For those who missed the webcast and don’t have time to watch the archive, below is our summary of the hearing: http://epw.senate.gov/public/
Attendance:
Chairman Boxer, ranking Inhofe, Johanns, Alexander, Sanders, Sub-Committee Chair carper, Sub-Committee ranking Barrasso, Tom Udall, Sessions, Lautenberg, Boozman
Opening Statement Highlights
Chairman Boxer created the tenor for the hearing in her opening remarks, “Task Force recommendations should be implemented as soon as possible”, and referenced a letter the UCS, and NRDC, among others, sent to Chairman Jaczko asking for implementation in near term. She said, “it should not take longer than 90 days to move forward.” She iterated that the Japanese were not prepared, and that “we must prepare for unforeseen disasters.” Once again she directed attention on the spent fuel pools at Fukushima Daiichi and how the US manages used fuel, “more work should be done to move fuel from pools to dry casks.”
Ranking Member Inhofe, stressed the “need to take time to ensure that we have learned the right lessons so that any regulatory changes will have the right benefit.” Commenting on the Commissioners public vote sheets, “pleased to see that many of the Commissioners want to see the task Force recommendations go through a structural process,” he said. Emphasizing the lack of information surrounding the events at the crippled Japanese plant and the Japanese nuclear regulatory structure, “many facts we still don’t know about,” he said, the “Japanese regulatory framework is very different from our own.” “ I don’t believe that an accident in a country with different regulatory systems and practices means that ours is broken.”
Sen. Carper, while highlighting the US fleet safety pronouncements in the Task Force Report, continued on timing of implementation of the Task Force recommendations, “some of these recommendations can be implemented quickly, and some will take more time.” He stressed his hope “the NRC will talk to stakeholders and get public participation. We are all in the same boat.”
Sen. Barrasso said the “US regulatory framework to protect our plants is working.” And, “I do not believe that our regulatory framework is broken.” quoting Commissioner Ostendorff’s vote sheet where he discusses the ‘patchwork’ verbiage in the Task Force Report. Sen. Barrasso, said he was not surprised that a group of career regulators would provide suggestions “for more Washington red tape.” “There is no immediate threat that needs to be addressed,” citing the Task Force Report, and called for an open and transparent process where recommendations can be reviewed, prioritized and either accepted or rejected.
Sen. Sanders, addressed the independence of the Commission, “the function of the NRC is not to represent the nuclear power industry.” “Your job foremost is to make sure that the nuclear power plants we have in this country is to make them as safe as humanly possible.” Citing a June AP article, that purports the US nuclear industry and the NRC have “worked in tandem to weaken safety standards to keep aging reactors within the rules.” He announced that he and Chairman Boxer have requested a GAO report to investigate the AP charges. As to timing of implementation of the Task Force recommendations, “according to media reports, Commissioners Svinicki, Magwood, and Ostendorff, …want more study and review and delay,” “this means the issue is going to be swept under the rug and nothing is going to happen.” “Delay is not an acceptable option.”
Sen. Alexander, asked what would we do without the US nuclear reactor fleet? He spoke to the current power supply in Japan, with several idled nuclear power plants due to the events at Fukushima. “Since the earthquake most of their reactors are out (maintenance and inspections), so they have lost about 20% of their electricity in Japan.” Citing several examples of the results of not having these plants online, he stressed the need to ensure the safe deployment of nuclear power in the US and “complete without delay the design certifications for the AP1000 and the ESBWR. “
Sen. T. Udall, “I think it is unacceptable if we have the kind of thing happen in the US that happened in Japan, and I hope that you are on a wavelength to take seriously what the Task Force said.” He defended the Task Force Report “the categories make sense to me,” and stated “you have to take a hard look every now and then at regulatory frameworks to see how they work.”
Sen. Johanns, offered that the NRC has been responsive to the state of Nebraska in regards to the flooding near the Ft. Calhoun facility. He also suggested that economic factors should be weighed when considering regulations. “For me I like to weigh the decisions made against the costs incurred.”
Sen. Lautenberg, “it is critically important for the NRC to act on these recommendations.” Discussing the newly relicensed Hope Creek facility in New Jersey, “shares the same design as the damaged reactors in Japan. And, in its renewal the NRC included conditions to make Hope Creek safer and we got to continue to make sure that this facility and others like it are safer.” The events in Japan, “remind us that nothing can be taken for granted.”
Sen. Boozman, “I would very much like to encourage the NRC, as they move forward, they move with speed, but as importantly that they do it thoughtfully.”
Sen. Sessions, “do your job to make sure we are safe, but not be a burden in blocking new sources of electricity power.”
Panel
The Chairman Jaczko remarked that the Commission has differing viewpoints, our goal remains to come to an open and transparent agreement, and “We must commit to a strong and timely response,” he said. The rest of the Commission spoke to their recorded vote sheets.
Q and A Highlights
Boxer to Commission: Task Force recommendation on hardened vent design in Mark I and II containment. Should we move forward on this recommendation?
Jaczko – It’s a fine recommendation; Svinicki – I don’t know; Apostolakis – Sounds reasonable; Magwood – I can’t answer at this time; Ostendorff – Boxer interpreted his answer as no.
Boxer to Commission: can we move on most of the recommendations and implement in a 90 days.
Jaczko – Yes; Svinicki – Boxer interpreted “you don’t know.”; Apostolakis – I agree with the Chairman we should disposition all of them in 90 days.; Magwood – some could be; Ostendorff – I agree with Commissioner Magwood.
The most significant line of questioning occurred when most of the Senators had left the dais, with Sen. Boxer and Sen. Sanders remaining.
Boxer
At one point, Senator Boxer pointed out the following statement in Commissioner Svinicki’s comments on SECY-11-0093:
“In my view, the NRC finds itself at the appropriate point now to move away from small group taskings--including the Commission itself attempting to labor in isolation--towards integrating more fully the regulatory response arising from the events at Fukushima into the activities of NRC's line organizations.”
Senator Boxer said she found that disturbing and questioned why NRC commissioners should need any input from others when they are supposed to be independent. Commissioner Svinicki explained that the process should be informed by public meetings and public input.
Senator Boxer asked Commissioner Svinicki if she agreed with a recommendation by Commissioner Jaczko to act on the Task Force recommendations within 90 days. Commissioner Svinicki said she thought some recommendations could probably be implemented sooner than 90 days, while others would probably take longer. Senator Boxer pushed hard and relentlessly for Commissioner Svinicki to identify which recommendations could be implemented quickly. Finally, Commissioner Svinicki said she thought the seismic and flooding re-evaluations seem straightforward.
Senator Boxer asked about looking at seismic and tsunami hazards every ten years. “Do you think that’s complex? Do you think it’s complex to ask plants to re-assess their safety every 10 years?”
Commissioner Svinicki said she would like to get an informed recommendation from the NRC technical staff who are knowledgeable in and responsible for those areas.
Senator Boxer said she didn’t think the public watching this hearing will want the California plants to continue to operate if they don’t re-evaluate their seismic and tsunami hazards periodically. The senator pushed until Commissioner Svinicki said NRC currently requires plants to continuously review external hazards as new science becomes available.
There seems to be quite a bit of pressure to implement the following recommendations related to external events:
2.1 Order licensees to reevaluate the seismic and flooding hazards at their sites against current NRC requirements and guidance, and if necessary, update the design basis and SSCs important to safety to protect against the updated hazards.
2.2 Initiate rulemaking to require licensees to confirm seismic hazards and flooding hazards every 10 years and address any new and significant information. If necessary, update the design basis for SSCs important to safety to protect against the updated hazards.
2.3 Order licensees to perform seismic and flood protection walk downs to identify and address plant-specific vulnerabilities and verify the adequacy of monitoring and maintenance for protection features such as watertight barriers and seals in the interim period until longer term actions are completed to update the design basis for external events.
Sanders
Sen. Sanders attempted to rehabilitate Chairman Jaczko by asking him to give his account of the invoking of emergency powers in the Fukushima aftermath. Jaczko, assured Sen. Sanders that he consulted with the NRC general counsel who advised him of the statute that governed and that he was operating within the statute. Sen. Sanders asked Jaczko if the NRC general counsel was in the audience and asked that he identify him. Once identified, Stephen Burns, Sen. Sanders asked Mr. Burns to join the Commissioners at the table, where he testified that in his opinion the Chairman’s actions were consistent with the statute.
David Bradish
NEI
No comments:
Post a Comment