Kaptur statement at hearing on Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, Chairman Burns and Commissioners Svinicki, Ostendorff, and Baran. Thank you for being here today to talk about the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s 2017 budget.

 Nuclear energy is critical component of our nation’s energy mix.  As a source of electricity which does not contribute to climate change, it will be particularly important as we strive to meet the targets of the Clean Power Plan and to deliver on the commitments we made to reduce our carbon emissions at COP 21 in Paris.

 As part of meeting these targets, we currently rely on an aging fleet of nuclear power generation facilities—with an average age of 35 years, many have already outlived their initial 40 year licenses while others are quickly approaching it. 

At the forefront of my mind with regards to the aging nuclear fleet is FirstEnergy’s Davis-Besse plant in my District, which in December of last year received a 20-year extension of its license. 

These plants provide good, stable, and high-paying jobs, in addition to reliable and cost-effective electricity, so in those regards I am happy to see Davis-Bessie’s license extended.  However, the bulk of our nuclear fleet is passing through this re-licensing process, and so I look forward to hearing about the steps the NRC is taking to ensure that communities in the areas surrounding these plants are safe, especially as one in three Americans lives within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant.

Last year at this hearing, there was a great deal of discussion on right-sizing and re-baselining the NRC’s budget.  I understand that the report detailing that effort is scheduled to be completed in the next couple of months.  I hope you will be able to comment on the progress that you have made to that end, as well, and the impacts of your findings on the NRC’s budget.

Finally, I would like to close by noting the fact that yet another year has passed, and we do not seem to be any closer to resolving how—and even more controversially, where—to dispose of our nuclear waste.  The current approach of maintaining high-level radioactive waste on-site at plants distributed throughout the country is far from ideal. 

In the absence of real forward motion at Yucca Mountain or another site, our nation has no long-term solution to this pressing problem.  In addition to $10 billion we have already spent on Yucca, the Department of Energy estimates that we have $27 billion of liabilities deriving from our failure to meet our legal obligation to dispose of this waste.  Interim storage may serve as a step in the right direction, but we truly require a permanent strategy. 

The government must live up to its responsibility and provide for the eventual safe disposal of commercial spent fuel that is currently stored at these sites.  I look forward to your thoughts on how we can meet this obligation.

Thank you Mr. Chairman for the time.