- Congressional action needed to change how agency collects fees
- Bipartisan legislation in both chambers seeks to address issue
- NRC staff drops from 3,800 to 3,250 as right-sizing continues
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission chairman said the agency is open to begin a discussion with Congress on the way it collects fees from the companies running nuclear power plants.
“Our commission has not established a position on this,” NRC Chairman Kristine Svinicki said. “The predicted number of potential [nuclear plant] shutdowns does make this a timely issue for the commission and the Congress to engage in a dialogue on this matter.”
The NRC is required by law to derive most of its budget through fees assessed to NRC license holders and applicants. For example, in fiscal 2019 the NRC proposes to recover $815.4 million of its requested budget from fees assessed to NRC licensees.
Changing the fee structure—the way the NRC is funded—would require congressional legislation. As a result of some recent nuclear power plants closures and the announcements of planned future plant closings, there is growing understanding and concern the remaining fleet could be forced to fund the difference under current law.
Bipartisan legislation seeking to address the issue has been introduced in both the House and Senate. In the House, Reps. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) and Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) introduced the Nuclear Utilization of Keynote Energy Act (HR 1320). In the Senate, Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) have sponsored the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (S 512). Both bills seek to address the NRC’s funding situation.
In House and Senate hearings this week, the three NRC commissioners also discussed the NRC’s fiscal 2019 budget request and fielded questions about the Transformation initiative to fundamentally change the way it regulates the nuclear industry in the 21st century. Svinicki said that the NRC’s Transformation team had already received “in excess” of 500-600 proposals on how the agency can fundamentally alter how it conducts business.
“Transformation is meant to encompass not just a small, easily implementable change,” Svinicki said. “The commission is scheduled to receive a set of recommendations in May, but the amount of proposals may make the staff want to have a little more time to evaluate those.”
House Environment and the Economy Subcommittee Chair Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) added that the recent market challenges gave the agency a chance to “rethink” its core mission.
“The main pressures on the nuclear industry provide an opportunity for the NRC to reassess its regulatory process and flexibility,” Shimkus said.
An agile regulatory regime that oversees the breadth of the nuclear supply capacity supports our national interest.
During the Senate hearing, Barrasso asked several pointed questions about the nation’s uranium supply. In January, Energy Fuels Inc. and Ur-Energy Inc. filed a Section 232 petition requesting that the U.S. Department of Commerce investigate the effects of uranium imports on U.S. national security and potentially adjust imports to ensure the long-term viability of the domestic uranium mining industry.
“Now, Russia and its satellites are trying to put America’s uranium producers out of business,” Barrasso said. “Nuclear fuel production is vital to our national security and I call on the Commerce Department to begin an investigation.”
Svinicki responded that a recent meeting with colleagues from the Ukraine had underlined the importance of “having some energy security and diversity.”
“I had the opportunity to see what it is to not have domestic production or supply,” she said. “Depending on the actions of other countries, it can be an overnight problem for your country.”
In her opening remarks at the House hearing, Svinicki noted that from 2014 to the proposed 2019 budget request (excluding the high-level waste program), the agency has reduced its budget by 13 percent from $1.1 billion to $970.7 million and that the number of full-time equivalent employees has been reduced from around 3,800 to about 3,250. She also noted the fiscal 2019 request represents an overall increase of $59.8 million, yet includes a decrease of 149 full-time equivalent employees compared with the 2018 continuing resolution.
At the same hearing, NRC Commissioner Jeff Baran recounted the agency’s effort to right-size itself and become more agile as part of the multiyear Project Aim initiative.
“The results of Project Aim—and our very limited external hiring—have been dramatic,” Baran said. “In just two years, NRC’s workforce has declined by more than 12 percent. The agency started the current fiscal year with around 3,200 employees. That’s about the same staffing level as in 2006, before NRC started to ramp up for the anticipated wave of new reactor applications.”
NEI Chief Nuclear Officer Bill Pitesa praised the NRC’s progress, but said there was room to improve.
“The U.S. nuclear industry is wholly supportive of recent right-sizing efforts at NRC. More of it needs to be done, but this vital initiative is delivering regulatory efficiency and reorienting the agency to safety-significant issues without compromising safety in any regard,” Pitesa said.