Public Policy

On behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute, I would like to commend you, Mr. Chairman and the members of this subcommittee for focusing your attention on the value of nuclear technology-related programs in the Energy Department and Nuclear Regulatory Commission budget proposals for fiscal year 2001.

The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) coordinates public policy for the U.S. nuclear industry. We represent 270 members with a broad spectrum of interests, including every U.S. utility that operates a nuclear power plant. NEI's membership also includes nuclear fuel cycle companies, suppliers, engineering and consulting firms, national research laboratories, manufacturers of radiopharmaceuticals, universities, labor unions and law firms.

Today, America's 103 nuclear power plants are the safest, most efficient and most reliable in the world. Nuclear energy is the largest source of emission-free electricity generation in the United States, and the industry last year reached unsurpassed levels for outstanding safety and performance.

Your continued support of nuclear research and development programs is essential to continue advances in nuclear medicine and other nuclear technologies beneficial to society, to guard against the impact of foreign supply disruptions to our energy security and to encourage growth of America's largest source of emission-free electricity. To capitalize on the many benefits of nuclear technologies, research and development of these technologies must be a priority in fiscal year 2001 appropriations legislation.

Federal Storage & Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel
The federal government's responsibility for deep geologic disposal of used nuclear fuel and the byproducts of defense-related activities are long established U.S. national policy. In 1982, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act established federal policy for developing such a facility. In 1987, Congress restricted the repository study to a site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. DOE is committed to providing a decision on formal Yucca Mountain site recommendation to the President in the summer of 2001.

DOE's 1998 viability assessment and 1999 draft environmental impact statement (EIS) point to Yucca Mountain as a viable site for a permanent repository. The draft EIS says that the environmental impacts associated with the repository would be small, certainly less than keeping fuel at nuclear power plant sites that were not designed for long-term storage. It also predicts that peak radiation exposures over 10,000 years, due to the repository, would be less than 1 percent of naturally occurring background radiation at that location, or less radiation than a transcontinental airplane trip.

DOE failed to meet its contractual and statutory obligations to accept and remove used nuclear fuel from national laboratories, nuclear power plants and defense facilities in 152 communities in 41 states beginning in 1998. This failure is a violation of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and also a breach of contracts between the Energy Department and electric utility companies.

Since 1982, American electricity consumers have committed $16.5 billion to the Nuclear Waste Fund, specifically to finance the central federal management of used nuclear fuel. Federal taxpayers have paid an additional $1.2 billion for disposal of waste from defense-related nuclear programs. The Nuclear Waste Fund has a balance of about $10 billion, which must be available for repository construction and operation. The director of DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management said recently that the budget for Yucca Mountain will increase during the repository construction phase to $1.3 billion in fiscal year 2005.

The nuclear power industry strongly supports the Department of Energy's FY 2001 request for $437.5 million for the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management program, which includes continued scientific study at Yucca Mountain. Electricity consumers this year will pay approximately $700 million into the Nuclear Waste Fund. With full funding from Congress, DOE can be held accountable to forward a recommendation to the President on whether to proceed with building a repository at Yucca Mountain in 2001.

Further delay in opening a repository will result in increased costs to consumers for additional used fuel storage at nuclear power plants and could threaten our nation's ability to meet clean air goals.

NEI urges this committee to instruct DOE to provide Congress with detailed five-year projections—with subsequent six-month updates—of the estimated program costs for construction and operation of the federal used nuclear fuel program. DOE also should report monthly on progress toward meeting major repository milestones.

This committee has routinely examined the use of federal grants by Nevada State universities and counties to provide scientific oversight of the Yucca Mountain project. The industry supports funds for legitimate oversight purposes. However, the Nevada Nuclear Waste Project Office has been found to misspend funds. Until the state takes steps to reform this misspending, we believe grants should be restricted to universities and affected counties.

NRC's proposed Yucca Mountain regulations are consistent with sound science by relying on an all-pathways radiation standard. The overwhelming majority of scientists and public health experts believe that this is the appropriate manner to protect the public and the environment. The NRC should be allowed to regulate Yucca Mountain by using the most up to date methodologies available. To do otherwise would cost electric consumers and taxpayers billions of dollars without any meaningful return on public safety or environmental protection.

Although the repository program is the foundation of our national policy for used nuclear fuel disposal, the nuclear industry recognizes there can be value associated with potential future waste management technologies. Farsighted research and development programs allow our nation to continue to be the world leader in nuclear technologies. However, it is important to note those even technologies like transmutation—the conversion of used nuclear fuel into less toxic materials—still requires a geologic repository for disposal of the waste generated from the process.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission
The Commission is making progress to remedy the problem of user fees supporting NRC activities unrelated to licensee activities. The NRC's budget for FY2001 proposes that the NRC collect approximately 98 percent of its budget from user fees levied on licensees, excluding funding from the federal Nuclear Waste Fund. The budget further proposes that each fiscal year from 2001 through 2005, the proportion of the NRC budget derived from user fees will decrease by two percent each year. NEI applauds this proposal but notes that S. 1627, as approved by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, decreases fees by 12% over a similar time frame

The industry thanks the Committee for its continued oversight of the NRC and support for the NRC's new oversight process designed to make regulation of the industry more consistent and efficient. The recently completed pilot program for reactor regulation, which tested the new NRC safety-focused and results-oriented oversight process, was successful. The NRC is now preparing for full implementation this spring.

The industry also applauds the Committee for its concern that the NRC's licensing process for extending nuclear power plant operating licenses be completed on schedule. The NRC has responded to the Committee's direction. The first two electric utility companies seeking 20-year license extensions for nuclear plants are expecting to complete the NRC review process within about 24 months, shorter than the initially expected 36-month period. The industry expects future relicensing applications to be streamlined as the NRC applies lessons learned from the initial license renewal applications.

As priorities change, sound public management and budgeting policy require that the NRC reassess its allocation of resources and make appropriate budget and staffing changes. In that regard, this Committee asked for a comprehensive five-year plan as part of the NRC's FY2001 budget request. The NRC only recently released a complete strategic plan and provided key details of that plan in a "Five Year Planning Information" document released on March 7, 2000. Industry urges the Committee to request a detailed explanation of the NRC's proposed FY2001 budget in the context of the comprehensive plan.

Nuclear Energy Research and Development
Mr. Chairman, for the United States to remain the world leader in nuclear safety and technology, it is crucial that industry and government continue to invest in nuclear technology research and development.

U.S. electricity demand is expected to increase from 50% to 75% during the next decade, and we will need to maintain the 30 percent of electricity production from emission-free electricity sources, such as nuclear energy, solar, hydro and wind power. Of these, nuclear energy is the only expandable, large-scale electricity source that protects our air quality and meets the energy demands of a growing, modern economy.

The expansion of our domestic nuclear power program may ultimately prove to be one of our most strategic initiatives for mitigating the effects of air pollution and greenhouse gases. Without nuclear energy, it would be impossible for the United States to successfully reduce carbon dioxide and other emissions while expanding our economy. Today, improved efficiency and production at nuclear power plants is the single largest carbon reduction technology among industry participants in DOE's Voluntary Reporting Program. Nuclear energy accounts for almost half of the total carbon avoidance reported by all United States industry combined.

In comparison to other electricity generating sources, nuclear energy is unequivocally the most economical federal research and development investment. In 1998, the federal government spent a penny on nuclear energy R&D for every kilowatt-hour of electricity generated at nuclear power plants. By comparison, the cost of natural gas R&D per kilowatt-hour, was 36 cents; for solar photovoltaics, $21,566; and for wind energy $10,700.

NEI urges the Committee to approve $45 million in FY2001 for the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI). The NERI program funds research and development at universities, national laboratories and industry to advance nuclear power technology, pave the way for the expanded use of nuclear energy and maintain U.S. leadership in nuclear plant technology and safety. In FY1999, NERI's review board awarded grants to 46 of 308 proposals submitted.

The DOE request of $28 million for NERI in FY2001 falls short of what is needed for the program. Industry requests Congressional support for an increase to $45 million to provide a balanced strategic program for improved ALWR projects and development of longer-term concepts. The increased funding should be used to complete ongoing projects as well as to fund new projects.

The nuclear industry strongly supports the new nuclear R&D initiative recommended by the White House in the Clean Energy Initiative as the International Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI/I). NEI supports DOE's request for an additional $7 million to launch this cooperative international R&D program. NERI International will promote bilateral and multilateral research focused on advanced technologies to improve safe and efficient nuclear power plant operation and waste management. This program, funded jointly by all participating nations, provides the United States an opportunity to further leverage its nuclear energy R&D dollars.

The nuclear energy industry also encourages the Committee to authorize $10 million for the Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization (NEPO) program, which improves efficiency and reliability while maintaining outstanding safety at U.S. nuclear power plants. This public-private partnership is helping to facilitate America's economic growth and prosperity-and improving our nation's air quality

DOE's University Support Program enhances research and educational programs in nuclear science at colleges and universities. There are a dwindling number of college programs in nuclear engineering and science. To maintain our nation's position as the international leader in the nuclear field, it is vital that this trend be reversed and that our nation's best and brightest technical minds be attracted to the nuclear technologies fields. DOE has requested $12 million for this program, but the industry believes that Congress should allocate $20 million in FY2001 to fund student recruitment, teaching facilities, fuel, reactors and other equipment, and instructors to educate a new generation of American nuclear specialists.

Nuclear Nonproliferation: The industry strongly supports the Clinton Administration goal to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons arsenals around the world. NEI supports the disposal of excess weapons grade nuclear materials through the use of mixed-oxide fuel in reactors in the United States and Russia. As part of the program the DOE is working with Russia on developing a gas reactor for use in the disposition of plutonium. The industry urges the Committee to make sure sufficient funding is available to ensure the successful implementation of the program. NEI also urges the Committee to instruct DOE to provide Congress with detailed five-year projections of the expected program costs for construction and operation of plutonium disposition facilities.

Low-Dose Radiation Research: The nuclear industry strongly supports continued funding for the DOE's low-dose radiation research program. This program will produce an enhanced understanding of low-dose radiation effects to assure that public and private resources are applied in a manner that protects public health and safety without imposing unacceptable risks or unreasonable costs on society.

Nuclear Research Facilities: The nuclear industry is concerned with the declining number of nuclear research facilities. We urge the Committee to request that DOE provide it with a long-term plan for using existing nuclear research facilities, such as the Fast Flux Test Facility, as well as for development of new research facilities.

Uranium Facility Decontamination and Decommissioning: The industry fully supports cleanup of the gaseous diffusion plants at Paducah, Ky., Portsmouth, Ohio; and Oak Ridge, Tenn. Each year, commercial nuclear power plants contribute more than $150 million to the government-managed uranium enrichment plant Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund (D & D Fund). NEI urges the Committee to assure that these monies are spent on D&D activities at these facilities. Other important environmental, safety and/or health activities at these facilities should be paid for out of the general fund. An important factor adding unnecessary costs to site cleanup is the overlapping and conflicting authority between EPA and DOE that hinders development of consistent federal radiation protection standards. We urge the Committee to support the Energy Department in finalizing its proposed decommissioning standards, consistent with those of the NRC, for the agency's sites. This action would ensure safe, and timely standards for the agency's extensive environmental restoration program.

International Nuclear Safety Program & Nuclear Energy Agency: NEI supports the funding requested by the international nuclear safety programs of both the DOE and NRC. They are programs aimed at the safe commercial use of nuclear energy.

Medical Isotopes: The nuclear industry supports the Administration's program for the production of medical and research isotopes. However, NEI is concerned about DOE's dismantling of the calutrons at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory without first identifying new cost effective technology to supply the vital stable isotopes produced at that facility. We support continued funding for the Advanced Nuclear Medicine Initiative to fill the gap where other funding sources, such as the National Institute of Health, have been either unable or unwilling to provide support for radioisotope production.