.D. from George
Washington University. Mr. Burns, you are now recognized for
five minutes.
TESTIMONY OF HON. STEPHEN BURNS, CHAIRMAN,
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Mr. Burns. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before
you today to discuss the NRC's licensing policies as they might
apply to current and prospective Department of Energy nuclear
energy research and development programs.
In January, the NRC marked its 40th anniversary as the
independent agency in the United States responsible for
licensing and regulating civilian uses of radioactive materials
and nuclear facilities to ensure the production--protection--
excuse me--of public health and safety, the common defense and
security and the environment.
The NRC's regulatory program has been substantially
strengthened over the years based in part on what we have
learned from both domestic as well as international operating
experience. Staff has made significant progress in preparing to
review design certification applications for small modular
reactors, one of which is expected to be submitted in late
2016.
And finally, the NRC is taking initial steps to prepare for
the review and licensing of non-light-water reactor designs,
which are the subject and focus of today's hearing.
Our cooperation with the Department of Energy on topics of
mutual interest dates back to the Energy Reorganization Act of
1974 when the old Atomic Energy Commission was split into two
separate organizations, the Energy Research and Development
Administration, which later became part of the Department of
Energy, and the NRC.
The skills and experience base of NRC and DOE are highly
complementary. The mandate to correct--or to conduct R&D
programs including civilian nuclear energy research,
development and demonstration ensures that the Department of
Energy has a deep technical capacity in a wide range of nuclear
technologies. The NRC as an independent body focuses on
licensing and oversight of commercial nuclear power operations
to ensure public health and safety.
The mutually beneficial relationship across the nuclear
plant lifecycle pays dividends to both agencies. DOE has been a
key technical partner as the NRC moves toward gaining expertise
in non-light-water technologies and looks to adapt its
licensing framework.
The statutory authorities governing cooperation between NRC
and DOE are well established. Our role in a project located at
a DOE site is shaped by the purposes and function of the
proposed project. Depending on the specific goal and purpose of
the project, NRC could have licensing and regulatory authority
over some types of facilities that are envisioned, for example,
in H.R. 1158. For example, the Atomic Energy Act currently
authorizes the NRC to issue licenses for production and
utilization facilities for commercial purposes or licenses for
research and development purposes.
The NRC has substantial experience in reactor licensing
processes that are well established and which have been applied
to an array of reactor technologies. We've determined that our
current reactor design or licensing regulations are adequate
for conducting reviews of advanced reactor applications.
However, we recognize the potential gaps in understanding of
acceptance criteria for both the NRC staff and applicants.
To better understand the opportunities for most efficiently
adapting the current regulatory framework for non-light-water
reactors, the agency has reviewed our licensing processes and
infrastructure. We had a report in 2012 to Congress on advanced
reactor licensing, and it included such recommendations as the
need for additional research in areas such as materials and
structural analysis, the need for appropriate computational
tools for use in application reviews, and ensuring that
appropriately trained and experienced staff are able to perform
the reviews. We'll continue to develop our capability to
evaluate non-light-water designs that may proceed to commercial
maturity at a pace consistent with appropriated resources and
Congressional direction.
We don't favor one particular technology over another, but
through open communication with the non-light-water community
and developers, and with the DOE, we're able to better optimize
our planning and resources to conduct licensing reviews when a
complete and technically sufficient application is presented
for our consideration. We'll continue to work closely with DOE
within our respective legal mandates to look for additional
joint opportunities to make overall reactor development and
licensing processes as transparent and as navigable as possible
to reactor designs and potential applicants. In fact, we plan
to hold a series of public workshops with the DOE starting this
September to engage further with the designers, applicants,
industry groups and the public.
In closing, I'll note that the NRC remains a technically
adept and widely respected independent regulator domestically
and internationally. Drawing on our experience and licensing
processes to protect public health and safety, we have taken a
number of steps to prepare ourselves for the future while we
also recognize the important and complementary role the DOE
plays.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the
subcommittee today, and I look forward to your questions. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Burns follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Chairman Burns.
You said the NRC was 40 years old in 1975?
Mr. Burns. Yes. We came into existence at the beginning of
1975.
Chairman Weber. January 1975?
Mr. Burns. We have a 40th birthday this year.
Chairman Weber. Well, you don't look that old. I just want
to--interestingly enough, on this day in history, in 1957, the
IAEA was formed, so it's a very apropopriate date for us to
have this testimony.
Chairman Burns--I'm going to recognize myself for five
minutes for questions.
Chairman Burns, I believe you said that the NRC would not
have jurisdiction over a DOE-owned and -operated user facility
such as a proposed fast-reactor-based neutron source under
consideration in this Committee. That said, if the DOE is to
build this prospective facility under its own authority, my
notes are saying it may require technical review from the NRC,
and of course, we believe that it would, and can you elaborate
on the extent to which the NRC would be able to provide that
technical assistance to the DOE for such a project as this?
Mr. Burns. Certainly. As you say, with the assumption that
it's a DOE facility or created and constructed on behalf of the
Department of Energy, we're still able to provide technical
assistance and support to the Department. It's similar--it
would be similar to what we do in the naval reactors area. We
provide naval reactors reviews of new submarine reactor
designs, and not only submarines, I think more recently an
aircraft carrier design. So under basically reimbursable
agreements, we will look at those technologies and can provide
that kind of assistance. It also in some respects can benefit
us to the extent that in the future, we may have similar type
technology come before us in our own licensing role. We can
gain experience that way.
Chairman Weber. Well, you would be on the cutting edge or
the leading edge, as it were, of watching that kind of
technology develop.
You pointed out that if data collected from this facility
is used to make the safety case in a future license
application, the NRC would need to ensure that its Quality
Assurance Program is followed. It makes sense to me that you
would need to independently verify data if it's used to prove
the safety for a product once it's commercial. So my question
is this: Could this potential facility be helpful to the
Commission for that very purpose, for verifying that physical
data?
Mr. Burns. I think it could be, and again, I think the
point I was trying to make in the testimony was that when you
do the evaluations and the testing--and the Department would be
doing it at a high-quality level. I don't mean to cast any
aspersion. But again, if you're looking for transferability
from the Department's context and then ultimately to, say, a
commercial context, the more you have conformity or harmony
between the two organizations, the more useful I think in the
long term the outcomes or the information you glean will be.
Chairman Weber. In layman's terms, if you actually watch
that process unfold, understand the steps it took to get there
and the verifiability of that data, then that would actually
help the NRC in its role, wouldn't it?
Mr. Burns. Yes. It's not--and it's not only the being able
to observe or see the results but it's also the processes
through which the results are obtained.
Chairman Weber. Sure. You explained in your opening
testimony, Chairman Burns, that the NRC's role in the project
at a DOE site would rest on the purpose and function of the
proposed project. So if I understand your testimony correctly,
DOE may enable private developers to construct and operate
research-oriented reactors for purposes such as proving
concepts by reducing theory to reality, provided two things are
true: number one, DOE would in fact have to own that
experimental reactor, and number two, that experimental reactor
may not be used as a basis for commercial power technologies.
Can you explain how you arrived at the conclusion that if the
experimental reactor itself cannot be privately owned, even if
its purpose is solely to improve new technology and increase
practical knowledge at a DOE site?
Mr. Burns. I think--again, I hope I can make this clear.
Again, if it's--if the project is on or--on behalf of or for
the benefit of the Department of Energy within its authorities,
it's not licensed by the NRC. To the extent if you had--I think
maybe an example might help. If you had a private company
essentially creating on a DOE site a commercial venture, that
would be licensable by the NRC. That's what I'm intending to
say.
Chairman Weber. Sure. I got you.
Okay. Well, I'm out of time here so I'm going to yield to
the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. Grayson. Thank you.
At two recent hearings held by this Subcommittee, witnesses
testified that the NRC's standard process for licensing a new
commercial-scale nuclear reactor would be too costly and time-
consuming for early-stage pre-commercial demonstrations of
advanced reactor concepts to move forward. So let's start with
the threshold question, which is whether those processes
actually would apply in that situation.
Mr. Burns. Well, we have a licensing process that has been,
in some forms has actually been in place since the earliest
days of nuclear--implementation of nuclear technology, even
under the Atomic Energy Act. The NRC moved to what we call a
one-step licensing, which is being used by some of the newer
plants that are under construction today about 25 years ago,
which also provided for design certification. So we have the
basic processes. I think the processes that can get through
would apply and would work in these circumstances. I think
where we're looking forward and talking with DOE as well is the
areas in terms of where you're moving from light-water
technology to the advanced technologies, and we need to
understand how do our acceptance criteria fit that? Do you need
exemptions from that? Are there other considerations? So that's
the primary area where we've been focused, and I think trying
to look forward we need to focus.
Mr. Grayson. Well, the criticism specifically was that the
process would be too costly and time-consuming for these
advanced reactor concepts even to move forward. Do you regard
that as a criticism that's well taken or far-fetched?
Mr. Burns. I think probably I'm somewhere in the middle,
probably more on the notion--again, the notion is, I think we
know how to license nuclear power plants in this country. Where
we--I think where we stand ready and able is to engage with
potential developers who are interested in the new technologies
to understand the issues they have, to understand--and so they
also understand what they need to do in order to meet the
safety requirements that the agency sets, and again, I think
how that can happen is early engagement with the agency in
terms of understanding what some of those issues are.
So again, when I've looked at--you know, my understanding
in terms of an application, the application costs in terms of
what it costs to go to the NRC is somewhere on the order of
$45-70 million. That's the application fee. Now, that's a small
part of their development costs. What we can do again, I think,
is engage and assure that they're not off track or that they're
on track in terms of the safety requirements that we require
them to meet.
Mr. Grayson. All right. So you addressed the cost element.
Let's talk about the time element. These are capital-intensive
projects. The money is borrowed in advance before any
electricity or power is generated. There are interest payments
in the meantime. What kind of time commitment are people
looking at when they go ahead and seek a license like this?
Mr. Burns. Again, depending again whether a license or the
certifying the design itself, which then can be referenced in
other licenses. In both circumstances, I think based on my
consultation with my staff, we think we could that on the order
of five years. That's probably a little longer than our
objective on current light-water technologies. It was more like
about 3-1/2 years. But given that they're new, I think it's
probably safe to say on the order of the five years.
Mr. Grayson. Do you see any possibility of dramatically
reducing either the cost or the time involved?
Mr. Burns. Well, again, I think as experience is gained, I
think the timing could be reduced, but there are in addition to
meeting or showing that you demonstrate conformance to the
safety standards also requirments to go through the National
Environmental Policy Act processes, again, I think for new--the
current technology for new reactors, we set, I think about a 3-
1/2-year goal.
Mr. Grayson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield.
Chairman Weber. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and can
I ask you, how many employees does your agency have?
Mr. Burns. It's a little under 3,700 currently.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay, 3,700. And these are highly skilled
and educated people, I imagine?
Mr. Burns. Yes, we have, primarily, you know, our technical
and yes, it's very, very highly skilled in a number of
engineering as well as scientific disciplines.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay, and what's your budget for--annual
budget?
Mr. Burns. The current budget is about $1 billion. Actually
over the next few years I expect that to be smaller, in part
because the number of new reactors that we originally
anticipated, say, ten years ago are not--the volume is not
going to be there, so that's the primary reason I'd say we're
going down.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Are your folks being paid enough to
attract the type of high-quality people you need?
Mr. Burns. Yes, I think so. We have--in terms of the civil
service laws and provisions, we are able to pay well. We get
good experts that have--sometimes will have industry experience
but also academic experience, and I'm very proud of our staff.
Mr. Rohrabacher. You know, there's a lot of, especially on
our side of the aisle where we complain about bureaucracy, and
let me just note that, I mean, I use that joke myself:
Bureaucracy is the most effective method known to man of
turning pure energy into solid waste, all right?
But I think that's really unfair of us because quite often
it's not the bureaucracy, it's not the people, it's the system
that is set up and the criteria that they have to work from,
and I think it's very clear to all of us that we've got a
problem in this country with the development of the next
generation of nuclear energy. We are now approving or we're
involved with approving and putting into place nuclear reactors
that are based on 65-year-old technology. Light-water reactors
are 65 years old, and they're dangerous. The environmental
movement years ago when we first proposed nuclear reactors were
right in the sense that with this type of reactor, we have to
deal with the waste problem and the potential of nuclear--of
some radiation leaking from the system. Our newest systems, I
guess, were sold to Japan, and look at the catastrophe that it
caused there? People say oh, this could never happen with these
new light-reactors. Well, it did because light-water reactors
are inherently dangerous, and some of us are dismayed--I am
dismayed by the fact that we have not gone on to even produce
the prototypes of the next generation, and there's something
wrong with our system. There's something wrong with what we
have done to set up the methodology of bringing that new
technology in.
Your agency is playing a part in that, and I don't know--we
have to change the system in a way that we can be the leaders
in progress on this very important technology for mankind.
Nuclear energy had so much promise, and now we know its dangers
as well, but we know that there's possibilities of--let me--I'm
sorry, Mr. Chairman. I could go on for a while. I've got some
specific questions on this.
The--right now, do you believe that--I'm looking at thorium
reactors, pebble-based reactors, high-temperature gas-cooled
reactors, and even there's--Lockheed even has a fusion, a small
fusion reactor. We have so many options but yet none of them
are moving forward into the market and being put to use, and
instead, we're still improving light-water reactors. Something
is terribly wrong with the system.
Chairman Weber. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Rohrabacher. I certainly will.
Chairman Weber. That's why we're having this hearing today.
Mr. Rohrabacher. That's right.
Chairman Weber. I yield back.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, let me just note, I would hope that
we can try to restructure, that we have some positive things
that we can come up with today and working with you, not just
today but in the days ahead to restructure this system so that
people--so that the business community can commercialize and at
least we can come up with--and the development community can
come up with the prototypes that will give us a chance for a
future use of nuclear energy that's safe for our people, and
thank you very much for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Weber. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr.
Perlmutter.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thanks, Mr. Chair, and thanks to Mr.
Rohrabacher. Honestly, this is an area where I'm new to this
subject and new to this Committee, so I'm going to have some
very basic questions for you.
My district includes Rocky Flats, you know, where we
produced a lot of plutonium triggers over the years. North of
us, we have a mothballed long time ago plant called Fort St.
Vrain.
Mr. Burns. That's correct.
Mr. Perlmutter. And so I'm coming at it from that point of
view, so I'm going to ask just sort of basic questions. How
many nuclear plants do we have in the United States today?
Mr. Burns. Right now, we have 99 operating nuclear power
plants in the United States. I'd expect by the end of the year,
early next year, a 100th will come online. That's the TVA's
Watts Bar 2. And there are, just to expand a little bit for
your benefit----
Mr. Perlmutter. Yes.
Mr. Burns. There are four other plants under construction
in South Carolina and--two in South Carolina and in Georgia
currently.
Mr. Perlmutter. And how many license applications do you
have pending?
Mr. Burns. I might have to give you that for the record. I
think we have on the order of about seven, but I might be off
by one or two there. We have--for example, we recently
authorized a license for DTE Electric near Detroit. We expect
to have a hearing late this year on South Texas 3 and 4 in
Texas, and there are a couple others as well.
Mr. Perlmutter. How long would you say the average license
application runs today? I mean, I know it has varied. Sometimes
it's taken forever and sometimes it's been quicker. What are
they running today?
Mr. Burns. Well, again, I think our objective is for the
license, for the combined license for the new plants is that we
run about 3-1/2 years, so about 42 months. We have a required
hearing----
Mr. Perlmutter. I just want the--I'm not condemning that. I
remember----
Mr. Burns. No, no, no.
Mr. Perlmutter. I had Rocky Flats, okay? I have legacy.
Mr. Burns. Oh, yes.
Mr. Perlmutter. I understand the public safety nature of
the Commission, so I'm not----
Mr. Burns. Right.
Mr. Perlmutter. --condemning that. I want you to do the
right thing and do a good job.
Mr. Burns. But that's why I'm saying, it's about a 42-month
or 3-1/2-year objective to complete the licensing for a
combined license that we issue now. That would assume that you
have a certified design. So you take the design, say, a
Westinghouse design. You reference it in the combined license.
So it takes about that. Some of those, as you say, are longer.
Mr. Perlmutter. Construction of a plant, how long does that
usually run?
Mr. Burns. I'm trying to think. The current experience I
think with the Vogtle plant, it's been about--they've been
under--it'll be about six to eight years.
Mr. Perlmutter. I mean, these are major----
Mr. Burns. Yes, it's a major----
Mr. Perlmutter. --construction.
Mr. Burns. And they've had some construction difficulties
on the way so they were responsible about addressing those, so
that's provided some delay.
Mr. Perlmutter. All right. Now to get towards Mr.
Rohrabacher's questions. So can you tell me--and I know--I'm a
lawyer, you're a lawyer, and you know, maybe you would want an
engineer but my guess is, you know this. So can you explain to
me the difference between heavy water, light water, and some of
the new technologies that he was just going through--thorium
and gas plants and whatever.
Mr. Burns. All right. I'm going to be a little challenged
on that, but basically the newer technologies, say, thorium is
another, would be used instead of uranium, for example, as a
fuel. They may be cooled by different means. You have the
molten salt reactor, you have the high-temperature gas reactor.
The technologies do different things. You know what? I would be
pleased to have the technical staff, give you maybe a brief
rundown or something, maybe a sort of shortened form.
Mr. Perlmutter. But light water would----
Mr. Rohrabacher. I will see you after work for a drink
and----
Mr. Perlmutter. Okay. I'll see you in the gym.
Light water versus heavy water, and then I'll yield back.
Mr. Burns. Yes, and the heavy water, for example,
Canadians, the CANDU reactor uses heavy water. It's--again,
it's the chemical characteristic of the water itself that's
used. As I say, I'm starting to get a little bit out of my
comfort zone.
Mr. Perlmutter. I'm happy to meet with you and anybody
else.
Mr. Burns. Yes.
Mr. Perlmutter. That would be great.
And I yield back to the Chair. Thank you very much.
Chairman Weber. Boy, how would you like to be a fly on the
wall in that meeting?
The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hultgren, is now
recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you, Chairman Burns, for being here today. Nuclear
energy is very important for my home state in Illinois, and
with increasing burdensome regulatory regime being proposed by
EPA, nuclear energy is still the only viable zero-emission-
based-load power source with arbitrary cups that our states are
being forced to implement. Just maintaining our current fleet
is vital to be able to hit these mandates. But there's more we
could be doing to put America in a place to lead the world and
the next generation of advanced reactors. Where are our
reactors go, our regulatory structure goes with them. We need
to be aware of this and we need to get a foothold in our
nations if we'll be able to export these technologies in the
future. For this to happen, we need a regulatory structure that
seamlessly allows for the informed licensing of these
facilities down the road.
Chairman Burns, I appreciate your commentary on my
legislation, and I do have some questions about where the line
is drawn between the DOE and the NRC authority to regulate a
facility. You said in your written testimony, and I quote, that
``NRC would not have regulatory authority over reactors located
in DOE-owned facilities that are used for the purpose of
collecting data for research, testing of materials, or testing
of fuels.''
At the same time, you say you would have authority over a
facility that is operated in a manner for the purpose of
demonstrating the suitability for commercial application of a
power generation facility. I wondered, where is the line drawn
if we are researching new materials? Does it become NRC
jurisdiction if they are just trying to proof-of-concept work
for something down the road? At the early stage we are
certainly trying to establish the properties of new material
and fuel but when does NRC consider this research to be for
commercial application?
Mr. Burns. Thank you for the question. Again, we're
probably at some of those sort of gray areas where the line is,
and probably in looking--you know, if we're getting to that
point, I think that would benefit us and I think also the
Department's understanding what the purposes of the project
are.
Again, the bright line, as you say, would have to be if
it's basically a contractor to DOE for the benefit of DOE. I'm
phrasing it that way because that's clearly on the DOE side.
Again, where it--what I don't want to leave I think is the
impression that any possibility that it may have an ultimately
translated into a commercial benefit down the line means
necessarily that it's--you know, it's NRC's jurisdiction.
That's where I think we have to look carefully what it is.
Again, the easier--perhaps the easier example is if the
demonstration plant is--DOE is providing the land for the
demonstration plant, it is being hooked to the grid and that
type of aspect, that I believe would be our jurisdiction.
I think what it is, this may be one of these things where
we have to look at it carefully in order to give a complete
answer, I think.
Mr. Hultgren. Okay. Well, if we could maybe follow up on
that some more?
Mr. Burns. Sure.
Mr. Hultgren. There is concern there, and we want to make
sure----
Mr. Burns. Yes, and I----
Mr. Hultgren. --we do that well.
Let me move on. My time's going by fast. Does NRC consider
things like the time value of money or opportunity costs of
lost development in the United States when forming regulation?
Mr. Burns. Our regulatory scheme is based primarily on the
Atomic Energy Act, which says we need to establish as a
baseline adequate protection of public health and safety and
common defense and security, and at that point you have to
reach that threshold. Above that threshold we do in effect
include cost-benefit analysis in terms of assessing whether
above the minimum required for safety, is there a benefit, is
there a substantial additional safety benefit for additional
things. So in that respect, beyond the base requirements, we
would consider in fact costs and benefits of additional
regulation.
Mr. Hultgren. Let me wrap up one last question. How does
the NRC anticipate changes in technologies so that the
regulatory process can be responsive to innovation, and tied to
that, does the NRC funding structure limit the Commission's
ability to accommodate innovation?
Mr. Burns. The way we anticipate potential new designs is
by staying in communication with Department of Energy--we have
a good, cooperative relationship with the Department of
Energy--but also hearing from potential designers and potential
applicants. We encourage them to come and meet with us to lay
out what their plans are, and hearing from the industry what
their expectations are, and the second part of your--I'm sorry.
I forgot the second part of your question.
Mr. Hultgren. Well, it's--my time's expired, so we can
follow up maybe with other things.
Mr. Burns. I'm sorry.
Mr. Hultgren. No, that's fine. I just was wondering about
the NRC funding structure, does it limit the Commission's
ability to accommodate innovation. So it's 90 percent funded by
licensees. I wondered if that limit the Commission's ability to
accommodate innovation. We may follow up with written questions
if that's all right.
Mr. Burns. Okay.
Mr. Hultgren. With that, my time's expired, Mr. Chairman. I
yield back. Thank you.
Chairman Weber. You actually have some time, Mr. Hultgren,
if you'd like to follow up on the second part of that question.
I think we're going to go for a second round of questioning
here, if that's all right with--you don't have any questions?
You're good? Okay. Well, you're out of time. But no, you have
time if you want to follow up on that second question. Go
ahead, take your time.
Mr. Hultgren. Why don't we just communicate with your
office, if that's all right?
Mr. Burns. That would be fine.
Mr. Hultgren. We'll get some questions to you if you don't
mind responding to those. We just want to get some
clarification there and make sure again we're recognizing how
innovation is so important but also how regulation can either
encourage innovation or hinder it, and we want to make sure
that while we're doing everything to keep things safe, we're
also doing everything to see potential advancement and taking a
leadership role in the world.
So thanks, Chairman. I'll yield back, but we will follow up
with some written questions. Thank you.
Chairman Weber. I thank the gentleman, and I do have
another question that I wanted to get answered if I could, Mr.
Burns, and that would be, reading through the different--you
know, the different hours, if you will, the NRC has charged.
Decommissioning was one of them. How many decommissioned plants
do we have in the United States?
Mr. Burns. Well, we've completed decommissioning or
oversight of decommissioning of a number of very early
generation plants, and I think currently there's something like
five--I think five are decommissioning. There may be a few more
than that currently.
Chairman Weber. Okay. And do you get involved with the
Navy's decommissioning of their different vessels?
Mr. Burns. No, I don't believe so.
Chairman Weber. No? Okay. Recently we had an older ship
come to Galveston, where I represent, where they were
dismantling it and there was a lot of talk about that, so--
okay. Well, just for the record, I appreciate you all. I think
that the idea of the NRC working with the DOE will give you all
a leg up on watching this new technology kind of unfold, as it
were, and so that when you're involved in that process, it'll
actually help.
And with that, I'm going to recognize the gentleman from
California--I'm sorry. The gentleman from--are you good? Okay.
You don't want to violate the witness's rights anymore? Okay.
Good. The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much. Well, first let me
ask you, how long does a--when you approve a nuclear power
plant like you've been taking about, how long is that actually
functioning? Ten years, 20 years, 30 years, 40 years?
Mr. Burns. Well, under the Atomic Energy Act, for a nuclear
reactor, a license may be issued for an initial term of 40
years, and it can be renewed. We have about 75 of the current
plants of the current fleet that have--their licenses have been
renewed. So the----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Once they build a plant, how long is it in
operation?
Mr. Burns. Well, it can be--much of the fleet has been or
is approaching 40 years, and a number--some of the plants have
gone into the license renewal----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Let me note, Mr. Chairman, that I think
it's outrageous then that we are approving any new light-water
reactors. That means we're stuck with them for 40 years, and
quite frankly, it's old technology that's dangerous, and for us
to be putting Americans, 40 year future generations of
Americans in that danger is absolutely ridiculous, and
especially when we have a number of companies, people with good
reputations who tell us we can build a safe reactor and we
haven't been able to get through the system in order to build
our prototypes that are a safe alternative. And I just wanted
to be on record saying that.
Let me ask you this, and we've been told this. This is not
about necessarily a policy but maybe a mindset when these new
reactor people are coming forward. They're saying that
basically we're sort of in a vicious circle in dealing with
this regulatory process in that it's holding back significant
improvements because--and this is what they perceive, not
necessarily a policy but a mindset that the NRC won't review an
application without committed customers in the loop. So if they
don't have someone already there saying we're going to finance
this, then they--people don't take them seriously, the NRC, and
the--if they are not taken seriously because they don't have--
that just means the NRC is waiting for the customers but the
customers are waiting for the NRC because they can't--they
won't--the people in the money world won't put the money up for
something that hasn't been at least looked at and given initial
approval by your organization. So we're sort of in I guess what
you would call a catch-22. I remember Joseph Heller's book
about this World War II pilot and all of the things he went
through. Every time there was something to get done, there was
a reason why you couldn't do this but there was a reason you
had to do it.
So aren't we--does that mindset exist? If it does, are we
going to change that?
Mr. Burns. Well, Mr. Rohrabacher, what--the obligation we
have now is, we're required to recover 90 percent of our
appropriation through fees, and so basically somebody can come
in, and I think that some of their difficulty, is coming in,
paying the fee for the design review before they may have a
customer or before they have sort of secure financing. You
know, I acknowledge on the other side that that can be an issue
for them, and I think that's part of what this Committee is
trying to explore.
The other piece of it is, it's really a question on
priority of design review because, again, as we have an
appropriation, we don't have unlimited resources so that if
there isn't a customer for a particular design, that means it
may not have a priority. But, for example, currently we have
accepted the design--we do have a design certification under
review for which there isn't a current customer in the United
States. That's because we can--again, they're willing to put up
the fees and we can accommodate within the current resources.
So there may be ways to address that that sort of go
perhaps beyond what the NRC's role----
Mr. Rohrabacher. There's obviously a block somewhere when
for two decades now I have been told by people in industry that
we can create a safe alternative to the current type of nuclear
reactor, and for two decades now been seeing these people come
to my office with really very brilliant people, people who have
been involved in the nuclear industry, saying we can build
these modular reactors in this way or that way or this way, and
these are not fly-by-night people. These are very solid
engineers. And yet they've made no progress towards even making
a prototype. There's a fly in the ointment here. There's a
roadblock there somewhere. I think what we just discussed is
part of it. Perhaps we need also to make sure that we are
committed not just in the NRC but the Department of Energy as
well, that we need to be committed as a country to getting this
job done, to making sure after a certain number of years, we've
going to have a number of prototypes to choose from, and
especially let's not keep our people for 40 years in the future
dependent on a dangerous source of electricity that could be
replaced by something that's less dangerous.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Weber. All right. I thank the gentleman.
I want to thank Chairman Burns for your valuable testimony
and the Members for their questions. The record will remain
open for two weeks for additional comments and written
questions from Members. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 9:56 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by The Hon. Stephen Burns
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Document submitted by Subcommittee Chairman Randy Weber
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]