    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

    H.R. 4979, THE ADVANCED NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2016, AND
        H.R. ___, THE NUCLEAR UTILIZATION OF KEYNOTE ENERGY POLICIES ACT

    =======================================================================

                                     HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 APRIL 29, 2016

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 114-141

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                            energycommerce.house.gov

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    23-503                       WASHINGTON : 2017

    _________________________________________________________________________________________

    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                              FRED UPTON, Michigan
                                     Chairman
    JOE BARTON, Texas                    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
      Chairman Emeritus                    Ranking Member
    ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky               BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
    JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois               ANNA G. ESHOO, California
    JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania        ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    GREG WALDEN, Oregon                  GENE GREEN, Texas
    TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania             DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
    MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            LOIS CAPPS, California
    MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
      Vice Chairman                      JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana             G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington   KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    GREGG HARPER, Mississippi            JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
    LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey            JERRY McNERNEY, California
    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky              PETER WELCH, Vermont
    PETE OLSON, Texas                    BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
    DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia     PAUL TONKO, New York
    MIKE POMPEO, Kansas                  JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois             YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia         DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
    GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
    BILL JOHNSON, Ohio                   JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
    BILLY LONG, Missouri                     Massachusetts
    RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina     TONY CARDENAS, California
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
    BILL FLORES, Texas
    SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
    CHRIS COLLINS, New York
    KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
                        Subcommittee on Energy and Power

                             ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
                                     Chairman
    PETE OLSON, Texas                    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
      Vice Chairman                        Ranking Member
    JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois               JERRY McNERNEY, California
    JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania        PAUL TONKO, New York
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    GREGG HARPER, Vice Chairman          GENE GREEN, Texas
    DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia     LOIS CAPPS, California
    MIKE POMPEO, Kansas                  MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois             KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia         JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
    BILL JOHNSON, Ohio                   PETER WELCH, Vermont
    BILLY LONG, Missouri                 JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
    RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina     DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
    BILL FLORES, Texas                   FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma               officio)
    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
    JOE BARTON, Texas
    FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)

                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the
      Commonwealth of Kentucky, opening statement....................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     2
    Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Illinois, opening statement.................................     4
    Hon. Jerry McNerney, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of California, opening statement...............................     6
    Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Michigan, prepared statement...................................    72
    Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
      State of New Jersey, prepared statement........................    73

                                   Witnesses

    Marvin Fertel, President and Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear
      Energy Institute...............................................     7
        Prepared statement...........................................    10
        Answers to submitted questions...............................    83
    Jeffrey S. Merrifield, Partner, Pillsbury Law Firm, Chairman,
      Advanced Reactors Task Force, Nuclear Infrastructure Council...    24
        Prepared statement...........................................    26
        Answers to submitted questions...............................    91
    Todd Allen, Senior Fellow, Clean Energy Program, Third Way.......    34
        Prepared statement...........................................    37
        Answers to submitted questions...............................    94
    Geoffrey Fettus, Senior Attorney, Natural Resources Defense
      Counsel........................................................    48
        Prepared statement...........................................    50
        Answers to submitted questions...............................    97

                               Submitted Material

    Statement of the Nuclear Energy Institute........................    74
    Statement of the American Nuclear Society........................    76
    Statement of Clearpath Action....................................    77
    Statement of Third Way...........................................    79
    Statement of the Clean Air Task Force............................    80
    Statement of Transatomic Power Corporation.......................    82

    H.R. 4979, THE ADVANCED NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2016, AND
    H.R. ----------, THE NUCLEAR UTILIZATION OF KEYNOTE ENERGY POLICIES ACT

                                  ----------

                             FRIDAY, APRIL 29, 2016

                      House of Representatives,
                      Subcommittee on Energy and Power,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:34 a.m., in
    room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Whitfield
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Whitfield, Shimkus, Latta,
    McKinley, Kinzinger, Long, Rush, McNerney, Tonko, Green, Doyle,
    Castor, Welch, and Loebsack.
        Staff Present: Will Batson, Legislative Clerk, E&P, E&E;
    Allison Busbee, Policy Coordinator, Energy & Power; Tom
    Hassenboehler, Chief Counsel, Energy & Power; A.T. Johnston,
    Senior Policy Advisor; Chris Sarley, Policy Coordinator,
    Environment & Economy; Dan Schneider, Press Secretary; Peter
    Spencer, Professional Staff Member, Oversight; Andy Zach,
    Counsel E&E; Jeff Carroll, Minority Staff Director; Rick
    Kessler, Minority Senior Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and
    Environment; John Marshall, Minority Policy Coordinator; Dan
    Miller, Minority Staff Assistant; Alexander Ratner, Minority
    Policy Analyst; Tim Robinson, Minority Chief Counsel; Andrew
    Souvall, Minority Director of Communications, Outreach and
    Member Services; and Tuley Wright, Minority Energy and
    Environment Policy Advisor.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
               CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

        Mr. Whitfield. I would like to call the hearing to order
    this morning. I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
        Good morning, and welcome to our hearing to discuss
    legislative proposals to advance the use of nuclear energy.
        I want to thank all of our witnesses in advance, and I will
    be introducing each of you before your 5-minute opening
    statement.
        But we want to thank Marvin Fertel for the great job he did
    at the Nuclear Energy Institute, and I think it is his plan to
    go on and look at other challenges at the end of this year. So
    we are delighted he is here. He has served as NEI's president
    and chief executive officer since 2009 and has had a long and
    distinguished career advocating for the nuclear industry.
        Nuclear energy is an integral part of our energy policy.
    The current fleet of roughly 100 operating nuclear power plants
    safely and reliably generates about 20 percent of our Nation's
    electricity. However, many of these power plants are
    approaching the end of their current license, and unnecessary
    regulatory costs are adding to challenging economic conditions.
        This outlook provides a timely opportunity to examine
    proposals to improve the regulatory framework for nuclear power
    plants and options to develop a regulatory framework for
    advanced nuclear technologies.
        New nuclear technologies hold great promise to operate in a
    cost-competitive environment with even greater safety margins
    than existing reactors while generating less waste and reducing
    proliferation concerns. However, regulatory uncertainty is
    repeatedly cited as a top barrier to developing these
    technologies. The Department of Energy, which supports nuclear
    research and development activity, should collaborate, where
    applicable, with the NRC to address this uncertainty.
        Today, we are going to hear from stakeholders about how to
    more effectively manage the regulatory process, including
    options to increase the efficiency and certainty of the NRC's
    existing licensing process. Representative Kinzinger's
    discussion draft highlights that cumbersome red tape in our
    regulatory process forces ratepayers to pay more for safe,
    clean nuclear power, and I want to thank him for his
    legislation, and we look forward to your comments about that.
        Also, I certainly appreciate Congressman Latta's leadership
    in addressing regulatory barriers hindering the development of
    advanced nuclear technologies. His legislation, the Advanced
    Nuclear Technology Development Act, will assure that DOE's
    technical expertise, research, and facilities are utilized,
    when appropriate, to assist the NRC.
        And at this time, I would like to yield a minute or so to
    Mr. Latta, and then I will yield to Mr. Kinzinger, for their
    comments on their legislation.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield follows:]

                    Prepared statement of Hon. Ed Whitfield

        Nuclear energy is an integral part of an ``all of the
    above'' energy policy. The current fleet of 100 operating
    nuclear power plants safely and reliably generates about 20
    percent of our nation's electricity. However, many of these
    power plants are approaching the end of their current license
    and unnecessary regulatory costs are adding to challenging
    economic conditions. This outlook provides a timely opportunity
    to examine proposals to improve the regulatory framework for
    nuclear power plants and options to develop a regulatory
    framework for advanced nuclear technologies.
        I have raised concerns in previous oversight hearings about
    the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) discipline in its
    regulatory activities and responsiveness to NRC licensees. It
    is Congress' responsibility to consider how these activities
    can be improved while assuring adequate protection of public
    health and safety. I am confident we can identify efficiencies
    to assure NRC adheres to their Principles of Good Regulation,
    while fulfilling their critical mission.
        New nuclear technologies hold great promise to operate in a
    cost competitive environment, with even greater safety margins
    than existing reactors while generating less waste and reducing
    proliferation concerns. However, regulatory uncertainty is
    repeatedly cited as a top barrier to developing these
    technologies. The Department of Energy, which supports nuclear
    research and development activities, should collaborate where
    applicable, with the NRC to address this uncertainty.
        Today we will hear from stakeholders about how to more
    effectively manage the regulatory process, including options to
    increase the efficiency and certainty of the NRC's existing
    licensing process. Representative Kinzinger's discussion draft
    highlights that cumbersome red tape in our regulatory process
    forces ratepayers to pay more for safe, clean nuclear power.
        I appreciate Congressman Latta's leadership to address
    regulatory barriers hindering the development of advanced
    nuclear technologies. His legislation, the Advanced Nuclear
    Technology Development Act, will assure that DOE's technical
    expertise, research, and facilities are utilized when
    appropriate to assist the NRC. This legislation also requires
    the NRC to draft the regulatory roadmap for the scores of
    companies who need a regulatory framework for 21st century
    nuclear technologies.

        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thanks
    for yielding.
        And thanks for our panel for being with us today.
        I would like to again thank you for holding this hearing
    today on nuclear power, which is highlighting the bill
    Congressman McNerney and I introduced last week, H.R. 4979, the
    Advance Nuclear Technology Development Act of 2016.
        I would like to ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to
    enter several letters of support into the record. These letters
    are from the Nuclear Energy Institute, the American Nuclear
    Society, and ClearPath.
        Mr. Whitfield. Without objection.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
        The future of the nuclear industry needs to start now with
    Congress ensuring that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is
    able to provide the certainty that the private sector needs to
    invest in innovative technologies. Nuclear power is currently
    20 percent of our national energy portfolio and must remain a
    vital part of our energy mix.
        As the United States looks to the future, more energy will
    be needed, and nuclear power provides a reliable, clean
    baseload power option. Investment in new technologies is
    already happening with approximately 50 companies in this
    country working to develop the next generation of nuclear
    power.
        And again, that is why we have introduced H.R. 4979. It is
    time for Congress to ensure that NRC provides a framework so
    that innovators and investors can prepare to apply for
    licensing technologies. H.R. 4979 not only requires that NRC
    establish a regulatory framework for issuing licenses for
    advanced nuclear reactor technology, but it also requires that
    NRC submit a schedule for implementation of the framework by
    2019.
        Safety in nuclear is the number one goal, and the
    regulatory framework ensures that NRC has the opportunity to
    develop a framework that enables them to safely regulate the
    future technology of the nuclear industry. H.R. 4979 also
    requires that the Department of Energy and the NRC collaborate
    in advancing new nuclear technology. The National Labs in DOE
    provide opportunities for testing of new nuclear technology on
    Federal lands and the option to look at public-private
    partnerships between the DOE and the private sector companies
    interested in investing in the future of nuclear.
        There is also a role for the NRC in this space because
    these testing opportunities allow for a demonstration of
    technologies that NRC has not been licensing over the past 4
    years.
        And, Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate you holding this
    hearing, and I yield back to you. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Kinzinger, Mr. Upton is not going to be
    here, so I want to give you his time.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you.
        Mr. Whitfield. And then if Mr. Latta wants to talk some
    more, he can talk some more too then.
        At this time I recognize Mr. Rush for his 5-minute opening
    statement.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

        Mr. Rush. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding
    this important hearing today on H.R. 4979, the Advanced Nuclear
    Technology Development Act of 2016, and the Nuclear Utilization
    of Keynote Energy Policies Act.
        Mr. Chairman, as we move towards a reduced carbon
    sustainable energy economy, there is no doubt that nuclear
    energy will need to play an instrumental role in order to reach
    those objectives. While today's fleet of nuclear reactors
    utilize light-water reactor technology, more attention is now
    being paid to the use of non-LWR reactor designs that have been
    demonstrated by the Department of Energy but are currently not
    licensed for commercial use in the United States.
        In fact, Mr. Chairman, emerging innovative designs of
    advanced nonlight-water reactors and light-water small modular
    reactors have the potential to produce nuclear power more
    efficiently and with less waste than the current technologies.
        If we are to truly develop and scale up these technological
    advances, it is important that policymakers and the Nuclear
    Regulatory Commission provide regulatory certainty for the
    nuclear industry in order to encourage investment in these
    next-generation nuclear designs.
        So I applaud my colleagues, Mr. Latta and Mr. McNerney, for
    introducing H.R. 4979. This legislation seeks to provide
    guidance and direction to the NRC and the DOE to ensure that
    these two agencies have sufficient technical expertise in order
    to support and regularly advance reactor technology.
        The rule also requires the NRC to formulate a plan that
    would help foster civilian research and development of advanced
    nuclear energy technologies and enhance the licensing and
    commercial development of such technologies.
        Mr. Chairman, I fully support the intent of this
    legislation. I look forward to hearing feedback from our panel
    of experts on both the necessity for this type of legislation
    and the implications once it is enacted. In regards to the
    Nuclear Utilization of Keynote Energy Policies Act, I also look
    forward to engaging the witnesses on this legislation.
        Mr. Chairman, finally, if nuclear energy is going to
    continue to play a constructive role in a reduced carbon energy
    portfolio, we must ensure that we have policies in place that
    appropriately reflect the contributions of the industry and the
    current reality that it faces. So I commend my colleague from
    Illinois, Mr. Kinzinger, for introducing a bill draft that at
    the very least initiates a conversation toward reaching this
    goal.
        Of course, Mr. Chairman, today's bill is simply a
    discussion draft, and we would need to hear from the NRC
    commissioners themselves before moving into the legislative
    process. But I look forward to today's hearing, and I look
    forward to testimony from today's experts on both the need for
    the changes outlined in the bill as well as the practical
    implications if these changes were indeed enacted.
        I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance
    of my time.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back.
        At this time I recognize Mr. Kinzinger for 5 minutes. And
    if some others who want some of your time, you might consider
    yielding to them. Thank you.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Sure. This will be fairly quick.
        Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding the hearing,
    and I want to thank each of the witnesses for being here today.
    It is an important topic.
        As we have heard, nuclear power generates about 20 percent
    of electricity in the United States, and in Illinois it is over
    50 percent, including 60 percent of our Nation's carbon-free
    electricity. These plants are high performing, consistently
    having the highest capacity factors by far in the electricity
    industry and setting the gold standard for commercial nuclear
    safety worldwide.
        We have to recognize, however, that while our nuclear fleet
    is strong today, the demand for clean, reliable, and affordable
    energy is only increasing. We have an obligation to safely
    maintain our existing fleet of 99 units and to ensure the NRC
    continues to regulate efficiently and effectively so investment
    in plants can continue.
        The regulatory inefficiency and uncertainty we often see
    today does nothing to help our existing fleet, does nothing to
    foster investment in new plants, or most importantly, to ensure
    safety and protect public health.
        I want to thank the NRC for providing me with technical
    feedback on this draft, which we are currently reviewing, and I
    look forward to continuing to work with them throughout this
    process. Furthermore, I appreciate the interest in my
    colleagues in this issue addressed in my discussion draft,
    including establishing fair and more equitable NRC fees,
    streamlining the licensing process, and improving the current
    regulatory framework for decommissioning plants. These are all
    important conversations to have so that nuclear power can
    continue to provide clean, reliable, and affordable electricity
    to ratepayers in the United States.
        Again, I welcome this opportunity to discuss how we can
    maintain our Nation's position as the global leader in civilian
    nuclear power and NRC's position as the gold standard of
    safety. I think all of us who are in this room recognize that
    if we cede the position, it will have serious consequences not
    only for our economy but also for our national security.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to anybody who
    wants my time.
        Mr. Whitfield. Anybody on our side seek additional time?
        Mr. Kinzinger. Great. I yield back.
        Mr. Whitfield. OK. Yields back.
        At this time I recognize the gentleman from California, and
    thank him very much for cosponsoring this legislation as well,
    for 5 minutes.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MCNERNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Our Nation will, by necessity, diminish our dependence on
    fossil fuels in order to fight climate change, and as we do so,
    we will need to turn more and more to nuclear power.
        H.R. 4979, the bill that my colleague, Mr. Latta, and I
    introduced, allows the NRC to develop the needed technical
    expertise for emerging technologies. This legislation provides
    a pathway for the NRC and the DOE to continue collaborating and
    establishes a regulatory framework for consideration of
    licensing advanced reactors. This will help ensure that as
    newer, safer technologies are developed, that the NRC has the
    framework in place to review new applications.
        Mr. Chairman, with unanimous consent, I would like to
    submit three letters, one from Berkeley's Nuclear Engineering
    Department, one from Third Way, and one from the Clean Air Task
    Force, into the record.
        Mr. Whitfield. Without objection.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. McNerney. And I will yield the balance of my time to my
    colleague from Pennsylvania.
        Mr. Doyle. And I thank my colleague.
        I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for
    holding this important hearing today. To me, nuclear is a
    critical component of our energy future. We need to work here
    at this committee to ensure that it remains feasible and safe
    for our constituents back home by investing in this incredible
    energy source and its technology and making sure its value as
    carbon-free reliable baseload power is properly appreciated.
        I believe that advanced nuclear is a key component of
    maintaining nuclear power in the future and will be an integral
    part of our energy portfolio here in the United States. My
    colleagues, Congressman Latta and McNerney's bill takes
    important steps in that direction.
        I also want to applaud our colleague Mr. Kinzinger for his
    discussion draft. I think we share many similar concerns
    regarding the nuclear industry, and I am optimistic that we
    will be able to find some common ground on solutions. Though I
    couldn't help but notice the acronym for your bill is NUKEPA,
    which I find somewhat distressing.
        But I am certainly encouraged by bringing attention to
    these issues the nuclear industry is facing, and I do hope we
    can work together on solutions and by coming up with a
    different acronym than the one you have chosen.
        Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back. So that concludes
    the opening statements, and I am going to introduce the
    witnesses individually before they speak.
        So first of all, we have Mr. Marvin Fertel, who I mentioned
    in my opening statement, president and chief executive officer
    for the Nuclear Energy Institute.
        Thanks for being with us, and we look forward to your
    testimony. You are recognized for 5 minutes.

      STATEMENTS OF MARVIN FERTEL, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
       OFFICER, NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE; JEFFREY S. MERRIFIELD,
     PARTNER, PILLSBURY LAW FIRM, CHAIRMAN, ADVANCED REACTORS TASK
       FORCE, NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE COUNCIL; TODD ALLEN, SENIOR
     FELLOW, CLEAN ENERGY PROGRAM, THIRD WAY; AND GEOFFREY FETTUS,
           SENIOR ATTORNEY, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNSEL

                       STATEMENT OF MARVIN FERTEL

        Mr. Fertel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Rush
    and members of the subcommittee. On behalf of the commercial
    nuclear energy industry, I want to thank the committee for
    considering the Advanced Nuclear Technology Development Act,
    H.R. 4979, and the discussion draft of the Nuclear Utilization
    of Keynote Energy Policies Act.
        I am pleased to represent the broad nuclear industry,
    including the owners and operators of nuclear power plants and
    the supplier community today.
        As Congressman Kinzinger said, nuclear energy is the
    largest and most efficient source of carbon-free electricity in
    the United States. Our 99 reactors produce nearly 20 percent of
    our Nation's electricity and approximately 63 percent of our
    carbon-free electricity.
        Nuclear energy facilities demonstrate unmatched reliability
    by operating with an average capacity factor of 92 percent,
    higher than all other electricity sources. And importantly,
    they are essential to the country's economy and the communities
    in which they operate.
        Despite the significant environmental, economic, and
    national security benefits that nuclear energy provides, the
    current regulatory requirements and licensing processes
    challenge the industry's ability to build new technologically
    advanced reactors.
        The prospect of developing advanced reactors has become
    both attractive and necessary in the U.S. and abroad. In this
    country, approximately 126,000 megawatts of generation will be
    retired over the next 15 years. The U.S. Energy Information
    Administration forecasts the need for 287,000 megawatts of new
    electric capacity by 2040 in addition to the electric capacity
    that will be needed to replace the retired power plants.
        Many other countries are looking to a rapid expansion of
    nuclear energy to address their growing electricity and
    environmental needs. Advanced nuclear reactor designs offer
    many technological advances for the U.S. and are also well
    suited to developing economies. However, without strong Federal
    leadership and direction, the U.S. industry runs the risk of
    falling behind its international competitors.
        H.R. 4979 affirms Congress' commitment to U.S. leadership
    in nuclear technology and safety. The industry supports
    provisions in the bill that effectively direct the NRC to think
    differently about licensing reactors. The bill calls for an
    efficient, risk-informed, technology-neutral framework for
    advanced reactor licensing and a phased review process that
    could effectively facilitate private financing for advanced
    reactors.
        Developers will be able to demonstrate progress to
    investors and other participants in these first-of-a-kind
    projects and obtain necessary capital investments as they
    achieve milestones.
        The NRC imposes stringent safety requirements that all
    nuclear facilities must meet to maintain public health and
    safety. As we look to the details of how innovative advanced
    reactor technologies can meet these requirements, it is
    important for the NRC's regulatory framework to acknowledge
    that there will be a variety of effective ways to meet their
    safety requirements.
        H.R. 4979 also recognized that it is a government function
    to develop the regulatory infrastructure to licensed advanced
    reactor technologies and therefore authorizes Federal funding
    to support those activities.
        Congress should reform the NRC's fee-recovery structure to
    make fees more equitable and transparent. Despite NRC's efforts
    to reduce its budget and rightsize the agency, fees continue to
    be excessive and limitations of the mandated 90 percent fee
    rule create fundamental structural problems.
        The NRC budget is approximately $1 billion per year,
    despite significant declines in its workload. In particular,
    according to an Ernst & Young study performed for the NRC, the
    NRC spends 37 percent of its budget on mission support costs,
    more than 10 percent higher than some peer agencies.
        Because the NRC must collect 90 percent of its budget from
    licensees and the NRC budget has not correspondingly declined,
    remaining licensees are responsible for paying higher annual
    fees. With recent premature shutdowns and additional reactor
    decommissionings in the coming years, the current fee structure
    virtually guarantees that remaining licensees will continue to
    bear even higher annual fees.
        The draft Nuclear Utilization of Keynote Energy Policies
    Act adopts a straightforward approach to making NRC fees more
    equitable. It would continue to require the licensee to pay for
    all agency activities attributable to a licensee or class of
    licensees but disallow collection of fees associated with the
    agency's corporate support. While there are Federal budget
    questions that arise with this approach, it would require the
    NRC to justify corporate support costs to Congress in order to
    receive appropriations, and in turn, prompt the NRC to control
    its budget and reduce or eliminate wasteful spending.
        The draft bill recognizes the value of allowing
    international investments in U.S. nuclear plants by removing
    outdated restrictions on foreign ownership that ignore the
    multiple protections to our Nation's security and the reality
    of today's global nuclear energy markets. The draft bill also
    eliminates the uncontested mandatory NRC hearing on
    construction permits and combined license applications. This
    would not limit public participation since the public does not
    participate in a mandatory hearing and multiple other formal
    opportunities are available for public participation.
        The draft bill would require that the NRC improve the
    regulatory framework for decommissioning nuclear power
    reactors. It is in the best interests of all parties, the NRC,
    licensees, and other stakeholders, to have a more efficient
    regulatory framework for plants entering the decommissioning
    process. The existing framework does not appropriately account
    for the significant reduction in risk that results when a power
    reactor ceases operations, defuels, and decommissions.
        In closing, on behalf of NEI and its members, I wish to
    thank Congressmen Latta and McNerney for introducing the
    important advanced reactor legislation. We support passage of
    this bill. We also appreciate Congressman Kinzinger's work to
    reform NRC fees and the regulatory process.
        We look forward to working with members of the committee
    and their staff to advance these reforms. Again, thank you for
    the opportunity to testify today.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Fertel follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Whitfield. And our next witness is Mr. Jeffrey
    Merrifield, who is partner of the Pillsbury Law Firm and also
    chairman of the Advanced Reactors Task Force, the Nuclear
    Infrastructure Council.
        Welcome, and you are recognized for 5 minutes, Mr.
    Merrifield.

                   STATEMENT OF JEFFREY S. MERRIFIELD

        Mr. Merrifield. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I also
    want to thank Ranking Member Rush and members of the
    subcommittee. As a former commissioner of the U.S. Nuclear
    Regulatory Commission, I frequently testified before this
    committee, and it is again an honor to----
        Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Merrifield, would you move your
    microphone a little closer?
        Mr. Merrifield. Sorry. I got it.
        Mr. Chairman, again, thank you very much.
        Thank you, Ranking Member Rush.
        As a former member and former commissioner of the Nuclear
    Regulatory Commission, I frequently testified before this
    committee, and again, it is an honor to be here this morning.
        Today, I am appearing in my role as chair of the U.S.
    Nuclear Infrastructure Council, Advanced Reactors Task Force,
    although, as mentioned, I am a partner in the Pillsbury Law
    Firm. My testimony will discuss the provisions in H.R. 4979 on
    advanced reactors, as well as the proposed changes to the NRC
    procedures that are the subject of a discussion draft offered
    by Congressman Kinzinger.
        NIC salutes the subcommittee's focus and support for
    advanced reactors, as well as the NRC budget reform provisions
    that provide funding for the NRC to develop a modernized
    nuclear licensing framework for advanced nuclear technologies.
    NIC issued a framework for advanced reactor licensing
    modernization white paper on February 22, 2016, which embraces
    many of the elements contained in the legislation.
        When I first became a commissioner in 1998, the NRC, with
    the support of Congress, worked to rightsize the agency,
    consistent with the level of licensing and inspection
    activities. At that time, the agency had approximately 3,400
    employees, and within the next few years we were able to reduce
    that down to about 2,800, principally through attrition, yet
    without any sacrifice to its mission of protecting people and
    the environment.
        Today, the agency faces the same challenges to reduce its
    staff and to become more efficient and timely in its licensing
    activities. While the NRC has made great strides in rightsizing
    the agency through Project AIM, we believe further efficiencies
    can be realized, while at the same time maintaining safety and
    inspection activities and improving the timeliness of
    licensing.
        During the past decade, the U.S. has maintained its
    technology leadership by developing new passive Generation III
    reactors in Georgia and South Carolina, as well as small
    modular light-water nuclear reactors headed toward deployment.
    NIC has seen significant growth and support for Generation IV
    advanced reactors that will provide expanded options for
    economical, carbon-free electricity and industrial heat
    generation.
        If the United States is to be successful in maintaining its
    lead in developing and deploying these reactors in the 2020s
    and 2030s, Congress must consider significant policy changes.
    We believe the language in section 6 of H.R. 4979 will allow
    the agency to create a modern, risk-informed, technology-
    neutral framework, which will enable the development of
    appropriate advanced reactor regulations without passing these
    costs on to the developers or the utilities.
        While section 6(a)(6) calls for the NRC to evaluate options
    to allow applicants to use phased review processes, we believe
    the language should be strengthened to require the NRC to
    establish specific stages in the commercial advanced nuclear
    reactor licensing process, including a prelicensing vendor
    design review modeled after the Canadian Nuclear Safety
    Commission vendor design process that was recommended by the
    NIC white paper.
        Such a process would allow advanced reactor developers and
    investors to have a clearer picture of where they stand in the
    NRC process and in meeting NRC safety requirements and allow
    them to achieve further investment in their technologies.
        We would emphasize a need to establish risk-informed
    performance criteria applicable for advanced reactors. While
    licensing process reforms are needed, advanced reactor
    technical performance criteria arecritically required for
    developers to proceed with advanced reactor designs, and the
    NRC must move forward to finalize advanced generic design
    criteria, source term, and emergency planning requirements,
    among others.
        We strongly support section 2 of the discussion draft which
    places fair and equitable provisions on the agency's fee-based
    programs. By eliminating the current fee-based-to-nonfee-based
    ratio and articulating the specific areas that will be borne by
    general revenues, the draft provides the appropriate balance
    between the fees borne by individual companies and those
    overhead activities covered by the Federal Government.
        NIC believes the discussion draft would be strengthened by
    providing that the early stage engagement between advanced
    reactor developers and the NRC should be conducted at no or
    limited cost, with an appropriate cost share, perhaps 50/50 for
    later stages of the licensing process. While this can be funded
    through general revenues or a DOE grant program, either way, it
    should avoid the DOE and NRC picking advanced reactor winners
    and losers. We believe the private sector is better placed to
    identify and promote innovation, and the NRC licensing fees
    should not have a chilling effect on these entrepreneurial
    efforts.
        Finally, I strongly support the elimination of the foreign
    ownership requirements of section 3 and the mandatory hearing
    requirements contained in section 4, and I am pleased to
    discuss my views with the subcommittee.
        I would ask that some additional letters of support,
    including that of X-energy, be included in the hearing record.
        And with that, I again thank you very much for allowing me
    to testify today.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Merrifield follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Merrifield.
        Our next witness is Mr. Todd Allen, who is a senior fellow
    at the Clean Energy Program for the Third Way.
        Dr. Allen, thanks for being with us, and you are recognized
    for 5 minutes, and please get the microphone up close. Thank
    you.

                        STATEMENT OF TODD ALLEN

        Mr. Allen. Absolutely.
        Good morning, Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member Rush,
    other distinguished members of the subcommittee. On behalf of
    Third Way, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to provide
    testimony on the importance of nuclear energy innovation.
        My perspective on nuclear energy comes from my diverse
    career. My first job after college, I lived on a floating
    nuclear reactor as an officer in the U.S. nuclear submarine
    fleet. I spent 10 years teaching at the University of Wisconsin
    nuclear engineering. I have seen firsthand the young generation
    that believes in nuclear technology as a critical component for
    providing clean energy.
        I have worked in the national laboratory system as the
    deputy for science and technology at the Idaho National
    Laboratory, working to open up the laboratory facilities to
    university and industry users across the country. Now I am at
    think tank, where I think.
        Third Way supports the further development of an innovation
    culture that creates and brings to market advanced nuclear
    technologies. Currently, nuclear energy is provided as a single
    product offering, specifically large gigawatt scale electricity
    production machines. But the national energy system is changing
    rapidly, opening up the possibility of nuclear energy
    supporting a wider range of functions if new ideas can get from
    conception to commercialization.
        A 2015 Third Way report identified nearly 50 companies,
    backed by more than $1.3 billion in private capital, developing
    plans for new nuclear plants in the U.S. and Canada. These
    companies are creating a growing number of product options of
    varying sizes and capabilities intending to build upon the
    continued success of our current light-water reactor fleet,
    which provides over 60 percent of the carbon-free electricity
    in the United States.
        Private-public partnerships will be key to the story,
    similar to the way hydraulic fracking and the Internet were
    developed and how SpaceX is currently teaming with NASA to send
    unmanned vehicles to Mars.
        So how can Federal investments nurture this emerging
    culture of nuclear innovation? I will use as an example a
    hypothetical graduate nuclear engineering student named Carla
    who wants to provide clean energy to the world and make money
    at the same time. What is her path to success in transitioning
    a good idea on paper to a marketable product and a thriving
    company, and where can partnerships with the Federal Government
    be useful?
        First step, Carla would benefit from early interactions
    with technical experts, financiers, and business developers. We
    suggest Carla could be helped through the creation of private-
    public partnerships in early innovation, a proposal we have
    called Innovation Centers. Innovation Centers would also
    benefit the Department of Energy by providing the agency with
    valuable information on private sector investment trends that
    could then inform how DOE directs research dollars to solve
    problems that support multiple companies.
        Step two, securing investments. At the Innovation Center,
    Carla has opportunities to troubleshoot and mature her concept.
    She is also introduced to financial firms, which ultimately
    helps her secure a small investment to fund her company. Carla
    could leverage for private investment to receive DOE cost
    share, allowing her to move quickly and to signal to investors
    that her design is especially promising. The Department of
    Energy already engages in cost share programs, like the ones
    currently supporting project agreements with Southern Company's
    TerraPower and X-energy, and further use of these is
    encouraged.
        Her third step, specialized testing. Here is where the
    Federal programs become uniquely valuable, through access to
    national test beds. Some development requires access to
    specialized capabilities. For instance, test reactors,
    facilities to test radioactive materials, or high-performance
    computing. Fortunately, a number of the Department of Energy
    laboratories have these types of facilities and expertise that
    Carla needs. The Department of Energy created the Gateway for
    Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear, or GAIN program, to
    facilitate these private-public interactions.
        Step four, beginning her regulatory process. As she
    develops her technology, Carla would like to get signals from
    the regulator, short of licensing, that her technical solutions
    are reasonable. This will help her gain additional funding
    increments as she develops her designs. She needs a regulator
    who is staffed and funded in a manner that allows it to be
    ready to respond to emerging light-water reactor technologies.
    Ideally, the pace of regulatory review would support new
    products for an energy system that is changing rapidly, all
    while maintaining the traditional exemplary safety record.
        Step five, demonstration reactor. As is typical with many
    new and capital-intensive technologies, Carla may need to build
    a demonstration of a reactor before moving on to a full-scale
    commercial reactor. To address this, the Department of Energy
    should allow innovators like Carla a chance to build their
    demonstrations at one of their laboratories that already have
    experience running nuclear facilities, allowing Carla to build
    her reactor at Idaho or Oak Ridge, for example, to help her
    more affordably test her design and make any final changes to
    commercialize her product.
        Final step, NRC licensing of her demonstration reactor.
    Because Carla is hoping her demonstration reactor design will
    eventually be commercialized, which would require her to go
    through the NRC licensing process, it would benefit her if the
    NRC were involved in the licensing and construction of her
    demonstration reactor. When Carla's demonstration reactor
    works, she is ready to work with her investors and the Nuclear
    Regulatory Commission to get final design approval and funding
    for commercialization.
        Where can Congress help? Early innovation. Support the
    creation of multiple private-public Innovation Centers that
    facilitate the creation of a new generation of nuclear
    entrepreneurs. This can be formally done through report
    language in the appropriations process.
        Test beds. Support the GAIN program as our national nuclear
    Innovation Center, ensuring a modern infrastructure with world-
    leading staff that serves as the Nation's test bed. Ensure that
    federally supported R&D programs are structured to maximize
    value through well-structured private-public partnerships. And
    finally, regulation. Ensure that the Nuclear Regulatory
    Commission is staffed, structured, and funded to support a pace
    of regulatory review that would support new products for an
    energy system that is changing rapidly.
        House Resolution 4979 asks the NRC and DOE to look broadly
    at their functions and report back on how they could better
    serve this emerging nuclear innovation community. We are
    supportive of this national approach and have suggested some
    specific ideas. We hope DOE and NRC have additional useful
    ideas.
        We also appreciate the intent of the discussion draft from
    Mr. Kinzinger and are ready and willing to interact to optimize
    our ability to move nuclear technology forward.
        Thank you for inviting me to testify. I look forward to
    your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Allen follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you.
        And our next witness is Mr. Geoffrey Fettus, who is the
    senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
        Thanks for being with us, and you are recognized for 5
    minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF GEOFFREY FETTUS

        Mr. Fettus. Thank you, Chairman Whitfield and Ranking
    Member Rush and distinguished members of the committee. It is a
    great honor to be here. I will just highlight a few points
    here.
        First, with respect to H.R. 4979, which requires DOE and
    the NRC to work together to work to develop a plan with public
    input for advanced reactor licensing systems, such a charge has
    merit in that it asks two of the relevant Federal agencies to
    work together, but some cautions are in order.
        Two hundred and seventy days is far too short a time to
    both gather and analyze the necessary technical and regulatory
    information and provide for public comment with respect to such
    a complicated set of economic, security, and environmental
    challenges as those faced by the licensing of advanced
    reactors.
        Further, both EPA and the President's Council on
    Environmental Quality should be part of any such enterprise,
    EPA for its standard-setting authority and CEQ for its
    oversight of NEPA obligations. Even though many of these
    advanced reactor concepts have been around for decades, none of
    the current space have demonstrated the security,
    environmental, and safety improvements necessary to make them
    viable in the near term, and more pertinent to the reality of a
    carbon-constrained future, none of them have demonstrated any
    likelihood that they will be able to compete in competitive
    energy markets. And the licensing process, effectively designed
    by industry and streamlined by the NRC multiple times over the
    last two decades, has little to do with that.
        Thus, our concern is real that the practical nuclear
    engineering and economic hurdles inherent to these technologies
    may serve as a distraction to the rapid continued scale-up of
    existing, economically viable, and proven solutions to the
    threat of climate change from wind, solar, and energy
    efficiencies.
        Second, we found the discussion draft substantially more
    problematic, and I will highlight just a few of the sections.
        Section 2 unwisely shifts substantial costs to the
    taxpayers rather than collecting them, as has been done
    historically via licensing fees.
        Section 3 requires a study on the feasibility and
    implications of repealing foreign ownership restrictions. While
    it is wise to study a matter and collect information before
    legislating, we would urge a requirement for wide public input
    on a matter this complicated, especially from the security
    terms.
        Section 4 does away with the mandatory hearing provision,
    which would do much harm to public confidence that all
    technical issues have been thoroughly and adequately considered
    by the NRC. Indeed, the mandatory hearing plays a crucial role
    in supplementing the contested hearing process in which few
    issues--and I want to stress this--sometimes no issues survive
    the gauntlet of NRC's arduous procedural requirement for
    admission of issues to a hearing.
        The mandatory hearing process has a proven track record of
    highlighting weaknesses in the NRC's staff's review. For
    example, in the case of the Clinton ESP, the Atomic Safety and
    Licensing Board found the staff's review, and I quote, ``did
    not supply adequate technical information or flow of logic to
    permit a judgment as to whether the staff had a reasonable
    basis for its conclusions,'' 64 NRC at 460.
        Section 5 is equally troublesome as it is simply a
    codification of agency drift to an informal, less rigorous
    hearing process that really has already been underway for a
    long time. And rather than ensuring the hearing process
    continues to become a yet more expedient process and more of a
    restrictive venue for states and the public, Congress should be
    directing NRC to submit a substantially redesigned adjudicatory
    hearing process that will provide regulatory certainty but will
    also simplify the hearing requirements to allow substantive
    technical issues of safety or environmental concern come to the
    fore rather than entertaining joint industry-staff efforts to
    flyspeck, curtail, or have dismissed literally every contention
    that has ever been filed before the Atomic Safety and Licensing
    Board.
        Section 6 is also problematic in that it weakens the
    opportunity for hearings on inspections, test analyses, and
    acceptance criteria prior to operation. It further bars the use
    of incomplete information as a basis for granting a hearing.
        Briefly, the perception that hearings cause delays in
    licensing has no basis in fact. The industry has long
    structured the hearing process, and NRC staff requests for
    additional information are at the heart of the timing, and that
    is simply evidence of the regulator doing its job.
        But even more to the point, docketing the application
    before it is complete when it often contains substantial areas
    that are promised to be addressed later or leaves out
    significant details creates the false impression that the time
    between when the application is docketed and when the final
    decision is rendered is attributable to the hearing process and
    public participation. This delay should not be used to justify
    even further restrictions.
        Section 7 would do grave harm to NEPA and likely bar any
    meaningful NEPA review by staff. The current NEPA process, as
    is practiced by the NRC, is already problematic, and I detail
    that in my testimony.
        And finally, with respect to section 8, we recommend
    striking the text in section (b), ``factors,'' entirely from
    the draft legislation as this language can prejudice and
    distort the final decommissioning rulemaking that has just
    commenced at the Commission.
        Thank you again for this opportunity, and I am happy to
    take any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Fettus follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Whitfield. Well, thank you.
        Thank all of you for your testimony.
        At this time, we will recognize members for questions.
        And, Mr. Latta, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman, and again, thanks
    for holding today's hearing.
        And, gentlemen, thanks very much for your testimony today.
    It is very much an appreciated.
        Mr. Merrifield, if I could start with the first question to
    you.
        My legislation requires the development of phased licensing
    process to provide certain assurances to the license
    applicants. What do you see are the primary advantages of
    structuring the licensing process in this manner and how would
    you recommend the NRC develop such a process?
        Mr. Merrifield. Well, I think right now one of the
    disadvantages of the current system is it is sort of all or
    nothing. You have to put in your license application and wait a
    very long period of time to determine whether the NRC is going
    to find that to be acceptable.
        For the advanced reactor community, having a stepwise
    process, as envisioned by your bill, would allow early
    interaction with the NRC and an early indication of whether
    that design may be licensable. If, indeed, the NRC finds out
    that that is the case, that developer can identify additional
    areas of funding to continue to process that application and
    that design.
        If for some reason--and we hope it is not the case--the NRC
    were to find that that would be something that would be
    difficult or not able to be licensed, then that applicant can
    then make a logical business decision whether they want to
    continue to move forward or not, and we think that is a real
    benefit to innovation.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you. And your testimony also
    suggests that the model used by the Canadian nuclear regulator
    should be pursued. What do you think makes their structure more
    unique and constructive?
        Mr. Merrifield. Well, it has some very specific steps to
    it. It does have this pre-application vendor design review. It
    has got some specific deliverables that are expected by the
    Canadian regulator that are well spelled out. It has a specific
    timing for when that review should occur. And, indeed, they
    even have limitations in terms of what the cost is going to be
    for the applicant.
        So it makes it a very clear program for everyone involved
    to understand what is expected in that first step, and it
    allows the technology both to be evaluated as well as to move
    forward.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you.
        Dr. Allen, if I could turn to you, following up on that, do
    you have any additional thoughts regarding the benefit of the
    phased licensing process.
        Mr. Allen. Just one small thing. I agree with the
    commissioner that it is a very important early signal to
    someone who is trying to take an early idea to
    commercialization to be able to get that feedback from the
    regulator.
        The other thing by getting those is, parallel to this, we
    have got the Department of Energy doing research programs in
    similar technical areas. The more that we can get early signals
    that we can then use to feed back and guide how we spend
    Federal dollars on research in a way that helps those private
    companies is also very useful.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you.
        If I could ask Mr. Fertel a question of you. In your
    testimony you talk about that the country is going to lose, in
    the next 15 years, 126 gigawatts of generation and that we are
    going to need 287 gigawatts by 2040. I represent a district
    with 60,000 manufacturing jobs. We have to have a baseload
    capacity out there.
        Could you just maybe kind of give me an overview of how
    many power plants we are talking about when you are talking
    about 126 gigawatts and what we are going to need when you look
    at 287?
        Mr. Fertel. I think, Congressman, in general, you could
    think about them if they are gas plants, which is what we are
    building now, they are probably on the order of 400 to 500
    megawatts each. So if we need 100,000 of them, we are going to
    be building 2,500-megawatt--I am sorry--1,000, yes, we would be
    building 100 of those, to get to 240 plus--it is almost 500,000
    megawatts. So you would be building 1,000 plants at 500
    megawatts each.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you.
        Mr. Merrifield, the Advanced Nuclear Technology Development
    Act requires the NRC to develop a risk-informed regulatory
    framework. Given your experience as a commissioner, would you
    please provide your interpretation of what a risk-informed
    framework means and what the primary inputs are into such a
    framework?
        Mr. Merrifield. Well, a risk-informed performance-based
    approach uses a combination of risk analysis and performance
    history to identify what are the most significant areas to
    focus your inspection and your regulatory activities. It
    recognizes that in any system, whether it is a nuclear power
    plant, a petrochemical refinery, or an interplanetary space
    vehicle, every system is not equally important to safety. So
    using a risk-informed performance-based approach allows you to
    prioritize what are the most critical components and focus your
    regulatory process toward those.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much.
        And, Mr. Chair, I see my time is about ready to expire, and
    I yield back.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back.
        At this time, I recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
    Rush for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Rush. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Fertel, last week at the NRC's fiscal year 2017 budget
    hearing, the subcommittee examined the agency's request of
    almost $20 million less this year than what was enacted in last
    year's budget. These cuts were said to be in line with the
    agency's Project AIM initiative designed to streamline
    operations and better reflect the Commission's increased
    workload.
        However, in your statement you said that those reductions
    are not sufficient and that industry continues to see
    regulatory inefficiencies. Can you discuss why the new fee
    structure, as outlined in the discussion draft, is necessary?
        However, how would the change in the outline in the bill
    impact safety standards and protocols in these nuclear
    facilities.
        And if there are any other witnesses who would like to
    address any of these questions that I have asked, please chime
    in.
        Mr. Fertel.
        Mr. Fertel. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
        First of all, we never want to see either NRC's
    effectiveness as a regulator or their credibility as a
    regulator undermined. We think they are the best regulator in
    the world, and it is very important to us, from a commercial
    industry standpoint, for them to be very effective and credible
    in what they do.
        They have Project AIM going. We think Project AIM is a very
    significant and sincere effort on their part to look at
    rebaselining what they are doing. The scope of what they have
    as responsibilities has dramatically decreased. They had
    staffed up for 20-plus new plants. They were operating as
    though they had 107 existing reactors. We are moving forward
    with four new reactors. We currently have 99, and a number of
    those are going to be shutting down soon. Their material
    licensees have significantly decreased in how many that they
    are regulating.
        So they have, and they recognize this, a significant
    opportunity to rebaseline what they are trying to do with the
    basic scope of safety that they have to look at.
        They also, as the commissioner mentioned before, are
    looking at getting much more safety focused. They were looking
    at on the order of greater than 60 new rulemakings, which now
    the Commission is saying they are not going to do all of them,
    for an industry that is performing exceptionally well and for
    an industry that they have been regulating now for 50-plus
    years.
        So we see a significant opportunity for them to continue to
    do what they are doing, and we think that as they do what the
    industry is doing, as you deal with turnover due to
    retirements, you deal with a lot of this through attrition. And
    basically, you have an opportunity to hire critical resources,
    but probably not replace all resources. That is what we are
    doing on our side really religiously right now, unfortunately,
    because of the challenges that our plants face.
        On the corporate overhead and the approach in the bill that
    Congressman Kinzinger has proposed, what we see is really a
    tremendous benefit of having Congress provide some
    accountability and oversight to the corporate overhead. Their
    corporate overhead, based upon the study that they commissioned
    with Ernst & Young, is much higher than all their peer agencies
    that they looked at.
        I don't think they are evil for doing that, but there is
    not a lot of accountability for them to do less because we pay
    for it. It is not appropriated money, there is not a lot of
    oversight put to it, and there is very little transparency from
    our side to seeing what we are paying for and why.
        So we see a significant opportunity. But to your point, we
    do not want to hurt their credibility or their effectiveness,
    but we think that they can continue going down their path. Now,
    we may push harder because we know they won't go as fast, but
    we think that that helps them go in the right direction.
        Mr. Merrifield. Congressman, to that point, I mean, I was
    very proud to serve as a commissioner of the NRC, and I agree
    with the characterization. It contains an extraordinary group
    of hard-dedicated individuals.
        Having said that, as I related in my testimony, we went
    through a similar process when I was a commissioner to the
    process that they are undergoing today. There was a decreasing
    workload, and there was a need to appropriately align the size
    of the workforce and the task and make it more risk informed.
        We were able to do that, and I think it resulted from a
    couple of things. One, we had a significant amount of oversight
    from Congress. We had to provide monthly reports to Congress on
    the progress of the licensing activities that we had underway.
    And that drove the Commission, in its budget process, in what
    it presented to Congress, to conduct a line-by-line review of
    how it was spending money, what the priorities were, and to
    make sure that it was doing the most important stuff and
    recognize that some things just simply didn't need to be done.
    I think the Commission certainly needs to have that level of
    engagement, and I trust they should right now.
        The one thing I would mention on corporate overhead
    support--we didn't have this term when I was a commissioner--I
    think there has been a lot of growth in things like IT and
    other things which may drive some of this. There is one program
    I think this committee needs to be aware is important that
    isn't overhead, and that is international programs. There are
    countries around the world that look to the NRC to help them
    craft their regulatory programs. It is very important, as
    Congress looks to oversee these programs, that that one, in
    particular, is not hurt.
        Those are important investments, they should come from
    general revenues, but it is assistance that that agency
    provides around the world, and it is critical.
        Mr. Fertel. The industry would certainly support what
    Commissioner Merrifield recommends on them helping
    internationally from a safety standpoint.
        Mr. Rush. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Whitfield. At this time, I recognize the gentleman from
    West Virginia for 5 minutes, Mr. McKinley.
        Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And in deference to
    time, I will try to keep this short, so I am going limit to
    maybe one or two questions on it.
        Mr. Fertel, with you with the NEI, we understand with the
    new nuclear technologies that will come as a result of
    legislation like this, we know that there are going to be
    developments that will probably reduce the amount of waste
    product that comes from the spent fuel rods. But nevertheless
    the whole process of making nuclear energy is going to develop
    a waste product, maybe less than we are currently doing, but
    nevertheless there still will be a waste product.
        So does NEI have a position? Do you support the Yucca
    Mountain as a permanent site for the disposal of nuclear fuel
    waste as required by law?
        Mr. Fertel. Congressman, we have always supported going
    forward, finishing the licensing on Yucca Mountain to determine
    it is licensed, which we think it would be, and then to move
    forward with Yucca Mountain. We also support, in parallel, the
    necessity of having centralized interim storage, because we
    don't think you can get to Yucca and do everything fast enough
    for the fact that we have plants that are shutting down. And
    our support also goes to making sure that there is access to
    the Nuclear Waste Fund. There is over $30 billion in it, and we
    don't have access right now.
        Mr. McKinley. Of the 99, I guess, reactors we have
    functioning, I am curious about what is being done currently to
    safeguard those spent fuel rods in those water baths. We know
    the potential with all the fear of terrorism and other activity
    for national security. Is there something being done on this
    nuclear waste management that can give us a greater comfort
    than the way we are doing it now? If we are not using Yucca
    Mountain yet, how safe should we feel?
        Mr. Fertel. Yes. I am sure Commissioner Merrifield will add
    to this.
        Mr. Merrifield. I will.
        Mr. Fertel. But the NRC heavily regulates what we do with
    used nuclear fuel, both while it is in the spent fuel pool and
    then when we put it in dry cast storage on site. We obviously
    have stringent security plans to make sure that not just the
    used fuel is protected, but the active fuel and other things at
    our plants. And based upon the Fukushima lessons learned, there
    has even been enhancements to what we do with used fuel at our
    sites because of what we learned from what went on in Japan.
        So I think to some degree the problem with used fuel is
    that it is managed very well on sites, which doesn't create the
    crisis to cause our country to try and implement the Nuclear
    Waste Policy Act or any other law related to it. So the good
    news is we manage it very well and it is regulated very well.
    The bad news is it doesn't move it very quickly to where you
    want it to go.
        Mr. McKinley. Thank you.
        Mr. Merrifield. Congressman, on the issue of security, I
    was a commissioner during 9/11. I was in front of this
    committee talking about the things that needed to be
    accomplished to protect the U.S. fleet of nuclear units.
        I can say without reservation, I have been on nuclear sites
    within the last week looking at security issues, and I can
    assure you these are the safest industrial facilities in the
    United States. The level of security that we have at the
    nuclear power plants in the United States is well beyond what
    is even needed to protect that fuel from the adversaries that
    we face today.
        Mr. McKinley. Thank you.
        And, Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Whitfield. We have two votes on the floor. We have got
    about 10 or 11 minutes left. So if you all would be in
    agreement, we will recognize you for 3 minutes, and we will
    just get as far as we can, and then if somebody wants to come
    back, we can talk about that.
        So, Mr. McNerney, you are recognized for 3 minutes.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Fertel, do you believe that we need to include fusion
    specifically in the H.R. 4979 framework?
        Mr. Fertel. Was the question about fusion?
        Mr. McNerney. Yes.
        Mr. Fertel. To be honest, I hadn't thought about that, but
    my reaction is I think it is a whole different regulatory
    regime that we would have to look at for fusion, and the
    availability of fusion is still far enough off that I wouldn't
    rush it in and distract the NRC from paying attention to being
    able to put a regulatory process in place for the other
    technologies that are deployable sooner than that. I wouldn't
    eliminate it as something you should look at for the longer
    term, Congressman.
        Mr. McNerney. OK. Thank you.
        Mr. Allen, the Third Way report that identified 50
    companies developing plans for new nuclear plants in the U.S.
    and Canada, how soon are some of these technologies going to be
    available and is the NRC ready for that?
        Mr. Allen. I think they are on a big spectrum, depending on
    how much technology development has been done in the past. I
    would say the quickest, assuming that we do the types of things
    we need in the regulatory space, would be on the order of 10 to
    15 years. Some of them are much further out than that.
        And I think that the NRC has a strong regulatory function,
    but as we talked about, it could do some things to be better
    receptive to these types of companies and to build staff depth
    in areas that they are not used to regulating.
        Mr. McNerney. Mr. Merrifield, do you think there is a risk
    of agencies blocking heads against each other, the NRC and the
    DOE, with respect to the new technology?
        Mr. Merrifield. There were a lot of discussions between the
    DOE and NRC on earlier advanced reactor-like programs. That did
    not get as far as I think we had hoped it would have gotten. I
    think with the focus that this committee and your counterparts
    in the Senate have on advanced reactor technologies, the
    legislation that you have before you will give the framework
    and the encouragement for the NRC to move forward.
        They are an agency which, when focused on a mission, do a
    great job of accomplishing it. I sometimes refer to them as the
    Boy Scouts of Federal agencies. They need the focus, they need
    the encouragement of this committee. But I think they can
    accomplish the mission to appropriately and safely license and
    regulate advanced reactors in a timely and effective way.
        Mr. McNerney. And an MOU would be sufficient to cause that
    to happen?
        Mr. Merrifield. I believe so, yes, Congressman.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
        Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Kinzinger, you are recognized 3 minutes.
        Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The NRC has previously informed Congress that it believes
    amending the Atomic Energy Act to eliminate the mandatory
    uncontested hearing on combined license and early site permit
    applications could enhance the efficiency of NRC operations.
        Section 4 in my draft allows the Commission, if a hearing
    isn't requested by an affected person, to issue a construction
    permit, operating license, or amendment to such permits and
    licenses without holding a hearing.
        Mr. Fertel, in your view, how would this provision improve
    regulatory efficiency at the NRC?
        Mr. Fertel. I think what it would do is allow both the
    licensee and the NRC staff to move forward on issues while a
    hearing is being done, which is, to be honest, very similar to
    a situation for the operating plants. So it would not delay the
    startup of a facility that might be critical to electricity,
    but certainly would not be making any revenue while it is
    sitting there.
        If there was a true safety issue that it shouldn't start
    up, they are not going to allow it to do that. So it doesn't
    allow you to do something that is going to provide unsafe
    conditions.
        Mr. Kinzinger. And what kind of regulatory and economic
    burdens are associated with the mandatory hearing requirement?
    How much can an uncontested mandatory hearing delay the
    process?
        Mr. Fertel. There is not great data. We have looked at that
    based upon the Vogtle experience and some of the other
    projects, and it is hard to decipher exactly because there was
    the design cert going through at the same time. But our
    estimate was it could have been an 80- to 120-day delay as a
    result with, to be honest, not significant value added by that
    because of all the other reviews.
        Mr. Merrifield. If I can just answer for a second on that
    one.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Yes.
        Mr. Merrifield. Congressman, I think there are two issues
    associated with mandatory hearings. One of them is an issue of
    the extra time it takes. The other portion is the amount of
    staff activity that ultimately has to be borne by the applicant
    and the distraction it gives to actually getting to the
    ultimate decision. The staff, in preparing for those hearings,
    wants to make sure that everything they send up to the
    Commission is in a certain way. That eats up a huge amount of
    time.
        As a commissioner, I recognized that there were
    extraordinary opportunities for the public to comment on the
    process that even led to the ultimate licensing, and indeed the
    mandatory hearing was an antiquated legacy of the 1950s that
    was not needed.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you.
        And a lot more to ask, but duty calls, and I will yield
    back. Thank you all for being here.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentlemen yields back.
        At this time I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
    Green, for 3 minutes.
        Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I am a supporter of nuclear power, and I think to get to a
    carbon-free environment that is where we need to get to. I
    believe increased cooperation between DOE and NRC would create
    efficiencies and expedite the process of approving new
    reactors. Combined with the President's GAIN initiative, I
    think we can revitalize our nuclear sector and secure
    additional baseload power.
        I do have some concerns about the Nuclear Utilization of
    Keynote Energy Policies Act. And I would like to ask some
    questions.
        Mr. Merrifield, in your testimony you made reference to a
    2016 white paper released by your organization that discussed
    framework for licensing modernization. The white paper listed
    five recommendations for Congress: proactive oversight of NRC's
    design review and licensing process; providing sufficient
    resources--and I am guessing that means money; encouraging NRC
    to meet a 36-month deadline for review; and directing NRC to
    identify roadblocks to expedite approvals and submitting annual
    updates.
        In your opinion, does the legislation before the
    subcommittee today adequately address these recommendations?
        Mr. Merrifield. In the main, I think it does. We actually I
    think focused on a couple of things that we would ask for
    improvement in the two bills that you are looking at today. One
    is to be really specific in requiring a pre-application vendor
    design review process. The other one was to providing a greater
    opportunity for engagement between the developers of advanced
    reactor technologies and the NRC at no cost early stages in the
    process to really enhance the level of understanding on the
    part of the agency and the developer.
        Mr. Green. During your service as a commissioner, do you
    recall how many licensing reviews the NRC completed?
        Mr. Merrifield. How many licensing reviews?
        Mr. Green. Yes.
        Mr. Merrifield. I would have to go back and do some
    research on that.
        Mr. Green. If you could get that, I would appreciate it.
        With respect to these reviews, do you have a sense of how
    many hearings did the Commission grant upon request under
    section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act?
        Mr. Merrifield. I would have to go back and review that
    one.
        Mr. Green. OK. If you could get that for us.
        And also under section 189, are formal adjudicatory
    procedures required of the Commission or do they have
    discretionary authority? Are they required to have those
    procedures or is it discretionary with the Commission?
        Mr. Merrifield. I am sorry, Congressman, I didn't hear
    that.
        Mr. Green. Under section 189, are the formal adjudicatory
    procedures required of the Commission or do they have
    discretionary authority?
        Mr. Merrifield. Congressman----
        Mr. Fettus. I can answer that.
        Mr. Merrifield. I would like to have the opportunity to
    review those procedures and provide an appropriate response to
    the committee.
        Mr. Green. OK.
        Mr. Chairman, I will be glad to submit the questions.
        And if you could get back to us.
        Because, again, if we can move the process along. And
    coordination between agencies is never bad.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Whitfield. Well, thank you.
        And we appreciate you all being with us today. I am going
    to ask just a couple of questions.
        We still have 3 minutes before we have to vote, Bobby, so
    no rush.
        NuScale Power has stated their plans to submit its design
    certification application to the NRC by the end of 2016 for a
    so-called small modular reactor. And, Mr. Merrifield, I would
    just ask you, what is your outlook for NRC's readiness to
    accept a high-quality application and review it in a timely
    manner?
        Mr. Merrifield. Congressman, I think the NRC has been
    preparing, as far as I can tell, I believe the NRC has been
    preparing itself to receive that application. It is a light-
    water reactor technology. It is something that the NRC is
    familiar with. And I think they will do their level best to
    accept it and review it in due course.
        Mr. Whitfield. Do you agree with that, Mr. Fertel?
        Mr. Fertel. Yes, I think the way Jeff Merrifield answered
    is probably accurate. And I think that the division director
    there is a very competent young woman who I think is making
    sure that they are as prepared as they can be. So we would
    expect they will do as good a job as they can.
        Mr. Merrifield. Yes, I agree with that. Mr. Fertel
    references Jennifer Uhle, who is the director of the Office of
    New Reactors. She is a very talented young woman I think will
    do an exceptional job for that team.
        Mr. Whitfield. Well, we hear a lot of discussion about
    small nuclear modular reactors and great hope for them. And
    some are sodium cooled, some are lead cooled, light water. How
    many of these so-called small modular reactors are there
    operating today around the world? Does anybody have any idea?
        Mr. Fertel. I don't think that from a commercial standpoint
    thereis hardly any. But all of our submarines are using small
    modular reactors and our aircraft carriers. So there is
    experience with them. Now, they are different, but there is a
    lot of experience.
        And in our country right now, Mr. Chairman, electricity
    growth, thanks to really very good efficiency and things like
    that, and also probably being hurt by our economy a bit, but
    our electricity growth is really very small. So small modular
    reactors are becoming actually even more important
    domestically. We always thought they were important
    internationally. But even domestically they are becoming very
    important, particularly as you replace older smaller coal
    plants and eventually even gas plants.
        Mr. Merrifield. Mr. Chairman, one thing I think is
    important to remember, particularly about advanced reactor
    technologies, we talk about traditional utility uses for
    generating electricity. What is important to remember is these
    technologies also provide very high sources of heat. So the new
    users of these technologies may not necessarily be just our
    traditional utilities. It may be also for other industrial
    processes that can utilize that heat and power.
        Mr. Whitfield. Anybody else have any comment? OK.
        Mr. Allen. Yes, I would just agree that they are looking at
    a large number of different commercial products than just
    gigawatt-scale nuclear.
        Mr. Whitfield. So when we talk about small, are we talking
    about below 300 megawatts or so?
        Mr. Merrifield. Yes. Some of them that are conceptualized
    could be as small as 3 to 10 megawatts. Some of them are in the
    range of 80 to 100. Others are on sort of the verge of 300. So
    there is a range of the potential reactors being proposed.
        Mr. Fettus. Chairman Whitfield, though, there is one
    caution. The only ones that we have seen that have had any
    indication of any economic viability have been coupled together
    in the several-hundred megawatt range to allow for some economy
    of scale to actually be able to compete in a market. And none
    of these are built around the world. The number is actually
    zero. And the question of whether or not they will have any
    chance in a competitive marketplace in 10, 12, 15 years, no one
    has a crystal ball here.
        Mr. Merrifield. Well, no one has a crystal ball, but at the
    end the market is going to resolve that. That is what we are
    asking for, a predictable regulatory regime that those reactors
    can be licensed through. If they can't come up with the
    economics that the market will bear, those reactors will not go
    forward.
        Mr. Whitfield. Well, listen, thank you all very much. We
    look forward to working with you as we consider these two
    pieces of legislation and other issues as well.
        We will keep the record open for 10 days.
        And once again, thank you. And that concludes today's
    hearing.
        [Whereupon, at 10:41 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]

                     Prepared statement of Hon. Fred Upton

        With two nuclear power plants just miles from my home in
    Southwest Michigan, I know firsthand the importance of safe,
    clean nuclear energy to the nation's energy portfolio, as well
    as the economic benefits nuclear brings to local communities.
    Nearly thirty percent of Michigan's electricity is generated by
    nuclear power and the industry supports more than 2,900 highly
    skilled employees in the state. Because of the large role
    nuclear energy plays in Michigan and across the country, it's
    imperative that folks have confidence in the Nuclear Regulatory
    Commission's mission to protect public health and safety. This
    mission can, and should, be achieved while also providing
    regulatory certainty for NRC licensees and stakeholders. And
    the simple fact is we can't have nuclear power without the NRC.
        As a fee-based organization, Michigan ratepayers fund the
    NRC through utilities in annual fee assessments. This structure
    requires continued Congressional oversight to assure the NRC
    diligently manages its operations and continually strives to
    become more efficient. The proposed legislation for review this
    morning seeks to do just that.
        Over half of today's nuclear power plants commenced
    operation over thirty years ago and many are likely to enter
    the decommissioning process in the next decade. The age of the
    existing fleet should encourage policymakers to look to the
    next generation of nuclear energy technologies. The NRC's
    existing regulatory structure was designed to license and
    oversee light water reactor technology that was developed as a
    result of a policy choice due to our nuclear navy. Today,
    innovative engineers are developing promising new nuclear
    technologies that could bring significant design improvements
    to take us beyond the current fleet of nuclear power plants.
        In order to achieve this goal, private stakeholders must
    understand the criteria by which the NRC will accept non-light
    water reactor designs. It is also important for the NRC be
    prepared to receive and review these designs in a timely
    manner. Congressman Latta's bill, the Advanced Nuclear
    Technology Development Act, will direct NRC to fulfill those
    obligations. I thank him for his forward thinking on this
    issue.
        Representative Kinzinger's discussion draft highlights the
    importance of NRC licensees to maintain confidence that
    licensing and other regulatory activities are resolved in a
    timely, efficient, and safe manner. The proposed legislation
    would maintain the existing ``gold standard'' of safety
    regulation by the NRC, while implementing some commonsense
    policies and process changes. I recognize that there may be
    differing viewpoints in how to achieve this high standard and I
    hope today's hearing is a constructive step in facilitating
    those discussions. I look forward to exploring these issues in
    greater detail as we have an eye toward our nuclear future.
                                  ----------

                 Prepared statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity today
    to examine two pieces of legislation related to the licensing
    and review of nuclear power reactors here in the United States.
        The first bill under consideration is H.R. 4979, the
    Advanced Nuclear Technology Development Act of 2016, introduced
    by Representatives Latta and McNerney. The bill seeks to
    enhance coordination between NRC and the Department of Energy
    through a memorandum of understanding on issues related to
    advanced nuclear reactor technology. This is a worthy goal and
    a commonsense way for the federal government to support the
    advanced nuclear power industry.
        The bill also requires NRC to develop an advanced reactor
    regulatory framework to evaluate the options to expedite
    advanced reactor licensing and make it more predictable. NRC
    would have 270 days from the date of enactment to submit this
    plan to the Energy and Commerce Committee. The plan must also
    seek input from interested stakeholders, which is crucial. I
    support this approach, but want to hear more about whether 270
    days is a realistic timeframe.
        The second proposal before us, is a discussion draft put
    forth by Representative Kinzinger entitled the Nuclear
    Utilization of Keynote Energy Policies Act.
        I believe nuclear power must play a continued role in our
    energy future. It is a clean source of power that has helped
    reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Today the industry faces
    the dual challenges of working to extend the life of our
    country's existing reactors--many of which are reaching the end
    of their 40 year licenses--while also pursuing innovative
    advanced nuclear technologies that could be more cost-
    effective, efficient and produce less waste.
        Members on both sides of the aisle believe that this is an
    important issue for our committee to consider, and I want to
    commend Mr. Kinzinger for putting forth this draft and
    beginning this critical discussion.
        However, while we should explore opportunities to support
    and sustain nuclear power in the U.S., we cannot lose sight of
    the critical importance of maintaining robust nuclear safety
    and oversight to protect public health and the environment. We
    must strike the right balance. This week marks the 30th
    anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, which provides
    us with a sober reminder of the dangers posed by nuclear
    technology if not properly regulated and controlled.
        So, I am concerned that, in its current form, this proposal
    goes too far in one direction, minimizing public input into the
    licensing process, eliminating critical hearings on the
    licensing process, unrealistically shortening the licensing
    review timeline, and drastically reducing the portion of NRC's
    budget that is covered by licensee fees.
        Currently, NRC recovers 90 percent of its budget from
    licensee fees. Section 2 of the discussion draft would shift a
    number of commission activities out of the portion of the
    budget covered by fees. One of those areas would be
    ``infrastructure and corporate support,'' which includes
    administrative services, acquisitions, training and travel.
    This section alone is funded at over $300 million in the Fiscal
    Year 2017 Energy and Water Appropriations bill that has passed
    committee. So, this provision would shift over $300 million to
    taxpayers instead of industry.
        Further, this discussion draft eliminates the mandatory
    public hearing that is held before a combined license is
    approved, which allows construction of the facility to move
    forward. This hearing is a one-day proceeding that provides a
    holistic review of the license application, and it is a
    valuable tool for the NRC commissioners to evaluate the staff's
    review of the license application. The mandatory hearing also
    provides an important opportunity for the public to become
    involved in the licensing process. In fact, just last month, a
    mandatory hearing was held on the early site permit application
    for a site adjacent to the Salem and Hope Creek nuclear power
    plants in New Jersey and that permit was issued yesterday. Past
    mandatory hearings have brought to light serious issues that
    may have otherwise gone unchecked.
        I will say that it is unfortunate that the NRC was not
    invited to testify today. Both proposals would make significant
    changes to the way NRC addresses nuclear licensing, and I
    believe it is critical for us to hear from the Commission as we
    continue with this process.
        That said, I would like to thank the Chairman for holding
    today's hearing. While I have raised some concerns today, I do
    look forward to working together with my colleagues on these
    issues.
                                  ----------

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]