[Senate Hearing 116-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



 
    ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020

                              ----------                              


                         WEDNESDAY, MAY 1, 2019

                                       U.S. Senate,
           Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met at 2:33 p.m. in room SD-138, Dirksen 
Senate Office Building, Hon. Lamar Alexander (chairman) 
presiding.
    Present: Senators Alexander and Feinstein.

                   U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

STATEMENT OF HON. KRISTINE SVINICKI, CHAIRMAN
ACCOMPANIED BY:
        HON. JEFF BARAN, COMMISSIONER
        HON. ANNIE CAPUTO, COMMISSIONER
        HON. DAVID WRIGHT, COMMISSIONER


    opening statement of senator lamar alexander


    Senator Alexander. The Subcommittee on Energy and Water 
Development will please come to order.
    At today's hearing, we will review the administration's 
fiscal year 2020 recess for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission. This is the last of our subcommittee's four budget 
hearings. This year in April, we heard from the Department of 
Energy, the National Nuclear Security Administration, the Army 
Corps, and Bureau of Reclamation about their funding requests.
    Senator Feinstein and I will each have an opening 
statement. The two of us are very proud of the fact that we 
have been able to work well together and with our agencies that 
are within our jurisdiction, and as a result, last year we were 
able to agree on a bill, get it to the floor, get it passed and 
into law before the fiscal year began, which we hope made your 
work more efficient and more enjoyable.
    It is our goal to do that again, if our leadership would 
get with the President and agree on a budget number, so we will 
know how much money we have. But it is always a great pleasure 
to work with Senator Feinstein on this and other issues.
    We have votes at three o'clock. Senator Feinstein has a 
Judiciary Committee hearing, which she may need to go back to 
at some point, but we will proceed with our opening statements 
and then the chairman's statement, and then we will go from 
there, depending on the other Senators that are here.
    We run a real risk of losing our best source of carbon-free 
power just at a time when most Americans are increasingly 
worried about climate change. Nuclear power must be a part of 
our energy future if we want clean, cheap, reliable energy that 
can create good jobs and keep America competitive in the global 
economy.
    Today 98 reactors provide about 20 percent of electricity 
in the United States and 60 percent of all carbon-free 
electricity in our country, but nuclear plants are closing 
because they cost too much to build and cannot compete with 
natural gas.
    Two reactors have announced they will retire later this 
year, and 10 more have announced retirements by 2025, 6 years 
away.
    So let us do a little math here. If we close these 12 
reactors, that would mean a 17 percent decline in carbon-free 
nuclear power by 2025, which is 10 percent of carbon-free 
electricity.
    Today, by comparison, solar power, despite impressive 
reductions in cost, provides 4 percent; and wind power provides 
20 percent of carbon-free electricity, despite billions of 
dollars of subsidies for wind.
    To replace those 12 reactors that have announced they will 
close with other carbon non-free electricity, we would have to 
almost triple the entirety of U.S. solar power or increase wind 
power by another 50 percent.
    If half of our nuclear reactors were to close, we would 
have to double the amount of wind energy produced and or 
increase the amount of solar power by 10 times. Nuclear power, 
of course, is much more reliable than solar or wind. It is 
available when the sun does not shine and the wind does not 
blow. The bottom line is we will not replace nuclear power with 
just wind and solar. It is not possible. We would have to use 
natural gas to replace nuclear power, which would increase 
carbon emissions in our country.
    Unfortunately, we do not need to speculate about what might 
happen when a major industrialized country eliminates nuclear 
power. We have seen what happened in Japan and in Germany for 
different reasons. Major industrialized economies similar to 
ours lost their emission-free, low-cost, reliable electricity. 
Prices went up. Pollution went up. Manufacturing became less 
competitive in the global marketplace, and that is where we are 
headed in the next 10 years if we do not do something. Stakes 
are high.
    In Japan, the cost of generating electricity increased 56 
percent after the Fukushima accident in 2011 when Japan went 
from obtaining 30 percent of its power from nuclear to less 
than 2 percent.
    Before 2011 in Germany, that country obtained one quarter 
of its electricity from nuclear. Now that number is cut in 
half, down to about 12 percent. Germany now has the highest 
household electricity rates in Europe, after replacing nuclear 
power with wind and solar as part of an expensive cap-and-trade 
policy. And, ironically, Germany also had to build new coal 
plants to meet the demand, which increased emissions.
    In late March, I proposed that the United States should 
launch a New Manhattan Project for Clean Energy, a 5-year 
project with Ten Grand Challenges that will use American 
research and technology to put our country and the world firmly 
on the path toward cleaner, cheaper energy.
    These Grand Challenges call for breakthroughs in advanced 
nuclear reactors, natural gas, carbon capture, better 
batteries, greener buildings, electric vehicles, cheaper solar, 
and fusion.
    I put advanced reactors first on the list for a reason. To 
make sure nuclear power has a future in this country, we need 
to develop advanced reactors that have the potential to be 
smaller, to cost less, to produce less waste, and to be even 
safer than today's reactors.
    We need to stop talking about advanced reactors and 
actually build something. Within the next 5 years, we need to 
build one or more advanced reactors to demonstrate the 
capabilities they may bring, and as we review the Commission's 
fiscal year 2020 budget request, I want to make sure the 
Commission has the staff and resources it needs to respond to 
the changing industry.
    I want to thank our witnesses for being here. They include 
Kristine Svinicki, Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission; Commissioner Jeff Baran; Commissioner Annie Caputo; 
and Commissioner David Wright.
    Commissioner Stephen Burns retired just yesterday after 40 
years of distinguished service with the Commission. He started 
as an attorney in 1978, rose to General Counsel, and then 
retired to head Legal Affairs at the Nuclear Energy Agency in 
Paris. He returned to the Commission in 2014 as Commissioner 
and Chairman. He was well respected in every position he held. 
I would like to thank Stephen Burns for his service to our 
country.
    We are here today to review the administration's fiscal 
year 2020 budget request for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, the independent regulatory agency regulating the 
safety of our Nation's 98 commercial nuclear power plants and 
other civilian uses of nuclear material.
    The Commission's budget request this fiscal year is $921 
million, about $10 million less than Congress provided last 
year. The request includes $38.5 million for the Yucca Mountain 
licensing process. It has become increasingly difficult for the 
nuclear industry to compete with other sources of electricity, 
especially natural gas.
    One of the concerns the industry had was the amount of 
regulatory fees charged by the Commission. Currently, $760 
million of the Commission's budget comes from fees paid by 
utilities and other facilities that are licensed to possess and 
use nuclear materials.
    So over the last 5 fiscal years, we have worked with the 
Commission to reduce its overall budget by about $100 million, 
which represents about a 10 percent reduction in budget, which 
means a roughly 10 percent reduction in fees and more closely 
reflects its actual workload while maintaining its gold 
standard of safety.
    These savings are important because they lower the fees 
utilities must pay the Commission, and these savings can be 
passed on to utility customers.
    These reductions have not been arbitrary. They represent 
the type of oversight the Senate is supposed to do. Our 
subcommittee has only reduced the Commission's budget in areas 
that we have identified as unnecessary to its important safety 
mission.
    To ensure nuclear power will continue to play a significant 
role in our Nation's electricity generation, I would like to 
focus my remarks on four areas: (1) licensing small modular and 
advanced reactors; (2) solving the nuclear waste stalemate, 
something Senator Feinstein and I have been working on for 
years; (3) safely extending licenses for existing reactors; and 
(4) maintaining adequate staffing for the Commission.
    Now, on advanced reactors and small reactors, they 
represent the future of nuclear power. The Commission needs to 
be ready to review applications for these new reactors.
    In fiscal year 2017, we provided enough funding to complete 
the Small Modular Reactor Licensing Technical Support program 
at the Department of Energy.
    NuScale, which was one of the technologies selected in that 
program, filed an application for design certification of a 
small modular reactor with the Commission in December of 2016.
    A utility group has been working with NuScale and Idaho 
National Laboratory to build and demonstrate a small modular 
reactor in Idaho.
    TVA also has an application under review for a permit to 
build and demonstrate a small modular reactor at the Clinch 
River site in Tennessee.
    Licenses to build and demonstrate small modular reactors is 
an important step, and we need to make sure the Commission has 
the resources it needs to review the applications.
    I also understand the Commission expects to receive an 
application in fiscal year 2020 for a construction and 
operating license for an advanced, non-light water reactor.
    The fiscal year 2019 bill includes $10 million for the 
Commission to prepare to review advanced reactor designs, and 
the current budget request includes $15.5 million for fiscal 
year 2020. I would like to know what the Commission plans to do 
with that funding so we can make sure things stay on track.
    Now, on the stalemate of nuclear waste, to ensure that 
nuclear power has a strong future, we have to resolve the 
decades-long stalemate over what to do about used fuel from our 
reactors.
    We have been working on that for years, as I said, and I 
want to compliment Senator Feinstein for her persistent and 
consistent leadership on the subject.
    The only way to break the stalemate, in my opinion, is to 
get a final decision on whether Yucca Mountain is safe or not, 
and this year's budget request for the Commission includes 
$38.5 million to begin to answer that question by restarting 
the licensing process for the Yucca Mountain repository. This 
is the next step the Department of Energy must follow to 
determine whether it can begin construction of Yucca Mountain.
    After a public hearing where all parties, including the 
State of Nevada, can provide expert testimony and evidence, the 
Commission will make a final determination upon whether it is 
safe to build Yucca Mountain. I strongly believe Yucca can and 
should be a part of the solution to the nuclear waste 
stalemate. Federal law designates Yucca Mountain as the 
Nation's repository for used fuel, and the Commission's own 
scientists have told us that we can safely store nuclear waste 
there for up to 1 million years.
    But even if we had Yucca Mountain open today, we would 
still need to look for another permanent repository. We already 
have more than enough used fuel to fill Yucca Mountain. The 
quickest and probably least expensive way for the Federal 
Government to start to meet its used nuclear fuel obligations 
is for the Department of Energy to contract with a private 
storage facility for used nuclear fuel.
    I understand that two private companies have submitted 
license applications to the Commission for private consolidated 
storage facilities, one in Texas and one in New Mexico, and 
that the Commission's review is well under way. I will be 
asking some questions about that.
    I want to make sure the Commission has all the resources it 
needs in 2020 to review these applications for consolidated 
storage facilities because we have to start working together to 
solve the nuclear waste stalemate.
    Senator Murkowski along with Senator Feinstein and I have 
introduced a bill this week to implement the recommendations of 
the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future that 
came from the Obama administration, which include using 
temporary private storage facilities.
    This legislation complements Yucca Mountain and would 
create a new Federal agency to find additional permanent 
repositories and temporary facilities for used fuel.
    Now, in safely extending licenses for existing reactors, 
instead of building more windmills, which only produce 20 
percent of our carbon-free electricity, or solar farms, which 
only produce 4 percent of it, the best way to make sure the 
United States has a reliable source of inexpensive, efficient, 
carbon-free electricity is to extend the licenses of our 
existing nuclear plants, which produce 60 percent of our 
carbon-free electricity when it is safe to do so.
    Most of our 98 reactors already have extended their 
operating licenses from 40 to 60 years, though many have 
decided to close prematurely for economic reasons, and some 
utilities are beginning the process to extend their licenses 
from 60 to 80 years.
    The Commission has spent the past several years developing 
the framework to review these types of license renewal 
applications to make sure the reactors can continue to do that 
safely. This year's budget request includes funding to review 
what the Commission calls subsequent license renewal 
applications for six reactors in Florida, Pennsylvania, and 
Virginia.
    If just these six extensions would equal about what solar 
power currently produces in the whole country and a fourth of 
what wind power currently produces, that is just accounting for 
the six reactors that have applied to extend their license 
rather than shut down. Even if half of the remaining 92 
reactors decided to extend their licenses another 20 years, it 
would produce almost double the amount of wind power that is 
currently produced and as much as 10 times the amount of solar 
power.
    So if you care about carbon emissions, the short-term 
solution for the next 20 years is, where safely, extend the 
licenses of these reactors. I want to make sure the Commission 
has the resources to consider that.
    The Commission's budget reduction has been steep for the 
past fiscal years. As part of its effort to reduce the budget, 
it has limited hiring, especially entry-level hiring. We have 
heard that of its 2,900 current employees, 24 percent are 
currently eligible for retirement. Four years from now, 42 
percent will be eligible for retirement. These numbers are not 
a concern as long as Commission has a younger staff ready to 
take over the important work of the agency, but I understand 
that only 2 percent of the Commission employees are under 30.
    To have nuclear power in the future, we need to have a 
nuclear regulator. I would like to understand how the 
Commission is ensuring that the next generation is in place.
    So I look forward to working with the Commission as we 
begin putting together our Energy and Water Appropriations bill 
for fiscal year 2020, and I look forward also to working with 
Senator Feinstein, who I now will recognize for her opening 
statement.
    [The statement follows:]
             Prepared Statement of Senator Lamar Alexander
    The Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development will please come 
to order.
    Today's hearing will review the administration's fiscal year 2020 
budget request for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
    This is the last of the Subcommittee's four budget hearings this 
year. In April, we heard from the Department of Energy, the National 
Nuclear Security Administration, the Army Corps of Engineers, and 
Bureau of Reclamation about their funding requests.
    We run a real risk of losing our best source of carbon-free power 
just at a time when most Americans are increasingly worried about 
climate change. Nuclear power must be part of our energy future if we 
want clean, cheap, and reliable energy that can create good jobs and 
keep America competitive in a global economy.
    Today 98 nuclear reactors provide about 20 percent of electricity 
in the United States, and 60 percent of all carbon-free electricity in 
the United States.
    But nuclear plants are closing because they cost too much to build 
and cannot compete with natural gas.
    Two reactors have announced they will retire later this year, and 
ten more have announced retirements by 2025.
    Let's do a little math here. If we closed those 12 reactors, that 
would mean a 17 percent decline in carbon-free nuclear power by 2025, 
which is 10 percent of carbon-free electricity.
    Today, solar power--despite impressive reductions in cost--provides 
4 percent and wind provides 20 percent of carbon-free electricity 
despite billions of dollars in subsidies.
    To replace those 12 reactors that have announced they will close 
with other carbon-free electricity, we would have to almost triple the 
entirety of U.S. solar power or increase wind power by another 50 
percent.
    If half of our existing nuclear reactors were to close, we would 
have to double the amount of wind energy produced and or increase the 
amount of solar energy produced by as much as 10 times.
    Nuclear power is much more reliable than solar or wind power. It is 
available when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow.
    The bottom line is, we can't replace nuclear power with just wind 
and solar. We would have to use natural gas to replace nuclear power, 
which would increase emissions in our country.
    Unfortunately, we do not need to speculate about what happens when 
a major industrialized country eliminates nuclear power. We have seen 
what happened in Japan and Germany for different reasons. Major 
industrialized economies similar to ours lost their emission-free, low- 
cost, reliable electricity. Prices went up, pollution went up, and 
manufacturing became less competitive in the global marketplace. And 
that is where we are headed in the next 10 years if we do not do 
something. Stakes are high.
    In Japan, the cost of generating electricity increased 56 percent 
after the Fukushima accident in 2011 when Japan went from obtaining 30 
percent of its power from nuclear to less than 2 percent.
    Before 2011, Germany obtained one quarter of its electricity from 
nuclear. Now that number is down to 12 percent. Now Germany has among 
the highest household electricity rates in the European Union after 
replacing nuclear power with wind and solar as part of an expensive 
cap- and-trade policy.
    Germany also had to build new coal plants to meet demand, which 
increased emissions.
    In late March, I proposed that the United States should launch a 
New Manhattan Project for Clean Energy, a five-year project with Ten 
Grand Challenges that will use American research and technology to put 
our country and the world firmly on a path toward cleaner, cheaper 
energy.
    These Grand Challenges call for breakthroughs in advanced nuclear 
reactors, natural gas, carbon capture, better batteries, greener 
buildings, electric vehicles, cheaper solar, and fusion.
    I put advanced reactors first on the list for a reason. To make 
sure nuclear power has a future in this country, we need to develop 
advanced reactors that have the potential to be smaller, cost less, 
produce less waste, and be safer than today's reactors.
    We need to stop talking about advanced reactors and actually build 
something. Within the next 5 years, we need to build one or more 
advanced reactors to demonstrate the capabilities they may bring.
    As we review the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's fiscal year 2020 
budget request we need to make sure the Commission has the staff and 
resources it needs to respond to the changing industry.
    First, I would like to thank our witnesses for being here today, 
and also Senator Feinstein, with whom I have the pleasure to work again 
this year to draft the Energy and Water Appropriations bill.
    Our witnesses today include: Kristine Svinicki, Chairman of the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Commissioner Jeff Baran; Commissioner 
Annie Caputo; and Commissioner David Wright.
    Commissioner Stephen Burns retired yesterday after forty years of 
distinguished service at the NRC. He started as an attorney in 1978, 
rose to General Counsel, and then retired from the agency to head Legal 
Affairs at the Nuclear Energy Agency in Paris. He returned to the NRC 
in 2014 as a Commissioner and Chairman. He was well respected in every 
position he held. I would like to thank him for his many years of 
service.
    We're here today to review the administration's fiscal year 2020 
budget request for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the 
independent Federal agency responsible for regulating the safety of our 
Nation's 98 commercial nuclear power plants and other civilian uses of 
nuclear material.
    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's budget request this fiscal year 
is $921 million, which is about $10 million less than Congress provided 
last year. The request includes $38.5 million for the Yucca Mountain 
licensing process.
    It has become increasingly difficult for the nuclear industry to 
compete with other sources of electricity, especially natural gas.
    One of the concerns the industry had was the amount of regulatory 
fees charged by the Commission--currently, $760 million of the 
Commission's budget comes from fees paid by utilities and other 
facilities that are licensed to possess and use nuclear materials.
    So over the last five fiscal years, we have worked with the 
Commission to reduce its overall budget by about $100 million, which 
represents about a 10-percent reduction in budget--which means a 
roughly 10%-percent reduction in fees--and more closely reflects its 
actual workload while maintaining its gold standard of safety.
    These savings are important because they lower the fees utilities 
must pay the Commission, and these savings can be passed on to 
utilities' customers.
    These reductions have not been arbitrary and represent the type of 
oversight the Senate is supposed to do. Our subcommittee has only 
reduced the Commission's budget in areas that the Commission has 
identified as unnecessary to its important safety mission.
    To ensure nuclear power will continue to play a significant role in 
our Nation's electricity generation, I'd like to focus my remarks on 
four main areas: licensing small modular and advanced reactors; solving 
the nuclear waste stalemate; safely extending licenses for existing 
reactors; and maintaining adequate staffing at the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission.
    Advanced reactors and small modular reactors represent the future 
of nuclear power. The Commission needs to be ready to review 
applications for new these new reactors.
    In fiscal year 2017, we provided enough funding to complete the 
Small Modular Reactor Licensing Technical Support program at the 
Department of Energy.
    NuScale, which was one of the technologies selected in that 
program, filed an application for design certification of a small 
modular reactor with the Commission in December of 2016.
    A utility group has been working with NuScale and Idaho National 
Laboratory to build and demonstrate a small modular reactor in Idaho.
    TVA also has an application under review for a permit to build and 
demonstrate a small modular reactor at the Clinch River site in 
Tennessee.
    Licenses to build and demonstrate small modular reactors is an 
important step, and we need to make sure the Commission has the 
resources it needs to review the applications.
    I also understand that the Commission expects to receive an 
application in fiscal year 2020 for a construction and operating 
license for an advanced, non-light water reactor.
    The fiscal year 2019 appropriations bill included $10 million for 
the Commission to prepare to review advanced reactor designs, and the 
current budget request includes $15.5 million for fiscal year 2020.
    I'd like to know what the Commission plans to do with the funding 
Congress provided for advanced reactors so that we can make sure the 
development of advanced reactors stays on track.
    To ensure that nuclear power has a strong future in this country, 
we must solve the decades' long stalemate over what to do with used 
fuel from our nuclear reactors.
    Senator Feinstein and I have been working on solving the nuclear 
waste stalemate for years, and I'd like to take the opportunity to 
compliment Senator Feinstein on her leadership and her insistence that 
we find a solution to this problem.
    The only way to break the stalemate is to get a final decision on 
whether Yucca Mountain is safe or not.
    And this year's budget request for the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission includes $38.5 million to begin to answer that questions by 
restarting the licensing process for the Yucca Mountain repository. 
This is the next step the Department of Energy must follow to determine 
whether it can begin construction of Yucca Mountain. After a public 
hearing where all parties, including the State of Nevada, can provide 
expert testimony and evidence, the Commission will make a final 
determination whether it is safe to build Yucca Mountain.
    I strongly believe that Yucca Mountain can and should be part of 
the solution to the nuclear waste stalemate. Federal law designates 
Yucca Mountain as the Nation's repository for used nuclear fuel, and 
the Commission's own scientists have told us that we can safely store 
nuclear waste there for up to one million years.
    But even if we had Yucca Mountain open today, we would still need 
to look for another permanent repository. We already have more than 
enough used fuel to fill Yucca Mountain to its legal capacity.
    The quickest, and probably the least expensive, way for the Federal 
Government to start to meet its used nuclear fuel obligations is for 
the Department of Energy to contract with a private storage facility 
for used nuclear fuel.
    I understand that two private companies have submitted license 
applications to the NRC for private consolidated storage facilities, 
one in Texas and one in New Mexico, and that the NRC's review is well 
underway. I'll be asking some questions about that today.
    I want to make sure that the Commission has all the resources it 
needs in fiscal year 2020 to review the applications for consolidated 
storage facilities because we have to start working together to solve 
the nuclear waste stalemate if we want a strong nuclear industry.
    Senator Murkowski, along with Senator Feinstein and I, introduced a 
bill this week to implement the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon 
Commission on America's Nuclear Future, which include using temporary 
private storage facilities.
    The legislation complements Yucca Mountain, and would create a new 
Federal agency to find additional permanent repositories and temporary 
facilities for used nuclear fuel.
    Instead of building more windmills, which only produce 20 percent 
of our carbon-free electricity, or solar farms, which only produce 4 
percent of our carbon-free electricity, the best way to make sure the 
United States has a reliable source of inexpensive, efficient, carbon-
free electricity is to extend the licenses of our existing nuclear 
plants--which produce 60 percent of our carbon-free electricity--if it 
is safe to do so.
    Most of our 98 reactors have already extended their operating 
licenses from 40 to 60 years (although many have decided to close 
prematurely for economic reasons), and some utilities are beginning the 
process to extend their licenses from 60 to 80 years.
    The Commission has spent the past several years developing the 
framework to review these types of license renewal applications to make 
sure the reactors can continue to operate safely from 60 to 80 years.
    This year's budget request includes funding to review what the 
Commission calls ``subsequent'' license renewal applications for six 
reactors in Florida, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
    Just those 6 reactor extensions would equal about what solar power 
currently produces and a fourth of what wind power currently produces.
    That is just accounting for the 6 reactors that have applied to 
extend their licenses rather than shut down.
    If even half of the remaining 92 reactors decide to extend their 
licenses another 20 years, it would produce almost double the amount of 
wind power that is currently produced and as much as 10 times the 
amount of solar power produced.
    So if you care about carbon free emissions, the short term solution 
for the next 20 years is, where safely, to extend the licenses for 
these reactors.
    I want to make sure that the Commission has the resources it needs 
to review those applications in fiscal year 2020, because I think it is 
important to maintain our existing nuclear power when it is safe to do 
so.
    The Commission's budget reduction has been steep over the past five 
fiscal years. As part of its effort to reduce its budget, the 
Commission has limited hiring, especially entry-level hiring.
    We have heard from the Commission that of its 2,900 current 
employees, 24 percent are currently eligible for retirement. Four years 
from now, 42 percent will be eligible for retirement.
    Those numbers are not a concern as long as the NRC has younger 
staff ready to take over the important work of the agency. But I 
understand that only 2 percent of NRC employees are under 30 years old.
    To have nuclear power in the future, we need to have a nuclear 
regulator. I would like to understand how the Commission is ensuring 
that the next generation is in place.
    I look forward to working with the Commission as we begin putting 
together our Energy and Water Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2020, 
and also with Senator Feinstein, who I will now recognize for her 
opening statement.

                 STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

    Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    As you know, I very much welcome working with you. We have 
always worked out our problems together and moved on, and the 
relationship is very much appreciated, so thank you. And thank 
you for holding this hearing.
    Ten years ago, this subcommittee was preparing for the 
renaissance of nuclear power in the United States, and today we 
find ourselves in a very different position. There are now 20 
shutdown reactors in the Country, with six of those in the last 
6 years.
    According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, there are 12 
more reactors for shutdown between now and 2024. The pressures 
on the industry are well documented: low natural gas prices are 
making large investments in nuclear uneconomical, a stalemate 
on the nuclear waste issue letting an undermined support for 
nuclear power locally and nationally, high up-front costs for 
construction of new nuclear plants that put utility balance 
sheets at risk, increased deficiency and modest economic growth 
that have severely dampened demand for large sources of 
generation; and finally, a robust and flexible grid, along with 
advance for storage technology, that better integrate 
renewables and make large baseload sources obsolete.
    The industry is enthusiastic, I understand, about the 
potential for advanced reactors to overcome these challenges. 
That may be, but I do not think we can lose sight of our 
responsibility for the safety and security of our existing 
nuclear sites.
    In particular, the decommissioning of former power plants 
now must become, Mr. Chairman, an increasingly important 
oversight responsibility of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
    For example, Southern California Edison and its contractor, 
Holtec, are decommissioning the San Onofre Nuclear Generating 
Station near San Diego. As part of that work, they are 
transferring approximately 3,800 spent fuel assemblies out of 
the spent fuel pools and into some 120 dry casks. These casks 
will be stored on-site, right on the Pacific Ocean. I am not 
sure that this should be the case at all until we find a 
solution to our nuclear waste problem and they can be 
transported safely off-site.
    So I want to know, ladies and gentlemen, more about that 
right now, today, because I have real concern about it.
    The work of loading casks is roughly 60 percent complete, 
as I understand it, but it has been suspended for the last 9 
months, pending the results of several NRC (Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission) investigations.
    In August, I learned, of 2018, a dry cask got stuck as it 
was lowered down into its concrete vault. It sat suspended 18 
feet above the bottom for 45 minutes until it was finally 
lowered into place. As a result of this mishap, the NRC fined 
Southern California Edison $116,000 last month for a civil 
infraction of its safety regulations, which I am told is an 
uncommon and serious rebuke.
    Further, the NRC also found fault with Holtec, the cask 
manufacturer and decommissioning contractor. NRC discovered 
that external surfaces of the canisters are being scratched 
during the normal course of loading, which is not something 
that Holtec had planned for.
    Finally, the NRC cited Holtec last week with two violations 
for faulty design processes and regulatory reporting that were 
uncovered only when loose parts were discovered within one of 
their canisters. This is unacceptable to me.
    These incidents raise important questions about safety. 
They diminish my trust, and I believe if the public knows it, 
it diminishes the public trust in the packaging of waste at San 
Onofre.
    I have asked the NRC to add a full-time on-site inspector 
to oversee operations at the facility. Have we heard back? I 
would like to ask that at least we hear back whether this is 
going to be the case or not. If it is not, take another road.
    Given the pressure that operating and decommissioning 
plants are under, it is more important than ever that we have 
an independent and robust regulator in the NRC. Neither NRC's 
oversight nor the fees paid by industry to fund that oversight 
are hampering the expansion of nuclear power, nor are they 
hastening its demise. We would do well to remember that as the 
industry renews calls for a smaller NRC, self-inspections by 
nuclear plant owners and lower fees. We really have to take a 
good look at what the future is, Mr. Chairman.
    Recent experience at San Onofre proves the value of an 
adequately funded independent and diligent regulator.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to hearing from our 
witnesses.
    Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
    We will now recognize Chairman Svinicki to provide her 
testimony on behalf of the Commission. Chairman Svinicki, 
please proceed.

              SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. KRISTINE SVINICKI

    Ms. Svinicki. Good afternoon, Chairman Alexander and 
Ranking Member Feinstein. My colleagues and I appreciate the 
opportunity to testify this afternoon on the U.S. NRC's fiscal 
year 2020 budget request.
    I have submitted on behalf of the Commission a longer 
statement for the hearing record, which I will just briefly 
summarize.
    The funding we are requesting provides the resources 
necessary to accomplish our mission to license and regulate the 
civilian use of radioactive materials to ensure adequate 
protection of public health and safety and to promote the 
common defense and security.
    The 2020 budget request, including resources for the NRC's 
Office of the Inspector General, is $921.1 million, which would 
include 3,062 full-time equivalent positions, or FTE.
    This budget request represents an increase of $10.1 million 
when compared to the 2019 enacted budget; however, this 
increase is due principally to the inclusion of $38.5 million 
to support licensing activities for the proposed Yucca Mountain 
deep geologic repository for spent fuel and other high-level 
radioactive waste.
    As noted by Senator Alexander, the NRC proposes to recover 
$760 million of the requested budget from fees assessed to 
NRC's licensees and applicants. This would result in a net 
appropriation of $161.5 million, again, with approximately $38 
million of that to come from the Nuclear Waste Fund.
    The budget request for the Nuclear Reactor Safety Program 
is approximately $450 million. This reflects a modest decrease 
of $10 million when compared to the enacted budget, but the 
budget, as noted, also proposes $15.5 million for the continued 
development of the regulatory infrastructure to review advanced 
nuclear reactor technologies.
    In the area of materials and waste safety programs, the 
budget request for 2020 is approximately $166 million. This 
reflects an increase of $38.7 million. The budget includes 
resources for reviewing two applications for proposed 
consolidated interim storage facilities in New Mexico and 
Texas. The NRC anticipates the completion of both reviews by 
the middle of 2020.
    The NRC has initiated efforts to implement requirements of 
the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act, which was 
passed and signed by the President earlier this year. We are 
progressing in each area to ensure timely implementation of the 
Act's requirements. Of note, the NRC submitted the first set of 
congressional reports required by the Act in April of this 
year.
    We are mindful of the importance of the highly skilled 
staff that we have and the need to maintain our expertise while 
our workload continues to evolve. In addition, the NRC's focus 
on transformation and innovation continues.
    The Commission has met with NRC staff and external panels 
that included the nuclear industry, other Federal agencies with 
ongoing innovation efforts, and nongovernmental organizations 
to discuss the NRC staff's efforts.
    We have also explored broader organizational strategies and 
innovation perspectives from a range of external experts.
    In summary, the fiscal year 2020 budget request reflects 
the NRC's continuing efforts to achieve efficiencies while 
maintaining reasonable assurance of adequate protection of 
public health and safety and safeguarding the security of our 
Nation.
    On behalf of the Commission, thank you for the opportunity 
to appear before you and for the subcommittee's consistent 
support of the NRC's importance mission. My colleagues and I 
look forward to your questions.
    Thank you.
    [The statement follows:]
               Prepared Statement of Kristine L. Svinicki
    Good afternoon Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Feinstein, and 
distinguished members of the Subcommittee. My colleagues and I 
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) fiscal year 2020 budget request.
    The NRC is an independent Federal agency established to license and 
regulate the civilian use of radioactive materials in the United States 
to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety and to 
promote the common defense and security. The funding that we are 
requesting for fiscal year 2020 provides the resources necessary to 
accomplish the NRC's mission while improving the agency's efficiency 
and effectiveness.
    This testimony will also provide an update on the NRC's ongoing 
regulatory activities and our continuing efforts to adopt efficiencies 
and streamline agency processes where possible, while continuing to 
uphold the agency's important safety and security mission. In addition 
to our inspection and oversight programs, areas of significant activity 
include overseeing new reactor construction, reviewing applications for 
small modular reactors (SMRs), preparing to review advanced non-light 
water reactor designs and accident tolerant fuel (ATF) designs, and 
reviewing applications for subsequent license renewal and consolidated 
interim spent fuel storage facilities.
    We recognize that the agency needs to enhance our use of risk-
informed, innovative approaches and embrace new and diverse ideas in a 
changing regulatory environment. If the number of operating plants 
continues to decrease in the coming years, the agency's budget will 
reflect appropriate and commensurate decreases. The NRC will continue 
to improve the accuracy and realism of its cost and schedule 
projections for regulatory actions so that the Congress, the public, 
and regulated entities will be more fully informed.
                    fiscal year 2020 budget request
    The NRC fiscal year 2020 budget request, including resources for 
the NRC's Office of the Inspector General (OIG), is $921.1 million, 
including 3,062 full-time equivalents (FTE). The fiscal year 2020 
budget request represents an increase of $10.1 million, or 1.1 percent, 
when compared to the fiscal year 2019 enacted budget. This requested 
increase in resources is due to the inclusion of $38.5 million, 
including 77 FTE, to support licensing activities for the proposed 
Yucca Mountain deep geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and 
other high-level radioactive waste.
    In fiscal year 2020, the NRC proposes to recover $759.6 million of 
the requested fiscal year 2020 budget from fees assessed to NRC 
licensees and applicants. This will result in a net appropriation of 
$161.5 million, which is an increase of $31.4 million when compared to 
the fiscal year 2019 enacted budget, with $38.5 million to be derived 
from the Nuclear Waste Fund for licensing activities related to Yucca 
Mountain.
                   fiscal year 2019 proposed fee rule
    I would like to turn briefly to some key elements of the fiscal 
year 2019 Proposed Fee Rule. Annually, the NRC adjusts its licensing, 
inspection, special project, and annual fees charged to its applicants 
and licensees. These adjustments are necessary to implement the 
requirements of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. The Act 
requires the NRC to recover approximately 90 percent of its annual 
budget through fees. Based on the Act and the fiscal year 2019 enacted 
budget, the following items are excluded from the fee-recoverable 
portion of the budget in the fiscal year 2019 Proposed Fee Rule: 
international activities, advanced reactor technologies regulatory 
infrastructure activities, generic homeland security activities, Waste 
Incidental to Reprocessing activities, and Inspector General services 
for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
    Based on the fiscal year 2019 enacted budget, the NRC is currently 
proposing to collect $781.9 million in fees for fiscal year 2019, a 
decrease from $789.3 million in fiscal year 2018. Proposed annual fees 
for fiscal year 2019 have increased for operating reactors, some 
materials users, and Department of Energy (DOE) transportation 
activities, while the annual fees for spent fuel storage/reactor 
decommissioning, research and test reactors, fuel facilities, and the 
facilities covered by the DOE Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control 
Act Program have decreased. Proposed annual fees for non-DOE uranium 
recovery licensees remained unchanged.
    The NRC held a public meeting on the proposed fee rule on February 
13, 2019, which included presentations relating to budget formulation. 
The public comment period for the fiscal year 2019 Proposed Fee Rule 
ended on March 4, 2019. Regulated entities continue to express concerns 
regarding fee increases, particularly in areas where the number of 
licensees is declining. The NRC is mindful of the impact on fees as the 
number of licensees declines within a fee category. Our goal is to 
ensure that fees are equitable, fair, and transparent. We monitor these 
dynamics and seek to mitigate the impact on the remaining licensees, 
where possible.
                    fiscal year 2020 budget request
    I would now like to highlight specific elements of the fiscal year 
2020 budget request.
Nuclear Reactor Safety
    The NRC's Nuclear Reactor Safety Program encompasses licensing and 
oversight of civilian nuclear power plants, research and test reactors, 
and medical isotope production facilities to protect public health and 
safety. This program contributes to the NRC's safety and security 
strategic goals through the activities of the Operating Reactors and 
New Reactors Business Lines that regulate existing and new nuclear 
reactors and medical isotope production facilities to ensure their safe 
and secure operation.
    Overall resources requested in the fiscal year 2020 budget for 
Nuclear Reactor Safety are $449.5 million, including 1,824 FTE. This 
represents a funding decrease of $9.9 million when compared to the 
fiscal year 2019 enacted budget. Primarily, the reduction is a result 
of activities associated with the planned merger of the Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) and the Office of New Reactors (NRO). 
These two program offices are on track to integrate by October of this 
year, earlier than previously planned. The merger of NRR and NRO will 
provide flexibility and improved agility to manage uncertainties 
associated with the workloads in both the Operating Reactors and New 
Reactors Business Lines. In addition, there will be efficiencies gained 
and elimination of redundancies in certain technical programs, 
administrative support, and supervisory and management oversight. The 
budget request also proposes $15.5 million for the continued 
development of a regulatory infrastructure for advanced nuclear reactor 
technologies.
            Operating Reactors
    The Operating Reactors Business Line portion of the Nuclear Reactor 
Safety Program encompasses the regulation of 96 operating civilian 
nuclear power reactors and 31 research and test reactors. The NRC is 
requesting $361.6 million for operating reactors, including 1,485 FTE, 
which represents a decrease of $3.6 million from the fiscal year 2019 
enacted budget. When compared to the fiscal year 2019 enacted budget, 
the resources for research activities appear to increase because $10.4 
million was funded through the application of authorized prior-year 
carryover in fiscal year 2019. Overall, resources decrease when 
compared to the fiscal year 2019 total budget authority.
    The decrease in funding within the Operating Reactors Business Line 
is primarily due to the permanent closure of Oyster Creek Nuclear 
Generating Station and the pending closures of the Pilgrim and Three 
Mile Island reactors. The decrease is also a result of fewer requests 
from the States for replenishment of potassium iodide supplies, 
efficiencies in processing licensing actions, and the completion of 
post-Fukushima flooding and integrated assessment work. The NRC is 
reviewing three applications for subsequent license renewal for Turkey 
Point Nuclear Generating Station in Florida, Peach Bottom Atomic Power 
Station in Pennsylvania, and the Surry Power Station in Virginia. If 
approved, they would extend operations at each of these plants for an 
additional 20 years.
    The NRC is committed to enabling the safe use of existing and new 
technologies, especially those that have the potential to increase 
safety at NRG-regulated facilities. The U.S. nuclear industry, with 
DOE's assistance, is planning to deploy ATF in the operating fleet by 
the mid2020s. In 2018, the NRC developed a project plan to align agency 
regulatory readiness with industry and fuel vendor plans for regulatory 
submittals. In fiscal year 2020, the NRC staff will continue to engage 
with vendors, licensees, DOE, and other stakeholders to ensure that all 
sides are prepared for licensing and oversight of ATF.
            New Reactors
    The New Reactors Business Line portion of the Nuclear Reactor 
Safety Program is responsible for licensing and overseeing the design, 
siting, and construction of new nuclear power reactors, including SMRs 
and advanced reactors, in an efficient manner. The new reactors 
activities are designed to ensure that new civilian nuclear power 
reactor facilities are developed in a manner that protects the health, 
safety, and security of the public.
    The fiscal year 2020 budget request for new reactors is $87.8 
million, including 339 FTE, a funding decrease of $6.3 million when 
compared to the fiscal year 2019 enacted budget. The decrease in 
funding within the New Reactors Business Line is primarily due to 
delays in application submittals, projects nearing completion, and 
efficiencies gained in several critical areas, including the merger of 
NRR and NRO. During fiscal year 2020, the NRC expects to continue 
reviewing the reactor design certifications for the NuScale SMR and the 
U.S. Advanced Pressurized-Water Reactor (a large light water reactor), 
as well as the renewal of General Electric-Hitachi's Advanced Boiling-
Water Reactor design certification.
    The NRC is accelerating its activities related to the development 
of regulatory infrastructure to support reviews of advanced reactor 
technologies. Regarding future new reactors, the NRC continues to 
interact with vendors about prospective SMR and advanced reactor 
applications. Additionally, we will continue to refine our regulatory 
processes as we prepare to review these potential applications.
                   nuclear materials and waste safety
    The Nuclear Materials and Waste Safety Program is responsible for 
licensing, regulating, and overseeing nuclear materials in a manner 
that adequately protects the public health and safety. The agency's 
work provides assurance of the physical security of the materials and 
waste and protection against radiological sabotage, theft, or diversion 
of nuclear materials. Through this program, the NRC regulates uranium 
processing and fuel facilities; research and pilot facilities; and 
other nuclear materials licensees such as medical, industrial, 
research, and academic uses. Additionally, through this program, the 
NRC regulates the following: spent fuel storage; spent fuel and other 
nuclear material transportation and packaging; decontamination and 
decommissioning of facilities; and low-level and high-level radioactive 
waste.
    The fiscal year 2020 budget request for this program is $165.7 
million, including 564 FTE. This funding level represents an increase 
of $34.7 million when compared to the fiscal year 2019 enacted budget.
    This increase is due to the inclusion of $38.5 million in the 
budget request for continuing licensing activities for the proposed 
Yucca Mountain deep geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and 
high-level radioactive waste.
Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation
    The Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation Business Line is 
responsible for licensing and overseeing the safe and secure storage of 
spent fuel and the safe and secure transport of radioactive materials. 
The fiscal year 2020 budget request for spent fuel storage and 
transportation is $24.2 million, including 101 FTE. When compared to 
the fiscal year 2019 enacted budget, the resources for licensing 
activities appear to increase because $2.4 million was funded in fiscal 
year 2019 through the application of authorized prior-year carryover. 
However, resources decrease when compared to the fiscal year 2019 total 
budget authority. In addition to licensing and overseeing independent 
spent fuel storage installations, transportation packages, and storage 
casks, this business line has two reviews under way for consolidated 
interim spent fuel storage facilities--one submitted by Holtec 
International for a proposed facility in New Mexico and another 
requested by Interim Storage Partners for a facility in Texas. The NRC 
anticipates the completion of both reviews by mid-2020.
Nuclear Materials Users
    The Nuclear Materials Users Business Line portion of the Nuclear 
Materials and Waste Safety Program supports the licensing and oversight 
necessary to ensure the safe and secure processing and handling of 
radioactive materials in medical, industrial, and academic 
applications. This business line also provides Tribal coordination and 
programmatic oversight of Agreement States that have assumed NRC 
regulatory authority under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. The fiscal 
year 2020 budget request for this business line is $59.1 million, 
including 205 FTE, a funding decrease of $1.4 million when compared to 
the fiscal year 2019 enacted budget. The recent agreement with the 
State of Wyoming was signed on September 25, 2018, and became effective 
on September 30, 2018. The State of Vermont has applied to become an 
Agreement State and, if approved, would bring the total number of 
Agreement States to 39 by fiscal year 2020.
Decommissioning and Low-Level Waste
    The Decommissioning and Low-Level Waste (LLW) Business Line portion 
of the Nuclear Materials and Waste Safety Program supports licensing 
and oversight of uranium recovery facilities, sites undergoing 
decommissioning, and disposition of LLW from all civilian sources. The 
fiscal year 2020 budget request for decommissioning and LLW is $22.9 
million, including 93 FTE, an overall funding decrease of $1.9 million 
when compared to the fiscal year 2019 enacted budget as a result of 
overseeing fewer operating uranium recovery facilities; completing 
support to the State of Wyoming for the Agreement State transition; and 
nearing the expected license terminations for the former Humboldt Bay 
Power Plant in California, Zion Nuclear Power Station in Illinois, and 
Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor in Wisconsin. The fiscal year 2020 
budget request provides funding for a number of major activities to 
include oversight of the national LLW management program , monitoring 
of DOE's Waste Incidental to Reprocessing determinations and related 
disposal actions at the Savannah River Site and the Idaho National 
Laboratory, and decommissioning activities for four research reactors 
and 20 power reactors.
Fuel Facilities
    The Fuel Facilities Business Line portion of the Nuclear Materials 
and Waste Safety Program is responsible for ensuring that commercial 
nuclear fuel cycle facilities are licensed and operated in a manner 
that adequately protects public health and safety and promotes the 
common defense and security. The fiscal year 2020 budget request for 
fuel facilities is $21 million, including 88 FTE, which represents a 
funding decrease of $2.2 million when compared to the fiscal year 2019 
enacted budget. This decrease in funding is primarily due to an 
expected decline in work associated with license renewal applications, 
a decrease in the anticipated number of license amendments, 
efficiencies gained as a result of changes to the Fuel Facilities 
Inspection Program and workload projections, a reduction in rulemaking 
activities involving enhanced security for special nuclear material, 
and elimination of workload associated with the MixedOxide Fuel 
Fabrication Facility.
High-Level Waste
    The High-Level Waste Business Line portion of the Nuclear Materials 
and Waste Safety Program supports the NRC's activities for the proposed 
Yucca Mountain deep geologic repository for the disposal of spent 
nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive waste using 
appropriations from the Nuclear Waste Fund. The fiscal year 2020 budget 
request for high-level waste is $38.5 million, including 77 FTE. The 
fiscal year 2020 resources would include support for the adjudicatory 
proceeding; infrastructure activities for facilities and information 
technology (IT) capabilities; rulemakings associated with the geologic 
repository operations area; and related support activities such as 
acquisitions, recruitment, staffing, and training.
    The NRC continues to provide monthly updates to Congress on its 
activities in response to the decision issued by the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in In re Aiken County, 
these updates provide information on our effort to effectively spend 
the remaining limited unobligated carryover funds appropriated from the 
Nuclear Waste Fund for Yucca Mountain activities. At the beginning of 
fiscal year 2019, there was approximately $430,000 remaining.
                           corporate support
    The NRC's corporate support involves centrally managed activities 
that are necessary for agency programs to operate and achieve goals 
more efficiently and effectively and includes acquisitions , 
administrative services, financial management, human resource 
management, IT and information management, training, outreach, and 
policy support. The fiscal year 2020 requested budget for corporate 
support comprises approximately 32 percent of the agency's total budget 
and reflects a decrease of $0.4 million when compared to the fiscal 
year 2019 enacted budget. Within the Corporate Support Business Line, 
$6.6 million was funded in fiscal year 2019 through the application of 
authorized prior-year carryover. However, when compared to the fiscal 
year 2019 total budget authority, the fiscal year 2020 budget request 
reflects a decrease of $7.0 million. The budget request supports 
continuing efforts to modernize IT, leverage common contracts and best 
practices to drive cost reductions and efficiencies, improve the 
management of major acquisitions, focus on the highest value work, and 
improve the customer experience with Federal services.
Office of the Inspector General
    The NRC's OIG is a statutory entity whose mission is to 
independently and objectively audit and investigate programs and 
operations to promote effectiveness and efficiency and to prevent and 
detect fraud, waste, and abuse. The fiscal year 2020 budget request for 
the NRC OIG is $13.3 million, which includes $11.3 million in salaries 
and benefits to support 63 FTE and $2.0 million in program support. 
These resources will support Inspector General auditing and 
investigation functions for both the NRC ($12.1 million) and the 
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ($1.2 million).
                    changing regulatory environment
    The NRC has initiated efforts to implement requirements of the 
Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act, which was signed into 
law on January 14, 2019. The legislation changes the way the NRC 
determines how fees are assessed to licensees and applicants, including 
limiting the annual charge to each operating reactor licensee, and 
includes requirements related to our fee invoicing process. The Act 
also specifies a cap on the percentage of the annual budget request 
that the NRC can devote to corporate support costs. These fee- and 
budget-related requirements take effect on October 1, 2020 (fiscal year 
2021). In addition, the legislation requires the NRC to take certain 
actions related to the licensing process for advanced reactors and 
research and test reactors while soliciting input from DOE, industry, a 
diverse set of technology developers, and other public stakeholders. 
The legislation also includes a number of other provisions related to 
various topics. The NRC is progressing in each area to ensure timely 
implementation of the Act's requirements and submitted the first set of 
congressional reports required by the Act in April 2019.
    In January of this year, the NRC directed the staff to publish the 
Mitigation of Beyond-Design-Basis Events Rule, based on lessons learned 
from the March 2011 accident at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi plant. This 
rule is the result of 7 years of activities that have tangibly enhanced 
safety at U.S. nuclear power plants. The NRC and its nuclear power 
plant licensees will continue to monitor and review post-Fukushima 
efforts outside of the rulemaking context, including analyses of 
whether additional safety improvements are necessary in response to 
updated site-specific seismic and flooding risk assessments.
    We are mindful of the importance of a highly skilled staff and the 
need to maintain our expertise while our workload continues to evolve. 
Strategic Workforce Planning is vital to helping the NRC identify the 
knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary to perform our mission now 
and into the future. In addition to our continuing efforts to find 
efficiencies, use resources wisely, and streamline processes, the NRC 
has undertaken additional initiatives to ensure that our workforce is 
trained, equipped, and resourced to address current and future 
challenges.
    The NRC's focus on transformation and innovation continues. At last 
year's hearing, we reported that the Executive Director for Operations 
had established a Transformation Team whose charter was to identify 
potential transformational changes to our regulatory framework, 
culture, and infrastructure. In October of 2018, the Commission held a 
public meeting, entitled Transformation at the NRG. At this meeting, 
the Commission met with NRC staff and two external panels that included 
nuclear industry, other Federal agencies, and non-governmental 
organizations to discuss the NRC staff's recommendations in a paper 
that is now before the Commission. In March of this year, the 
Commission held a second public meeting with NRC staff on this topic, 
as well as external panelists with a wealth of knowledge and experience 
related to transformation and innovation at other agencies and in the 
private sector. During this meeting, the external panelists shared best 
practices , success stories, and lessons learned.
    Separately, the agency sought assistance from a consulting firm to 
evaluate how industry and the NRC's regulatory environment might look 
in 2025 and beyond. In January 2019, the NRC published a report on 
those findings. The report, entitled ``The Dynamic Futures for NRG 
Mission Areas,'' describes four possible scenarios or hypotheses to 
inform the agency's near- and mid-term planning related to budget, 
workload, workforce issues, agency organization and structure, and 
opportunities to innovate. The NRC staff is currently evaluating the 
report and will prepare a paper seeking Commission approval by June 30, 
2019. This paper will discuss how the staff will monitor conditions to 
determine which scenarios may be unfolding and will identify actions 
that would be beneficial to meet the future regulatory environment.
                                closing
    In conclusion, safety and security continue to be the NRC's main 
focus. The fiscal year 2020 budget request reflects the NRC's 
continuing efforts to achieve additional efficiencies while maintaining 
reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety 
and the security of our Nation.
    Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Feinstein , and distinguished 
Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my written testimony. On 
behalf of the Commission, thank you for the opportunity to appear 
before you and also for your support of the vital mission of the NRC. 
We would be pleased to respond to your questions.

    Senator Alexander. Thank you, Chairman Svinicki. Without 
objection, we will include your full written statement as part 
of the record.
    We will now begin our round of questions. As I mentioned, 
we have four votes beginning at 3:00. So we will get started 
and go as far as we can and perhaps submit our other questions 
for the record.
    Let me go to the interim storage sites that you mentioned. 
You said that you expected your review to be complete by the 
middle of 2020. You are talking about the Texas and New Mexico 
applications; is that right?
    Ms. Svinicki. Yes, Senator, I am. In one case, the staff 
expects to complete its safety and environmental review by July 
of 2020, and for the other site, it is August of 2020. And I 
apologize. For the life of me, I cannot remember which is 
which, but in very close succession next summer.
    Senator Alexander. Say it is mid-2020. What is the next 
step after that? For example, how long will it take to get it 
open? Let us put it that way.
    Ms. Svinicki. Well, I think a couple of things are 
important to note here. The first is that not included in that 
timeframe is that under law, there is an opportunity for 
petitions from the public and other organizations to contest or 
intervene in the licensing proceeding, and there have been 
petitions filed for both of these facilities. So that goes to 
our atomic safety and licensing boards for a hearing process 
that involves public participation.
    Senator Alexander. So would that come after 2020 or before 
mid-2020?
    Ms. Svinicki. It runs concurrent, but a factor in the 
timing of the issuance of an ultimate decision would be how 
long that public participation process takes and how long it 
took to resolve all the matters before in the licensing 
hearing. So that adds an element of uncertainty.
    But the staff's review of safety and environmental issues 
would be completed by mid, next summer.
    Senator Alexander. So that is an independent separate 
review, and then you have got your public comment period. And 
they run concurrently. Is that what you are saying to me, at 
the same time?
    Ms. Svinicki. Yes. Although often the issues challenged by 
intervenors in the proceeding are related to the safety and 
environmental work product that the staff has developed.
    So they can proceed concurrently because there can be 
evidentiary hearings and things that occur while the staff is 
still completing its review. The board is able to explore the 
challenges to the matter that our----
    Senator Alexander. Well, is there any limit on how long 
that can take?
    Ms. Svinicki. In law, there is not a limit under law.
    Senator Alexander. Is there any history or rough idea how 
long that would take?
    Ms. Svinicki. Well, I would note that--I will use--this was 
a license renewal matter, but Indian Point, which is, of 
course, of great interest to the State of New York, had a 
license renewal that was in front of the agency for those 
operating reactors. I believe that went on for 7 or 9 years.
    Again, they are not all that complex, and there is an 
obligation on members of our Commission as the appellate body 
to exercise some sort of judicial economy in these procedures.
    Senator Alexander. Well, wait a minute. You mean there is a 
chance it should go--how could it go on for 7 or 9 years? I 
mean, cannot you have a time limit for getting in comments and 
then a time limit for studying the comments?
    Ms. Svinicki. Well, this is not a public comment period. If 
I stated that, I misspoke. It is a quasi-judicial proceeding 
under the Atomic Energy Act, which allows the public to 
challenge the matters.
    And I might ask if my lawyer colleague could offer a 
description that would be more concise than mine.
    Mr. Baran. Really, it is an administrative litigation. I 
mean, 7 or 9 years would be very, very long. That would be on 
the long end of how long adjudication takes.
    Senator Alexander. Is it on, your microphone?
    Mr. Baran. Yes.
    Senator Alexander. I did not hear you. So what was your 
answer?
    Mr. Baran. My answer was just that really the process is 
litigation. Administrative litigation is what we are talking 
about and it can last variable amounts of time, but 7 to 9 
years would be a very long time historically for a litigation.
    Senator Alexander. Is there an appeal process from an 
initial process in this administrative litigation, or is it 
decided by a single board?
    Mr. Baran. There is a board, an administrative law panel 
composed of three administrative law judges, basically, and 
then the Commission itself is the appellate body. If there is 
an appeal to the Commission, it would come to us.
    Senator Alexander. So it comes back to you?
    Mr. Baran. Not always, but it can.
    Senator Alexander. Well, why cannot you set a time schedule 
for that?
    Mr. Baran. Well, I do not believe historically there has 
ever been a precise time limit placed on it because it is 
litigation, and we do not know how many claims there would be 
or how many parties----
    Senator Alexander. Well, is there not any time limit for 
the amount of--do not claims have to come in by a certain time, 
or 25 years from now, can somebody just come up with a point?
    Mr. Baran. There are rules about when you need to file your 
claim.
    Senator Alexander. Well, how long? How much time do you 
have to file a claim?
    Mr. Baran. Well, it does get pretty complex, but basically 
our administrative law proceedings are very complex. But once a 
petitioner has the ability, has the information they need to 
file the claim, they need to do it pretty quickly thereafter.
    So, as the chairman mentioned, once the staff were to 
complete its safety analysis and environmental review, pretty 
quickly thereafter, any claims would need to be filed.
    Senator Alexander. Is there any action the Commission could 
take that would give you an ample amount of time to consider 
claims and judge safety that would avoid a dilatory set of 
proceedings that would take years on a subject that ought to be 
able to be decided within a reasonable period of time?
    Mr. Baran. Well, both our board, the licensing board, and 
the Commission are always focused on being as timely as we can 
on these things. There is no hard and fast rule about exactly 
how long it takes, but there is always a focus on making sure 
the process is continuing forward in an expeditious manner.
    Senator Alexander. Well, we can come back to that, but in 
my view--and I will conclude with this question, and we will go 
to Senator Feinstein. It seemed to me--Madam Chairman, if you 
look at Yucca Mountain and if you look at the interim storage 
facilities that Senator Feinstein and I have recommended and 
the Senate has approved the last 2 years and you look at the 
private sites, would you agree with me that the ones that are 
most likely to be able to open would be the private sites 
first?
    Ms. Svinicki. Well, again, if history is a guide, there was 
a substantively equivalent site that was pursued in Utah, I 
believe in the late 1990s, early 2000s, called Private Fuel 
Storage.
    The NRC after, again, a protracted public proceeding in 
front of the licensing board did eventually issue a permit for 
that facility, but I believe that there were other Department 
of Interior rights-of-way and things that were never granted. 
Of course, the facility was opposed very strongly by the Utah 
Members of Congress and others. So I think that that--again, it 
is very difficult to know what set of circumstances need to 
line up for these sites to open. In that case, it was matters 
outside of the NRC's control.
    Senator Alexander. Well, within the NRC in the Utah case, 
how long did it take for the Commission and its boards to do 
their work?
    Ms. Svinicki. You know, this precedes my time on the 
Commission, and I am not----
    Senator Alexander. Well, I will just conclude by--I do not 
think the public interest is served. Members of Congress--at 
least these two Members of Congress are very interested in 
getting used nuclear fuel out of California, out of Maine, out 
of other places where it should not be.
    And while, of course, the sites have to be safe, but we 
ought not to have dilatory proceedings. So I would hope that 
the Commission would, as long as you can make your 
determinations fairly, look for ways to avoid dilatory tactics.
    Senator Feinstein.
    Senator Feinstein. Well, I mean, I would like to have all 
of this out of California. We are now over 40 million people, 
bigger than 22 States and the District of Columbia put together 
in population, and I just have no faith that this is the right 
way to go after sitting on this committee for what? 25 years, 
just about.
    Let me ask you, Madam Chairman. How does the NRC plan to 
ensure the corrective actions taken by Edison and Holtec to 
address the spent fuel loading issues will be sufficient to 
ensure safety going forward?
    Ms. Svinicki. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
    Your opening statement summarized very well the enhanced 
inspections upon discovery of these events, the enhanced 
inspections that NRC began, and also the enforcement actions 
that we have taken were described in your opening statement.
    The fuel loading activities are still currently suspended 
until the NRC is satisfied that the corrective action measures, 
which we are aware of some--we are looking at the sufficiency 
of we know what they have proposed to do as corrective actions. 
We have not signed off on all of that yet. So those operations 
continue to be suspended until we are satisfied.
    Senator Feinstein. Well, I am pleased to hear that. I think 
it is very important. I would like to be advised of what your 
actions are, if I may----
    Ms. Svinicki. Yes, Senator.
    Senator Feinstein [continuing]. Because I care very much 
about this.
    We have got fault lines virtually within every 5 miles of 
wherever anybody stands, and we are earthquake-prone, and we 
are on the shores of a major ocean.
    Let me ask you this. As part of the response to Fukushima, 
it is my understanding that the NRC asked all nuclear plants 
for information regarding seismic and flooding hazards. The NRC 
staff recommended changes in nuclear plant preparations based 
on what we learned at Fukushima. So far so good?
    Ms. Svinicki. Yes, although some of the reviews are still 
ongoing.
    Senator Feinstein. Okay. We will get to that.
    It is my understanding the Commission rejected the 
recommendations of the staff. So the first question is, What 
did the staff recommend that nuclear operators do differently 
based on their analysis of risk?
    Ms. Svinicki. Senator, there is a divided view on our 
Commission on this matter, and my colleague may want to give 
his perspective.
    But, in my view, all of the site-specific evaluations and 
any mandated actions that arise from that continue under the 
Commission's action on the form of the final rule that made 
generic some of these requirements.
    So the matters that we ordered after the events in 
Fukushima were done by site-specific orders to every operating 
reactor in the U.S., and that work continues. Again, many of 
the reevaluations of natural hazards are completed, but some 
are still----
    Senator Feinstein. Let me ask you because I do not 
understand a word you are saying. Speak plain English. What is 
the situation now, and what is the Commission going to do, and 
what is the problem?
    Ms. Svinicki. The situation now is that the work that is 
being done at each site to reevaluate the flooding and seismic 
hazard continues. Some sites have completed their evaluations, 
and we have reviewed those. There are some sites that are not 
yet finished, or we have and are reviewing their evaluations.
    The Commission's action on the final rule did not alter any 
of those activities.
    Senator Feinstein. My understanding, there is a different 
point of view?
    Mr. Baran. Yes, I do have a different view on that.
    Senator Feinstein. Introduce yourself please.
    Mr. Baran. Sure. Commissioner Baran.
    There were two major things, in my mind, that happened 
post-Fukushima. I think the most important, most significant 
safety improvement was this new flex equipment at all the 
plants nationwide--pumps, generators, hoses--new equipment that 
was not there before Fukushima. That equipment is there now. It 
is really important.
    The other thing that was happening was what you were 
talking about in your statement, which is that for all these 
sites, the flooding and earthquake hazards are being 
reevaluated, using modern science. It had been decades in some 
cases since those hazards had been determined. We are using 
modern science and the licensees were--what are the real 
hazards today?
    This rule was going to bring those two pieces together. It 
was going to require that the flex equipment be protected 
against the actual modern-day hazards at the sites.
    I believe that is what the rule should do. It is not what 
the majority decided to do. Instead, the majority----
    Senator Feinstein. Why would that be?
    Mr. Baran. I will let them present their view.
    My view is it makes no sense to have that flex equipment 
there and not have it reasonably protected from the actual 
hazards. That, I think, is a fundamental lessons learned from 
Fukushima.
    My colleagues--Commissioner Burns agreed with me--my 
colleagues disagreed about that.
    Senator Feinstein. Why do the colleagues disagree?
    Somebody who disagrees, please speak up.
    Ms. Caputo. The final rule implements the orders, makes 
permanent the orders that were issued previously, and what we 
decided ultimately to do is to have the plants as a whole 
upgraded to that level of hazard in their site-specific 
evaluations that were completed as a result of the initial 
order.
    So the final rule that I voted in support of makes all of 
those actions permanent.
    I think the disparity, if I can say so, I think the 
difference of opinion that I have with Commissioner Baran is 
whether the separate buildings and the separate equipment is 
raised to that level as well.
    Senator Feinstein. So who believes it should be, and who 
believes it should not be raised to that level? Commissioner 
Baran and why?
    Ms. Caputo. By the final rule----
    Senator Feinstein. I think this is really important.
    Ms. Caputo. Yes. Well, under the final rule that majority 
voted in support of, we are updating the requirements for 
existing plants on a site-specific basis, and I think the 
distinction comes between whether we are increasing safety to a 
level for the plant. And then there is equipment that would be 
available for anything that would exceed this new evaluated 
hazard.
    And the discussion I think is whether or not you take 
actions necessary to make all of--to take this reevaluated 
hazard and apply it to these, shall we say--I do not want to 
say surplus facilities, but this additional layer of 
protection.
    So the plants themselves will have upgraded protections, 
and the question is whether or not to expand it beyond the 
plants to include this additional facility.
    Senator Feinstein. Well, let me put it sort of bluntly. We 
have got 41 million-plus people living in California, and if we 
cannot guarantee real safety, that is a problem.
    So what is going on, Mr. Baran? Why is not there an 
agreement on the level of safety that has to be provided?
    Senator Alexander. We have 3 minutes to vote.
    Senator Feinstein. We have 3 minutes to vote. Two votes? Oh 
my. I am on the coast of California.
    Senator Alexander. So we could finish up here and submit 
the rest of our questions in writing, or you can come back.
    Senator Feinstein. Let me do this. I would like to sit 
down--and I cannot sit down with the majority, I guess, of the 
Commission, but members on both sides of this subject, relating 
to my State, which is California, of what the pluses are and 
what the negatives are and particularly with respect to 
earthquake and weather.
    Mr. Baran. I would be happy to do that.
    Senator Feinstein. Okay. Will you set it up, please?
    Mr. Baran. I am happy to work with your staff to do that, 
yes.
    Senator Feinstein. Can we do it in the next 2 weeks, 
please?
    Mr. Baran. Whatever your timeframe is, I am happy to do it.
    Senator Feinstein. Okay. Thank you very much.
    Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
    I will say to the Commission, we have four votes. We have a 
couple of minutes left on the first vote, theoretically, which 
means we need to leave now. But I think what we will do, 
subject to the approval of Senator Feinstein, is submit our 
questions for the record, ask that you answer them, and have 
the meeting with Senator Feinstein that she asked for on that 
specific issue.
    I think you have seen that my interest is on advanced 
reactors, on safely extending the licensing of reactors 
wherever we can, on small modular reactors.
    And I want to make sure that if we are able to move ahead 
with our proposal for consolidated and interim waste sites and 
private sites, that you are able to move as swiftly as 
possible, as consistent with safety, so that we can begin to 
get used nuclear fuel out of the places where it is, to the 
place where it is supposed to be.
    Senator Feinstein. Mr. Chairman, may your staff join my 
staff and me in that meeting?
    Senator Alexander. We would be glad to.
    Senator Feinstein. I appreciate it.
    Senator Alexander. We would be glad to. We will work 
together on that.
    Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
    Senator Alexander. Anything else, Senator Feinstein?
    Senator Feinstein. No. I think that is it. Thank you very 
much.
    Senator Alexander. Thank you.
    The hearing record will remain open for 10 days. Senators 
may submit additional information or questions for the record 
within that time if they would like. The subcommittee requests 
all responses to questions for the record be provided within 30 
days of receipt.

                          SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

    Thank you for being here. The committee will stand 
adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 3:17 p.m., Wednesday, May 1, the 
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of 
the Chair.]