Energy and Commerce Ranking Member Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ) delivered the following opening remarks today at a Subcommittee on Energy hearing on “DOE Modernization: Advancing the Economic and National Security Benefits of America’s Nuclear Infrastructure:"
Today’s hearing is the second in the Subcommittee’s Department of Energy (DOE) Modernization series. It is an important step in our bipartisan efforts to advance the economic and national security benefits of America’s nuclear infrastructure.
First, I must mention that while the majority’s memo lists three bills for consideration today, we have been assured by the Majority that this is not a legislative hearing on those bills. Without commenting on the merits of the legislation, I want to make clear that it is essential for this Subcommittee to hold a legislative hearing prior to moving these bills. It is critical that Members have the opportunity to engage with appropriate witnesses who can properly analyze the impact of the proposals.
At the Subcommittee’s first DOE Modernization hearing I noted the Department can improve and more successfully fulfill its mission. Today’s hearing is a logical next step because I believe DOE’s Office of Environmental Management and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) are two of the key entities within DOE that are in greater need of oversight. For example, the Environmental Management Program in recent years has been plagued by high profile leaks of radioactive waste, contractor problems, missed deadlines and escalating clean-up costs.
In 2014, an Augustine-Mies panel report concluded that NNSA lacks a stable, executable plan for modernization. The report also found that NNSA faces challenges in its governance of the nuclear security enterprise. I believe this is an area we can work in a bipartisan fashion to address these issues.
We must also ensure taxpayer dollars are being managed in a fiscally responsible manner. For example, according to the Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) 2017 high-risk designation, DOE’s Office of Environmental Management has spent $35 billion dollars in the last six years alone, primarily on treating and disposing of nuclear and hazardous waste. Yet, environmental liability grew over the same time period by over $90 billion dollars. So, it is particularly important that DOE address environmental liabilities in a cost effective way, while also ensuring public health and safety.
These concerns lead me to question whether DOE’s nuclear activities need some sort of formal external regulation and independent oversight, whether by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or another entity. DOE’s track record for regulating itself over the past 40 years is mixed, at best. External regulation may be a way to improve that record. This is an idea that the Subcommittee on Energy had explored on a bipartisan basis in the past and it may be time to do so again.
Today’s hearing also affords us the opportunity to contemplate what America’s nuclear infrastructure might look like in the coming decades. It is no secret that building new nuclear power plants in the United States has been a challenge. The Vogtle project in Georgia has experienced skyrocketing costs and prolonged construction delays, while the V.C. Summer nuclear power plant project in South Carolina has been abandoned entirely.
All the while, more and more existing plants are announcing plans to permanently shut down. These include the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station just south of my Congressional district, which last week announced it would close in October of this year, one year earlier than planned.
If our country is going to meet its carbon reduction goals then nuclear energy may still need to be a part of the solution for a while. After all, despite the President’s efforts, we are fortunately still a party to the Paris Climate Accord. While I do not think the federal government should be subsidizing nuclear plants in competitive markets, it is important we invest in research into advanced nuclear reactors that can potentially generate power more efficiently, with less waste than our current reactor fleet.
I look forward to hearing from our two knowledgeable panels about DOE’s nuclear mission, and where we should focus efforts to improve these programs.
Thank you, I yield back.
