Copyright 2000 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
March 9, 2000, Thursday
SECTION: PREPARED TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 3213 words
HEADLINE:
PREPARED TESTIMONY OF RICHARD A. MESERVE CHAIRMAN
BEFORE THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS SUBCOMMITTEE
ON CLEAN AIR, WETLANDS, PRIVATE PROPERTY AND NUCLEAR SAFETY
BODY:
Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee:
It is a pleasure to appear before you today with my fellow
Commissioners to discuss the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's accomplishments,
the challenges before us, our budget submittal, and our legislative program. Let
me first introduce my fellow Commissioners, Greta Joy Dicus, Nils J. Diaz,
Edward McGaffigan, Jr., and Jeffrey S. Merrifield. All of us appreciate the
interest of this Subcommittee and the series of hearings that you have held over
the past two years.
I last appeared before the Environment and Public
Works Committee for my confirmation hearing. I told the Committee at that time
that, in my view, the NRC was generally on the right track. My experience over
the past four months has confirmed that view. During the 105th Congress the
Commission began sending a monthly report on our activities to this Subcommittee
and other Congressional oversight and appropriations committees. We believe that
these monthly reports depict an agency that is successfully managing a host of
important initiatives. Our testimony today will briefly summarize some of the
accomplishments that we have described in greater detail in our reports. We also
believe that our programs have benefitted from Congressional scrutiny and from
the scrutiny of other outside stakeholders, both in industry and in the public
interest community. I would like to make specific note of the report issued by
the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) since the Commission
last met with you. The ranking minority member of this Subcommittee, Senator
Graham, was one of the Congressional participants in that study. This was an
excellent study that told us that the NRC was on the right track, but that the
agency had much more to do. We agree.
Accomplishments
Let me
highlight just a few of the major areas that I know are of concern to this
Subcommittee. Mr. Chairman, I understand that you have a continuing interest in
the status of license renewal applications. It should be noted that we have met
or exceeded every milestone in our review of the Calvert Cliffs and Oconee
licensee renewal applications. The Calvert Cliffs license renewal is currently
pending before the full Commission. The staff has recommended, based on its
review of the safety and environmental issues, that the Commission approve the
license renewal application. The Commission was briefed by the staff on its
recommendation on March 3. In addition, the Advisory Committee on Reactor
Safeguards has advised us to approve the license based on its independent review
of the safety issues. I should note that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia heard oral argument on March 2, 2000, on an appeal by the
National Whistleblower Center of the Commission decision to deny the Center an
adjudicatory hearing in this case. Unless the Court orders otherwise, the
Commission intends to reach a decision on the Calvert Cliffs renewal by April,
within 24 months after the application was received. The Oconee license renewal
is similarly on track for a Commission decision by this July. Although we have
processed these first renewal applications expeditiously, we have a major effort
underway to look at the generic lessons learned from license renewal and to make
improvements in our process for future applicants. We now have a large number of
future applicants who are queuing up to renew their reactor licenses -- a
reflection, we believe, of our success in responsibly handling these first
applications.
We also know that you are very interested in our ability
to process license transfers expeditiously. I believe the NRC has an exemplary
record in dealing with the complex license transfer cases that are coming before
us. We were among the first regulators to analyze and act on the transfer of the
Pilgrim operating license to Entergy Corporation from Boston Edison. We were
among the first to approve the Three Mile Island Unit 1 transfer from GPU to
Amergen, and we promptly acted on the Clinton transfer from Illinois Power to
Amergen. There are several other complex licensing transfer cases before us that
arise from the restructuring of the industry. These cases sometimes require a
significant expenditure of energy by our staff, but we will make continuing
efforts to assure timely resolution of those matters.
We are also very
proud of the new reactor oversight process, the process that we plan to use to
inspect, assess and enforce regulations at nuclear reactors. Last year we
launched a pilot program that involved 13 reactors at nine sites, and we learned
a great deal from that effort. The results of the pilot program were recently
presented to the Commission with a staff recommendation that we extend the new
approach to the oversight of all our operating nuclear reactors. The revised
oversight process focuses inspection efforts on those aspects that present the
greatest risk. Moreover, performance indicators covering a range of areas will
be available to the public, which should better enable the public to understand
our assessment of the plants. The new approach also uses a significance
determination process to classify inspection findings, thereby better allowing
the NRC and the licensee to focus attention on the most important safety matters
identified by the inspection. The new approach has been endorsed by a broad
spectrum of stakeholders, and, as I indicated, the NRC intends to extend the new
process to the entire industry. The initial implementation is to begin at all
nuclear power plants in April 2000. We recognize, however, that this is a work
in progress and we will have to make continuous adjustments.
As the
January GAO report to this Subcommittee recommended, we are communicating with
our own staff about the new oversight process and about our risk-informed
regulatory initiatives more broadly. Intensive discussion of how staff concerns
with the new oversight process are to be resolved and intensive training on the
new oversight process are now underway. We believe that the new reactor
oversight approach is a significant improvement over our previous regulatory
oversight process, and the Commission is committed to making these regulatory
revisions work.
I also want to highlight our nuclear materials program
for you. We have a very large number of materials-related initiatives underway.
As with our reactor program, we are working on making our nuclear materials
regulation more risk-informed and flexible. For example, we are in the final
steps of totally revising our regulations governing the medical use of byproduct
material using risk insights, together with other factors, to establish
requirements that better focus licensee and regulatory attention on issues
commensurate with their importance to health and safety. We are also revising
our regulations governing the licensing of fuel cycle facilities to introduce
the use of an integrated safety assessment, thereby incorporating risk insights
into the regulation of these facilities. We are also working with the
international community to learn about problems associated with facilities and
materials programs abroad, most recently illustrated by events in Japan and
Thailand.
We continue to prepare for a possible Department of Energy
application for a high-level waste repository at Yucca Mountain
and, in this endeavor, we have proposed implementing regulations that we believe
will serve to protect public health, safety and the environment. We have
recently provided our comments to DOE on its Viability Assessment, Draft
Environmental Impact Statement, and Draft Siting Guidelines for Yucca
Mountain.
We are implementing by rule a new
registration program for the control of generally-licensed devices that have the
potential to expose members of the public if such devices are disposed of
improperly. Additionally, we are working with other Federal agencies and States
to address protection of public health and safety from sources found in the
public domain without a responsible owner, often referred to as "orphan
sources." Our interest in orphan sources also extends internationally, and the
NRC has been assisting the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) with its
program of identifying and securing orphan sources in member countries. Finally,
we have engaged many different stakeholders in considering the need for a
rulemaking to establish criteria for the release of certain types of slightly
contaminated solid material, the so-called "clearance rule."
We are also
continuing our efforts in decommissioning various sites around the country,
licensing of Independent Spent Fuel Storage Facility Installations,
certification of dry casks, and issues associated with the transportation of
spent fuel and radioactive material.
Stakeholder Involvement
Almost all of our initiatives, whether in the reactor or materials or
waste programs, raise difficult issues on which our stakeholders have widely
differing views. In recent years, the Commission has broadened the scope and the
depth of our interaction with all stakeholders, whether from industry or public
interest groups, whether from the Congress or the States. The Commission has
sought stakeholder involvement at both staff and Commission levels in
redesigning the oversight process for reactors, in re-writing our rules on use
of radioactive materials in medicine, in revising our rules on fuel cycle
facilities, and in establishing the decommissioning requirements for the West
Valley Demonstration Project.
In the case of the reactor oversight
process that I mentioned earlier, we formed a formal advisory committee on which
representatives from our various stakeholder groups met with NRC's staff. That
body has helped us to shape the new oversight process and has helped bring a
very broad constituency of support for the new oversight process.
In the
case of the West Valley Demonstration Project, the Commission interacted
personally with members of the public at a Commission meeting in January 1999.
Input received from that meeting was considered when the Commission prepared a
draft West Valley decommissioning criteria policy statement which was published
in the Federal Register in December 1999. We anticipate a final policy statement
by the end of this year.
Thus, we have sought to increase our
interaction with the public at all levels. I hasten to add that we do not expect
everyone to agree with all of our decisions. But we do believe that our
decisions are best when they are made with as much transparency as possible. We
no doubt can further enhance stakeholder interaction, but I can tell you that we
are all deeply committed to improving the scope and the depth of stakeholder
interaction. By doing so we hope to build public confidence in the Commission
and its decisions.
Budget and Proposed Legislation
To stay the
course on the various initiatives that we have underway, we obviously need
resources to do our job. The Commission has proposed a Fiscal Year 2001 budget
of $488.1 million. This budget request represents approximately
a 3.9% percent ($18 million) increase over the Fiscal Year 2000
budget, but it is still the second lowest budget in the history of the agency in
real terms. The number of employees at the agency continues to decline and our
budget reflects almost a 20% reduction in staff since Fiscal Year 1993. The
$18 million increase over our Fiscal Year 2000 budget is
primarily for the pay raise that the President has authorized for Federal
employees. Two charts reflecting a summary of our budget since Fiscal Year 1993
are attached to this testimony.
This budget requires us to be very
careful in judging priorities so that we can provide adequate resources in
important areas, such as license renewal and license transfers and the needed
preparations for a potential DOE application for the Yucca
Mountain repository. Given the range of initiatives, we are stretched
thin.The NRC has recently submitted a proposed bill for authorization of
appropriations for Fiscal Year 2001. We respectfully request the Committee's
support for our budget request in any managers' amendment to S. 1627, the
authorization bill which your Committee reported last November. S. 1627
currently includes authorization at the requested level for our Fiscal Year 2000
budget.
There is one feature of our budget submission that I know is of
great interest to the Subcommittee. As you know, the Commission has for years
acknowledged that there is a legitimate fairness concern about the fees that are
charged to our licensees. NRC licensees should not be charged fees for
activities that are important to the Agency's mission but which do not directly
benefit them. Such activities constitute about 10% of our budget. To address
this concern, OMB has approved a graduated reduction of the percentage of our
budget that must come from user fees. In Fiscal Year 2001, 98% of our budget,
excluding funds from the Nuclear Waste Fund, will be recovered from user fees.
This percentage will decrease at a rate of 2% per year to 90% in Fiscal Year
2005. We know we have your support for this approach because this Committee has
a very similar approach in S. 1627.
I would like to conclude by touching
briefly on our legislative program. S. 1627, as reported by the Committee,
included many of the provisions that we recommended to the Committee last year.
We deeply appreciate your support for those provisions. There are a few
additional provisions that we would respectfully request you to consider.
First, I would like to mention a provision that is an outgrowth of the
CSIS report that Senator Graham helped prepare. It would clarify that the NRC
has the necessary authority to deal with non-licensees who retain control over
decommissioning funds. This relates to an issue that arises in connection with
various license transfers. We believe we have authority over nonlicensees who
retain control over decommissioning funds, but the CSIS report recommended that
this authority be made crystal clear. We agree that legislation would be helpful
to avoid disputes over the issue and we support a provision to clarify the
point.
Last year we suggested that the foreign ownership and control
provisions in the Atomic Energy Act with regard to nuclear reactors were no
longer necessary. These provisions are not needed because the law will still
retain clear language barring a license to any person if, in the Commission's
opinion, the issuance of a license to such person would be inimical to the
common defense and security or to public health and safety. We are confident,
Mr. Chairman, that no inappropriate foreign entity, such as a State that
supports terrorism or a State that is a proliferation threat, would ever pass
muster under the revised statute, even if the prohibition on foreign ownership
and control were to be lifted.
Another provision involves Senator
Domenici's proposed clarification of our authority under Section 189a. of the
Atomic Energy Act to conduct informal hearings rather than formal trial type
hearings. We very much support public involvement in our licensing process, but
we often find that informal hearings are the appropriate way to engage the
public. For example, we are using informal-hearings in license transfer cases
under a rule that we promulgated in 1998. We firmly believe that we have the
flexibility to determine whether to use formalized trial-type procedures or
other, less formal hearing procedures and are considering revisions to our
administrative hearing process. Nevertheless, this is another area in which the
CSIS report recommends that our statute be clarified. Clarification could
eliminate needless disputes over our authority to fashion appropriate hearing
procedures, and we would support Congressional clarification on this matter.
There is also a provision in our Fiscal Year 2001 authorization bill
that will allow us to provide grants to Agreement States who need to oversee
"formerly licensed sites" and to ensure that these sites are adequately
decontaminated. Formerly licensed sites are sites for which the licenses were
terminated, in many cases by the Atomic Energy Commission prior to NRC's
creation, and which were never issued Agreement States licenses. Some Agreement
States that have formerly licensed sites within their borders have argued that
these sites remain the responsibility of the Federal government. Some States
have expressed a willingness to take responsibility for site decontamination,
but they have requested Federal funding. We believe that it would be efficient,
fair, and in the interest of protecting health and safety for the Federal
government to bear the costs of decontaminating these sites, but legislative
authorization is required for that program. I believe our initiative has strong
support in the States. We estimate the total cost of this proposal for FY 2001
would be $1.4 million.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would
note that the Commission included a provision in last year's request to clarify
the status of NRC's licensees who decommission their sites pursuant to our
license termination rule or who terminate Agreement State licenses pursuant to
an Agreement State's version of our license termination rule. This is a matter
on which we and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have had a long
disagreement. In 1997, after many years of effort, the Commission promulgated a
license termination rule which set what we believe to be a protective standard
for public health and safety and the environment -- namely, a standard
establishing an annual dose limit of 25 mrem for all pathways to the public. The
, EPA has issued guidance to its Regions to the effect that our rule is not
sufficiently protective. We strongly disagree with EPA's assertion. Our rule was
promulgated using a public process, the rule is consistent with international
standards, and is based on sound scientific research. The rule ensures adequate
protection of groundwater. The provision which we suggest for your consideration
would clarify that licensees who clean up to our standard are not subject to
CERLCA except in the rare event in which we or the Agreement State invite the
EPA into the decommissioning to take advantage of CERCLA remedies. The
Appropriations Committees have asked us to try and solve this issue through a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with EPA and we are now seeking to negotiate
such an MOU. But if we fail, legislation would be the cleanest way to resolve
this issue.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman, I have tried to present
some of our pressing issues and accomplishments, and have requested your support
for our budget and for our legislative programs. Let me conclude by once again
thanking you for your interest in our activities. We will best be able to
continue to make progress with continued interest and oversight on your part,
and with your help on budget matters and on legislative initiatives. We stand
ready to continue to make further changes to improve our regulatory programs,
and we look forward to your support in our efforts to reach that goal.
Thank you Mr. Chairman. We would be pleased to answer any questions you
may have.
END
LOAD-DATE: March 10, 2000