Although it’s been a whirlwind of a first year for Nuclear Regulatory Commission chairman Christopher Hanson, he’s proud to lead the nation’s nuclear energy regulator.
“As chairman, I get to see even more of the organization than I did as a commissioner,” Hanson told RadWaste Monitor during a 30-minute virtual interview Tuesday.
In the nine months or so that he’s been sitting in the big chair at NRC, Hanson has already been party to some major developments in nuclear regulation. The agency in September licensed Interim Storage Partners’ (ISP) proposed storage facility for spent nuclear fuel in the Texas desert, providing the most convincing evidence yet that a private company could succeed in spent fuel storage where the Department of Energy has so far failed. NRC is now navigating legal challenges from both the Lone Star State as well as New Mexico, where Holtec International hopes to get federal approval for a separate interim storage site.
Under Hanson’s watch, NRC has also made progress tackling the regulatory challenges posed by decommissioning nuclear reactors. The commission recently approved new proposed guidance aimed at streamlining NRC’s requirements for nuclear power operators dismantling their sites by lowering certain safety and emergency preparedness requirements as reactors transition to decommissioning — although that decision stirred controversy, too.
All this while the nominally five-member commission has been short-staffed: just three strong since June, when Annie Caputo stepped down. With Caputo, a Republican, gone, President Joe Biden will have to nominate another GOPer to the commission, if he wants to ramp it up toward a full complement. By law, the agency may have no more than three members of the same political party. Of the current members, Hanson and Commissioner Jeff Baran are Democrats, and Commissioner David Wright is the sole Republican.
RadWaste Monitor last spoke to Hanson in March, when he was just getting started as NRC’s top regulator. With nearly a year under his belt, the Monitor sat down with him again Tuesday for a 30-minute video call.
RWM: So, NRC in September licensed ISP’s proposed interim storage facility in west Texas, but as you know that hasn’t been the end of things. Both Texas and now New Mexico are suing NRC over the site. What’s the agency’s plan for smoothing things over with stakeholders?
All of this, at this point, is tied up in federal court, whether in the circuit court here in D.C., or in the Tenth Circuit or Fifth Circuit [Courts of Appeals] out in Texas and New Mexico. So I’m not at liberty to talk a whole lot about that. We are heavily engaged in this, and both NRC lawyers and Department of Justice lawyers are involved in that case, so I don’t have a whole lot of comment on that. There are a number of constitutional and Administrative Procedure Act questions at issue here, and the lawyers and the courts will sort that out.
ISP has, at least, proven that a private company can get over the federal regulatory hurdles necessary to start work on an interim storage site. Do you foresee a greater private sector interest in interim storage because of that?
Let me be clear: we granted Interim Storage Partners the license because it met our safety and security and environmental requirements, period. There isn’t a provision in our regulations where we say ‘if the governor of Texas agrees…’ We are the safety and security regulator, and for the sake of regulatory independence and predictability for anybody who might come to us on any regulatory matter, for people who meet our requirements, we’re obligated to issue them licenses in a timely way. And that’s what we did here. Interim Storage Partners got through the regulatory process, but whether anybody wants to go through that process, and then still deal with the political ramifications, is going to be a business decision up to each individual party.
Holtec International’s own proposed interim storage site has been the subject of some delay — NRC said recently that it wouldn’t be able to finalize a licensing decision by January as planned. What’s been different about the Holtec licensing process?
Request[s] for additional information and adjustments of schedules are actually pretty routine for licensing matters. We see this a lot in licensing amendment requests for operating reactors and all kinds of facilities. So I’m not sure that there’s anything really terribly out of the ordinary here. In terms of differences, it’s a different site, it’s a different licensee. I’m not down in the details on the differences between facility design or operational models, but there was something there where our technical staff had additional questions and they’ve asked those, and Holtec will presumably get back to us in a timely way. And then we can readjust schedules and expectations accordingly.
Shifting gears, the commission has only had three members since June, when Annie Caputo stepped down. Do you feel like you need a full complement to work adequately? Do you want the two extra commissioners?
Well, of course we want them. Congress, in its wisdom, created the body with five and and having the additional perspectives on board is exceptionally helpful. I’m lucky that at this point I’ve had a little bit of experience with five commissioners, and now I’ve got some experience with four, and now three. While having different viewpoints and so forth is certainly helpful, we’ve been able to get thorough work done. I would just reiterate, of course, we want five [commissioners] and we look forward to that, whenever the administration sees fit to issue those nominations.
Let’s talk about the decommissioning rule. Some, including one of your fellow commissioners, have said that the proposed rule tips the scales of regulation in favor of industry and away from NRC. How do you respond to that charge?
I want to make a couple of points. I think one of the things that’s getting out there in the aether is that somehow the agency’s taken on kind of a ‘laissez faire’ approach to decommissioning. You’ve heard that phraseology out there. I really believe, with the proposed rule, that nothing could be farther from the truth.
Previously, what we had was this framework where decommissioning reactors were under the same regulations as operating reactors, and they had to get a series of exemptions. Well, regulating by exemption isn’t particularly efficient, or effective, and it’s not something that the public readily understands. And so a number of years ago, the commission said, ‘hey, let’s actually have a positive or proactive approach to decommissioning where we’re not regulating by exemption.’ We recognize, based on a long history, the reduced hazards of a reactor that’s shut down. That’s really what I think is reflected here in the proposed rule. It reflects a lot of experience that we’ve had. And it is, primarily, focused on safety, and what we’ve learned about safety and decommissioning these facilities safely and securely over time.
I’m worried that the public will be under the impression that when a reactor shuts down, not only does the licensee walk away, but the NRC walks away too. That’s really not the case. The NRC is on site while there is active decommissioning going on at these facilities. We’re on site for fuel loading campaigns, we’re on site for when it’s time to take apart the big components like the reactor vessels, we’re on site for when those components get packaged up and shipped off to disposal facilities and we’re on site regularly even after all the fuel is out of the reactor and in a dry spent fuel storage facility.
The whole goal for us in decommissioning is to get the sites from where they are at shutdown to a free release, meaning you can use that site for anything. You can put sheep on it, you can grow crops on it, you can turn it into a public park, whatever you want. We oversee all the actions that licensees take with that end in mind. It’s a very hands-on process.
We’ve spoken previously about the perception among environmental groups and citizens’ watchdogs that NRC is subject to industry capture, and some argue that this decommissioning rule is an example of that. You’ve explained to me how that’s not the case, but how could NRC demystify this rulemaking for the general public?
That’s a fair point. Your average citizen who doesn’t focus on these things very much isn’t going to necessarily understand who’s playing what role as you go about this. But I think we’ve got a couple of opportunities. For instance, there’s a lot of focus on this post shutdown decommissioning activities report [PSDAR]. I don’t think most people realize what’s required in that report is codified in regulation, and if it’s deficient, we can request additional information and prohibit our licensees from undertaking any decommissioning activities until that report meets our requirements. Is it a formal approval for which the public could file contentions and access the process that way? Well, no. But it’s also not the case that a licensee can just submit any darn thing that they want, and we’re going to rubber stamp it. That’s certainly not the case either.
In a number of cases we’re seeing now where we take public comment on the [PSDAR], we take those comments into consideration. If the public highlights an area where they think a licensee is deficient in what they’ve submitted to us, we take that seriously. In the case of Vermont Yankee, we published responses to public comments in the Federal Register, and so forth. So we are taking steps to help demystify that process, but I think we could certainly do better in that regard.
Finally, you’ve been chairman of NRC for just under a year. What are your three big takeaways from your time so far as head of the agency?
Ah, boy. Now, more than ever, I’m so deeply impressed with the NRC staff. I know, a lot of people say this in Washington, but I’m going to take the opportunity because I really do think it’s true: what an incredible honor and pleasure it is to work alongside the professionals at the NRC and to have the opportunity to lead them into the future. As chairman, I get to see even more of the organization than I did as a commissioner.
The second big takeaway is the importance of the NRC internationally. We really do set safety standards around the world, and people from all over the world — both in perfectly modern and fully developed countries, as well as those who are climbing up the development ladder — look to us as an example of what a really mature and technically competent regulator is. So, not only do we have this incredible responsibility to the American people, but I also feel acutely, after having done some international travel this fall, an obligation globally to share wherever possible our expertise and our approach to nuclear safety and security.
The third thing is the relationship between uncertainty and certainty. I guess I would frame it this way: The NRC is faced with a number of really big challenges going forward. We’ve got COVID, in all of its various mutations, that the staff has rolled with incredibly well and accomplished the mission. We’ve got new technologies on the horizon, and we’ve got lots of people trying to adapt our regulatory approach to these new technologies that are, in many cases, safer and more secure. We’ve got an increasing number of decommissioning reactors. And yet, the certainty around that is the reliance and resilience of the tools in the NRC’s toolbox. I go to sleep every night fully confident that we have the tools to regulate new technologies, to keep the existing fleet safe, to adapt to this modified approach to decommissioning and to share our values and our approach to nuclear safety and security around the world. And so even though there’s a lot of churn going on in the world, I can come to work every day and say to the staff: ‘You have my support, the commission’s support and the leadership of this agency’s support to go out and do what needs to be done to accomplish the mission.’ I emphasize the incredible strength and creativity and resilience of the staff to the staff itself. ‘Hey, remember how strong and smart you are. We’re going to get through all this, we’re going to roll with these big changes.’ So it’s that relationship between certainty and uncertainty.
