Bipartisan pro-nuclear love fest at Senate EPW hearing
Yesterday, on International Women’s Day, the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) committee held a hearing that provided both visible and audible proof that times are changing in the political and public acceptance of nuclear energy.
The committee organized the hearing in order to gather information and invited stakeholder feedback related to the recently reintroduced Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (NEIMA). The panel of witnesses included four young or mid-career pro-nuclear women (Maria Korsnick, president and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute, Dr. Ashley Finan, policy director for the Nuclear Innovation Alliance (NIA), Dr. Christina Back, Vice President of General Atomics, and Allison Bawden, acting director for environment and natural resources at the Government Accountability Office (GAO)) and one aging antinuclear male (Dr. Ed Lyman from UCS).
The bill, sponsored by Senator Inhofe (R-OK), was first introduced with three cosponsors, two Democrats and one more Republican. It now has 12 cosponsors, six Democrats and six Republicans.
A large majority of the Senators who offered opening statements at the hearing expressed their strong support for nuclear energy, for the need to enable innovators to address the remaining issues associated with the technology and for the need to reform the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s licensing framework and funding mechanisms.
Many specifically expressed their pleasure at working on “something we all agree on.” It is becoming almost a meme – a most welcome one – that in today’s divisive political environment, one area of common interest where positive action is possible is in relation to enabling nuclear energy to regain its industrial strength and fulfill its technological promise.
There was a general recognition that the nuclear regulatory commission has a creaking licensing framework that is especially tuned to maintaining safe operations of existing nuclear plants but that is overly prescriptive, unpredictable and not usefully phased in support of efficient and effective reviews of new technology.
Senator Whitehouse (D-RI) was especially enthusiastic about the very real promise of turning “nuclear waste” in the form of slightly used fuel into a vast energy resource. He was also concerned about the fact that the current market assigns no monetary value to nuclear energy’s emission free, high quality, dependable power.
Senator Ed Markey (D-MA), an aging antinuclear politician who has been scheming since 1976 to add as many burdens on nuclear power plant owners as possible, devoted his allotted time to taking credit for post 911 changes in nuclear plant security requirements that result in hugely expensive “force on force” monitored exercise requirements.
He stated that he drafted those requirements in response to 911 – an attack on tall or very large buildings using hijacked commercial airliners – which is a complete non sequitur to anyone who gives the premise any thought. He also claimed that the bombing of the Boston Marathon proved that nuclear plants were high on the list for terrorist attacks. He concluded his illogical rant by asking Ms. Korsnick to commit the NEI to supporting the continuation of requirements for the exercises to be conducted and for them to be monitored and graded by the NRC.
Markey claimed that any effort to reduce the extent and expense of these exercises would be akin to allowing students to both take home their tests and to grade their own work. I have no idea why someone hasn’t firmly explained to the Senator that constant readiness to prevent squads or platoons of heavily armed terrorists from attacking the United States is not a private industry responsibility.
Senators from Wyoming and Nebraska were both interested in the overall health of the nuclear industry as it related to their state’s status as important uranium suppliers.
Senator Barrasso probed the DOE’s handling of its surplus uranium stockpile. Ms. Bawden, from the GAO, provided testimony about reports that her agency has completed in which they determined that there were both weaknesses in the way that the program was managed and also apparent violations of various legal requirements.
The GAO has offered a legal opinion that the DOE is not in compliance with laws that require ensuring surplus uranium sales do not negatively impact the uranium market and a more generally applicable law requiring that agencies that collect miscellaneous receipts turn the proceeds over to the U. S. Treasury. The DOE has challenged those opinions.
Sen Barrasso is concerned that the DOE’s sales during a time of market oversupply – termed a glut in a Wyoming newspaper headline – not only harmed the struggling producers in his state but also netted the US government an inadequate return. He didn’t say it this way, but the DOE bought high and sold low, apparently under pressure to alleviate a budget shortfall in a favored program without having to explain its management decisions to Congressional appropriators.
Ms. Korsnick and Dr. Finan provided solid, technically accurate and optimistic testimony about technological advances in nuclear energy and the promise that might be achieved by combining old ideas about fuels, coolants and configurations with improved materials, sensors, displays and control systems.
Dr. Back’s testimony was a little disappointing, but not unexpected considering the source. GA has stated that it believes that reactors should not be considered to be “advanced” unless they meet all four of GA’s recommended criteria. Those statements of recommended “improvements” are overly prescriptive and focused on prioritizing GA’s existing technology interests.
Predictably, Dr. Lyman explained that while his organization claims to be neither pro- nor anti-nuclear, they are opposed to any changes in the NRC that would make licensing or oversight any less costly or any more predictable. They would support changes that increase the burden, however. As support for my evaluation of General Atomics’s recommendations, Dr. Lyman complimented Dr. Back and stated that UCS agrees that all four should be required for any advanced reactor design.
Lyman also stated that the UCS is not in favor of any effort to turn “nuclear waste” into valuable fuel because that might lead to more use of nuclear energy and greater risks that someone, somewhere might decide to take the tortuous path of using reactor grade materials with their complex mixture of various fissile and fertile isotopes to create a weapon instead of taking the easier, tried and true method of simply mining natural uranium and enriching it to weapons grade material.
Watching yesterday’s hearing made me proud and excited to be a nuke and a little regretful that, like Dr. Lyman, I am an aging graybeard.
“I have no idea why someone hasn’t firmly explained to the Senator that constant readiness to prevent squads or platoons of heavily armed terrorists from attacking the United States is not a private industry responsibility”
Exactly!! This is why I believe security at Nuclear Power Plants should be the responsibility of the Federal Government. If terrorists fly jets into skyscrapers and now the NRC believes the largest department at a Nuclear Power Plant needs to be security……then the Federal Government should be financially responsible for providing that security, NOT the utility.
I thought this was written into the Atomic Energy Act or 10CFR
It’s coded under 10FR73.55, for operating plants. For the record, exercises have been run for the last 10+ years and have effectively demonstrated the mission. As someone intimately familiar (and responsible) for running and coordinating these exercises, it is insane to continue them at this point, based upon the costs and ever increasing ridiculousness imposed by the NRC and the contractors who can pretty much dream up any scenario you can imagine. We’ve finally moved to the NRC observing our performance during the required annual security drills we run in-house, which is a step in the right direction. It was also never really necessary to boost security levels to where they’ve been; that was a pure political play by Markey and friends based on myths about the susceptibility of the so called airline attacks. The risk is just not there. The same goes for spent fuel canisters; anyone thinking your going to do those things any real harm needs to get educated about how they’ve been torture tested. It’s just not going happen. When I see people whining about spent fuel being transported through their cities on the way to a single repository, I cringe at the ignorance.
I was referring to the NRC regs that say that the civilian NPP’s are licensed for peace-time use.
Don’t believe any of this about sudden atom-love among “progressive” types. It’s lip-service of how “open-minded” they are. Their heart and the money’s going into “clean coal” and gas, not a wish-list of whiz-bang new reactor technologies the public’s chronically skittish of, thanks to totally unrebutted reports as this:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5315777703001/?#sp=show-clips
If the Senate (namely, the EPW committee) were so pro nuclear, why haven’t they mentioned the Advanced Nuclear Technology Development Act (H.R. 590) at all?
The last action on that bill was on Feb 10, when it was referred to the EPW.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/590/all-actions
I’m just hoping against hope it gets signed.
@BOA3
Bills introduced in the last Congress expire. Process starts again with the newly seated congress. This hearing was to consider the reintroduced Senate version of the House of Representatives bill you are tracking.
H.R. 590 is of the 115th (Current) congress. It was introduced on Jan 20 2017.
If the EPW is pro nuclear (which I wish the whole government was, maybe Trump is, I don’t know), then I wonder why they have taken so long to approve of bills like these (last action on H.R. 590 was on Feb 10, when it was referred to the EPW).
@BOA3
Sorry. Misunderstood. Even so, I would counsel a little patience while still pushing. Considering that the Senate organized a hearing on S. 512 within a month after H.R. 590 was referred to it, I’d say the wheels are turning about as quickly as can be expected. I’m encouraged by the effort being made to ensure that the passed bill is a good one.