Conference Report On H.R. 3183, Energy And Water development And Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 201

Floor Speech

Mr. Speaker, I wish to address briefly the language of Section 401 of the conference report, which requires the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to provide a report on barriers to the issuance of a combined construction and operating licenses (COLs).

As the Chairman of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over the NRC, I want to ensure that the Commission, in responding to Section 401, remains cognizant of its responsibilities to comply with the substantive and procedural requirements of the Atomic Energy Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and NRC regulations in the issuing of COLs to new nuclear power plants. These laws cannot be overridden or even challenged by a reporting requirement appended to an annual appropriations bill.

The NRC should, of course, review COL applications in an efficient fashion, without undue or unwarranted delays. However, speed of action is not the only policy interest that the Congress has with respect to licensing. Public confidence in the fairness and integrity of the licensing process requires the Commission to ensure that licensees comply with the substantive safety requirements of the law and of NRC regulations. The Commission must therefore assure that it does not sacrifice crucial safety evaluations, public input or adequate environmental review as part of any effort to streamline or accelerate its regulatory functions.

Under Section 185 of the Atomic Energy Act, the NRC is directed, after holding a public hearing, to ``issue to the applicant a combined construction and operating license if the application contains sufficient information to support the issuance of a combined license and the Commission determines that there is reasonable assurance that the facility will be constructed and will operate in conformity with the license, the provisions of this Act, and the Commission's rules and regulations.''

The Act further stipulates that in conducting its licensing activities, ``The Commission shall identify within the combined license the inspections, tests, and analyses, including those applicable to emergency planning, that the licensee shall perform, and the acceptance criteria that, if met, are necessary and sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that the facility has been constructed and will be operated in conformity with the license, the provisions of this Act, and the Commission's rules and regulations.''

Moreover, the Act mandates that: ``Following issuance of the combined license, the Commission shall ensure that the prescribed inspections, tests, and analyses are performed and, prior to operation of the facility, shall find that the prescribed acceptance criteria are met.''

In addition, NRC regulations 10 CFR Part 51 and 10 CFR Part 52 implement the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act and NEPA in regards to the licensing process. Under these regulations, for example, the NRC is required to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) as part of the COL application. According to the NRC website, ``the NRC staff estimates that the environmental review process will take approximately 24 months. This includes scoping, issuance of the draft EIS, a comment period, and issuance of the final EIS.''

While it is true that the necessary reviews take time, the NRC's licensing regulations were enacted to protect the public from poorly sited locations, untested reactor designs, and other factors that could lead to environmental damage, unsafe construction, or even catastrophic nuclear emergencies. I support an efficient and effective NRC licensing process as long as it does not come at the expense of the safeguards codified in existing law.

In point of fact, it does not appear that the licensing process itself is to blame for any delays in new reactor approval. In 2007 the NRC established the Office of New Reactors (NRO), separate from the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, so that the NRO can focus solely on the review of new reactors. Indeed, NRC Chairman, Dr. Gregory Jaczko, has repeatedly stated that the licensing delays are ``almost exclusively tied to challenges with the [reactor] designs not being complete,'' resulting in license applications that reference uncertified design plans. This bottleneck has far more to do with the iterative design approval process, than with potential internal NRC barriers such as inefficient administration or inadequate funding. Certainly all must agree that it is impossible for the NRC to approve a license application for which there is not yet an approved design!

Finally, I would note that while Section 401 mandates report submission to the committees on Appropriations, the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which is the NRC's authorizing committee, also expects to receive copies of any reports submitted pursuant to this Section.

I look forward to seeing the Commission's report on this matter, and I urge the Commission to pay careful heed to the current laws and regulations under which the NRC operates, so that we ensure that the nuclear reactor application process works properly.

Source