[Senate Hearing 116-172]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 116-172
ONE YEAR OF PROGRESS: AN UPDATE ON
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NUCLEAR ENERGY
INNOVATION AND MODERNIZATION ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JANUARY 15, 2020
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
40-225 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware,
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia Ranking Member
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
MIKE BRAUN, Indiana BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
ROGER WICKER, Mississippi CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JONI ERNST, Iowa TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
Richard M. Russell, Majority Staff Director
Mary Frances Repko, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
JANUARY 15, 2020
OPENING STATEMENTS
Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming...... 1
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware.. 3
WITNESSES
Doane, Margaret, Executive Director of Operations, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.......................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Barrasso......................................... 16
Senator Van Hollen....................................... 23
Senator Whitehouse....................................... 29
Ficks, Ben, Jr., Deputy Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.......................................... 37
Prepared statement........................................... 39
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Barrasso......................................... 44
Senator Whitehouse....................................... 49
ONE YEAR OF PROGRESS: AN UPDATE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NUCLEAR ENERGY
INNOVATION AND MODERNIZATION ACT
----------
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 15, 2020
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Barrasso, Carper, Braun, Rounds,
Sullivan, Ernst, Cardin, Whitehouse, and Van Hollen.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Good morning. I call this hearing to
order.
Nuclear power is a reliable, clean source of energy.
Nuclear power plants generate electricity 24 hours a day, 7
days a week, 365 days a year.
Nuclear energy is also resilient. It produces power through
cold snaps, through heat waves, and through snowstorms, and it
does so without emitting carbon dioxide. Preserving and
expanding our use of nuclear energy is necessary to address
climate change.
Our Nation's nuclear power plants are operating at
historically high levels of safety and performance. Despite
this, challenging electricity markets have led to a shrinking
nuclear energy. It is time to reverse this trend.
To do so, the Committee led efforts to pass the Nuclear
Energy Innovation and Modernization Act, or NEIMA. Congress
overwhelmingly supported this bipartisan legislation. One year
ago, President Trump signed the bill into law.
This morning, we will review the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission's implementation of that law. The law provides
certainty to assist today's nuclear power plants. The law
revises how the Nuclear Regulatory Commission manages its
finances.
This is important for a number of reasons. One is to
provide predictable regulatory costs for nuclear utilities. The
law prioritizes agency spending on activities that directly
support its regulatory mission. It establishes performance
metrics and milestone schedules to increase accountability and
certainty for major licensing actions.
The law also requires the commission to take both short
term and long term actions to develop and deploy advanced
nuclear technologies. Advanced reactors will be designed
differently than current nuclear reactor designs. Smaller,
safer nuclear technologies should not be subject to the rigid
costly requirements imposed on yesterday's designs.
The law requires a modernization of nuclear safety rules.
The commission has taken important initial steps to implement
the bill. In December, the commission approved a proposed rule
for emergency planning for advanced nuclear reactors.
The commission also approved a first of its kind permit for
the Tennessee Valley Authority to site a small modular reactor.
I applaud the commission for the efforts so far. Still a lot of
work to do.
The new financial management requirements take effect in
the upcoming fiscal year. The commission's forthcoming budget
must be in line with the law's intent. American ratepayers and
nuclear licensees fund the organization. As a result, budgetary
resources must be responsibly managed.
As nuclear power plants shut down, the agency must make
real reductions of staff and resources proportionate with the
reduced workload. Within the next year, the commission must
establish a strategy to license advanced technologies using the
existing regulatory framework. This short term approach
complements the long term development of a new regulatory
framework.
The commission must be smart about developing new safety
regulations. America's nuclear innovators and entrepreneurs
need confidence that the licensing process is predictable and
affordable. The rules should appropriately reflect the
increased performance and lower risk of new reactor designs.
As the commission continues to implement the law, other key
nuclear energy issues must be addressed. The significant
benefits of clean nuclear energy will be limited until
Washington keeps its promise to permanently dispose of nuclear
waste.
Advanced nuclear technologies can generate less nuclear
waste. Some may even produce electricity from previously used
nuclear fuel. Advanced nuclear technologies cannot eliminate
the need for a permanent nuclear waste program. Legislation
that I have introduced will help get our Nation's nuclear waste
program back on track.
Another critical issue is the source of our nuclear fuel.
America's uranium miners are struggling to stay in business due
to Russia's manipulation of the uranium market. Many of those
hard working miners live in my home State of Wyoming.
Six months ago, President Trump recognized the national
security implications of relying on foreign countries for
uranium. He established a nuclear fuel working group to
recommend actions to revive our nuclear fuel cycle. We are
still waiting for those recommendations from the working group.
American uranium producers need immediate assistance and
certainty. It is time for action. The 1 year anniversary of the
Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act becoming law
gives us a great opportunity to discuss these important issues
facing America's nuclear energy industry. Nuclear power is
clean, reliable, and carbon-free. We must continue to support
this important energy technology.
I will now turn to Ranking Member Carper for his opening
remarks.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thanks so much for
bringing us together, for your leadership on this, and that of
others on our Committee.
Ms. Doane, it is great to see you. Thank you for coming.
Mr. Ficks, I have a son named Ben. It is always nice to see
that name. We welcome both of you today.
I have a statement here. I am going to go ahead and read
it, and then I am just going to talk a little bit off the cuff,
and then we will get started.
Mr. Chairman, thanks again for bringing us together to
discuss the implementation of the Nuclear Energy Innovation and
Modernization Act, known as NEIMA.
Thank you to each of our witnesses, for your service at the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and for joining us. It is not
every day that we have folks like you, who do a lot of the real
work. We are thrilled that you were able to come.
From the very start of our Nation, our country has faced
daunting challenges that at first seemed impossible to
overcome, but with support from Federal, State, and local
governments, Americans have always found a way to innovate and
find solutions to overcome these challenges.
Not all of those solutions come from Washington. They come
from all over--every corner of this land and around the world--
and we welcome that.
Today we face the greatest environmental crisis I think we
are likely ever to face, certainly in my lifetime, probably in
our lifetime; that is climate change, extreme weather. If we
are going to meet the challenges of climate change, we must do
more to spur zero emitting technologies here at home and around
the world.
Nuclear power is a prime example of how we can combat
climate change and provide economic opportunities for
Americans. Done responsibly, nuclear power helps our Nation
reduce both our reliance on dirtier fuels and air pollution
that damages our lungs and our climate.
At the same time, we know that when the United States leads
on nuclear energy, it opens up good paying manufacturing,
construction, and operating job opportunities for Americans
nationwide.
Nuclear energy provides about 20 percent of our Nation's
energy. However, our existing reactors cannot run forever. I
said 20 percent of our Nation's energy, about 50 percent of our
carbon-free energy. That is an important point.
If we are smart about it, we will replace our aging nuclear
reactors with new advanced technology developed here at home.
Domestic technology that is safer produces less spent fuel, and
it is cheaper to build and to operate.
The Chairman, myself, and many other cosponsors of this
bill hope that this legislation will be the catalyst needed for
advanced nuclear technology to become a reality for this
country. We look forward to our conversations today with our
friends from NRC to discuss its implementation and whether or
not our hopes have yet been realized.
I believe that NEIMA was an important step to address
climate change, but it is only a drop in the bucket when it
comes to climate solutions. If we are going to stem the tide of
climate change, so much more needs to be done, and we need to
do it fast.
The Federal Government needs to be galvanized to address
the climate crisis and move our country to reach net zero
greenhouse gas emissions, sooner rather than later. What that
takes is leadership from our President, and we are just not
seeing that today.
Instead, we have seen an Administration that promotes
policies that undermine climate science and increase our
dependence on dirty energy policies that are, quite frankly,
sending the wrong message to those who are interested in
investing in advanced nuclear and other zero emitting
technologies. These actions send the wrong message that
threatens Americans competitiveness in the global clean energy
economy and the health of every American.
To put this in context, the country of Australia is on
fire. We have been seeing it on television, hearing it on the
media for days; 15.3 million acres have been destroyed. That is
larger than Senator Capito's and my native State of West
Virginia. Imagine that. We are told that a billion animals and
birds have been killed. A lot of species that were endangered
are going to be extinct, are extinct now.
This is right in front of us. Right in front of us. If that
doesn't get somebody's attention and say we need to do
something to address this crazy weather and climate change,
climate crisis, then we are in the wrong business.
There a lot of different ways to do that. Senator
Whitehouse, Senator Sullivan, and I were, earlier this morning,
at an industry led gathering that is focusing on recycling of
packaging, and finding ways to do that more sustainably,
smartly, wisely. There is a role for us. There is a role for
the private sector. There is a role for Government, too.
I had lunch earlier this week in Salisbury, Maryland--your
State--with a fellow who is the CEO of Purdue, the folks who
raise a lot of chickens. They have just done a business merger
with a company that is involved in using European, German
technology to be able to take poultry waste--chicken waste--
which we have a lot of on the Delmarva Peninsula--and turn it
into clean fuel that can create a lot of electricity for folks
who need electricity in their homes and their businesses and do
so in a way that is sustainable and good for the environment.
Very exciting stuff.
Then we have all kinds of ways we can reduce the climate
threat. Nuclear is good. Done badly, done unwisely, not good.
There are ways to do this smart, and if we are really smart, we
will find ways to do this in a way that protects our safety,
find ways to actually recycle or reuse spent fuel rods to
derive additional energy from them.
There is a lot of opportunity here. In adversity lies
opportunity, and this is one of the opportunities.
I am delighted to be able to be with you.
All the years I served in the Navy, for 27 years, including
my time as a midshipman, has been on ships, on aircraft
carriers, nuclear submarines. We are about to launch the U.S.S.
Delaware, fast attack nuclear submarine commissioned Delaware
on April 4th deploying to Wilmington.
I have known people who served in the nuclear Navy forever.
I don't think there has ever been a life that has been lost in
the nuclear Navy in 50 years. In 50 years, all the sailors that
have been on the ships, submarines, aircraft carriers, not one
life lost because of nuclear initiative.
On this day, in this country, we are going to see probably
dozens of people die because of air pollution, because of
breathing air that is, frankly--electricity that is not
produced by carbon-free sources like nuclear. So this is kind
of a life and death matter for all of us.
I am thrilled that we are here; thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Carper.
We will now hear from our two witness. Margie Doane is
here, who is the Executive Director of Operations of the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and Ben Ficks, who is the Deputy
Chief Financial Officer of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
I would like to remind both of you that your full written
testimony will be made part of the official record, so please
try to keep your statements to 5 minutes so that we may have
time for questions. We look forward to the testimony.
Ms. Doane, would you please begin?
STATEMENT OF MARGARET DOANE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS,
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Ms. Doane. Good morning, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member
Carper, and distinguished members of the Committee.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear this morning with
the Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Ben Ficks, to testify
on the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's progress in
implementing the requirements of the Nuclear Energy Innovation
and Modernization Act, or NEIMA.
Over the past year, the NRC staff has successfully
implemented NEIMA's requirements and met all of NEIMA related
deadlines. I attribute the NRC's success to the unparalleled
focus, commitment, and hard work of the NRC staff. It is their
expertise, knowledge, and collaborative efforts that allow the
NRC to meet all deadlines, including timely submitting nine
NEIMA related reports since April 2019 on topics ranging from
emergency preparedness, to accident-tolerant fuel, to advanced
reactor licensing.
Speaking of advanced reactors, the NRC has been preparing
for the licensing of advanced reactors for several years, and
is ready to review potential near term applications, the first
of which is anticipated this month. Notably, this past May, the
staff issued a draft regulatory guide for a technology
inclusive, risk informed, and performance based licensing
approach for advanced reactor licensing.
This effort was informed by the NRC's staff interactions
with the Licensing Modernization Project, a DOE cost shared
initiative being led by Southern Company and coordinated by the
Nuclear Energy Institute. The staff's regulatory guide will
serve as a foundation for the rulemaking to establish a
technology inclusive regulatory framework for advanced
reactors.
The staff has also made significant progress in
implementing risk informed and performance based techniques and
guidance for the resolution of numerous policy issues regarding
new reactors. For instance, the commission recently approved
the use of more realistic approaches for estimating the
potential radiological consequences of new reactor
technologies.
These approaches recognize that nuclear reactor designs of
the future may look very different compared to the operating
reactors of today. For example, they may be much smaller and
have enhanced safety features.
NRC remains committed to regulating in a transparent manner
to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of
public health and safety in its review of new reactor
technologies.
Other highlights of the staff's activities under NEIMA
include our development of staff training on various advanced
reactor technologies and the agreements we reached with the
Department of Energy to share technical expertise and
knowledge.
In addition, we conducted 11 public meetings--more than
NEIMA requires--at various locations throughout the country on
best practices for community advisory boards regarding reactor
decommissioning.
As a complement to the staff's work under NEIMA, the NRC
continues to conduct activities in support of transformation
into a modern, risk informed regulator. For example, in 2019,
the NRC completed its merger of the Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation and the Office of New Reactors. They are now one
office under the office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
This organizational change is reflective of the broader
changes within the nuclear industry, and most importantly,
helps ensure the agency is better suited for meeting its safety
and security mission in an evolving future.
I thank the Committee for its continued interest and
support as we implement this important piece of legislation.
Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and distinguished
members of the Committee, this concludes my oral testimony. On
behalf of the NRC staff, thank you for this opportunity to
appear before you and for your support of our vital mission.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Doane follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Ms. Doane.
Mr. Ficks.
STATEMENT OF BEN FICKS, JR., DEPUTY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER,
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Mr. Ficks. Good morning, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member
Carper, and distinguished members of the Committee.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear this morning to
testify on the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's activities
and progress implementing Sections 101, 102, and 202 of NEIMA,
for which the Office of the Chief Financial Officer has the
lead.
The NRC is developing the fiscal year 2020 draft fee rule
consistent with NEIMA such that the development of the
regulatory infrastructure for advanced nuclear reactor
technologies, including activities required under Section 103
of NEIMA, is not recovered through fees.
Section 102 caps the operating reactor licensee annual fee,
caps the NRC corporate costs at 30 percent of the annual budget
request for fiscal year 2021, and requires anticipated
expenditures for requested activities of the commission to be
identified in the annual budget justification.
The budget formulation process and associated systems have
been modified to implement these changes, and the fiscal year
2021 congressional budget justification and the fiscal year
2021 fee rule will reflect the changes. Once the President's
budget is released on February the 10th, 2020, the NRC will be
able to provide more specific information regarding the
implementation of these provisions.
In partnership with our internal and external stakeholders,
we have taken several steps to improve invoice accuracy and
transparency consistent with Section 102. We completed a new,
monthly, standardized fee validation process starting in July
2019. This new process improves accountability and oversight
within the NRC to ensure that fee billing data are correct
before appearing on a licensee's quarterly invoice.
Specifically, we added new data elements to our information
technology systems to identify the individuals responsible for
validating billing charges, and we also created new reports for
staff and managers to improve their analysis and provided
training to responsible staff so that they were prepared for
this change.
In addition, the NRC implemented the new electronic
billing--e-billing--system on October the 1st, 2019. This
system was designed in consultation with a representative group
of nine licensees that were involved throughout the development
phase.
The system includes the following improvements: eliminating
mailing of paper invoices, providing licensees with the
capability to analyze their invoices online, providing
licensees with access to Treasury's payment system to pay their
invoices, improving the timeliness of invoices, providing the
capability to export invoice data easily for analysis and
verification of charges, and it provides licensees with an
efficient method to submit inquiries regarding their invoices
by having questions immediately delivered by e-mail to the
agency for research or action. Forty-five licensees have been
enrolled in e-billing as of December the 27th, 2019.
Section 202, Pilot Program for Uranium Recovery. As
directed by NEIMA, the NRC provided a report describing the
results of the pilot initiative to the Committee on January the
10th, 2020. As discussed in the report, the NRC staff
determined that while it could fairly and equitably establish
flat fees for financial reviews and routine inspections for the
single remaining uranium recovery NRC licensee in this fee
class, the NRC ultimately decided to maintain its current fee
billing structure as the current licensee appreciates the level
of transparency provided by the current process.
NRC will continue its communication with the remaining
licensee and provide estimated costs for uranium recovery
activities. In addition, the NRC staff has posted cost
estimates for uranium recovery activities on the NRC's public
Web site to give a general sense of what can be expected.
Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, distinguished
members of the Committee, thank you again for the opportunity
to appear before you, and I look forward to answering any
questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ficks follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much to both of you for
your important testimony. We look forward to some questions.
I will start, and we will have 5 minute rounds of
questions.
Ms. Doane, in 2018, the EPA withdrew what was an Obama
administration midnight rule. This midnight rule would have
added unnecessary red tape to the principal method of uranium
production. The NRC raised substantial jurisdictional concerns
to the EPA regarding the proposed rule.
In 2017, I asked the EPA to sign a memorandum of
understanding--an MOU--with the NRC to resolve the issue. For
over a year, NRC and EPA have worked on this memorandum of
understanding. The process, I believe, needs to be completed.
Could you provide an update on the status of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission's engagement on this memorandum?
Ms. Doane. Thank you for that question, Senator.
Yes, the memorandum of understanding is in its final
stages. The staff of both agencies have agreed in principle on
a document, which I think, in my experience, is sometimes the
hardest part of an endeavor like this.
The next step is for us to finalize the documentation. It
is formal documentation, because this is an enduring document.
We are finalizing the documentation; it will then come to me,
and then be moved on to the Chairman, because it is for her
signature. So it is in the final stages, and I do not expect it
to be very long.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you. Another question. In December,
the commission approved a staff proposal to establish emergency
planning requirements for advanced nuclear technologies. The
proposal accounts for the reduced risk of smaller and safer
reactor designs.
The Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act
requires this approach, which we signed last year, but will you
summarize the NRC's proposal and the historical basis for your
recommendations?
Ms. Doane. The proposal that we made to the staff for this
draft proposed rule is based on a scaling, recognizing that
larger reactors, the consequences could be very different for
larger reactors than smaller reactors. As an example, existing
reactors include over 1,000 megawatts, up to 1,400 megawatts,
where the reactor I referred to earlier could be 1 megawatt.
In summary, the approach is a scaling approach that would
recognize for these consequences, the communities would be very
well protected, even with a smaller emergency planning zone.
Senator Barrasso. Mr. Ficks, the law limits how much
funding the commission can request for overhead activities or
corporate support costs. These include funding for human
resources, for information technology.
This new requirement is going to prioritize spending on
activities that directly support the agency's mission to
license and to oversee the use of nuclear material. What steps
are you taking now to meet the new funding limitation in the
NRC's 2021 budget proposal?
Mr. Ficks. NRC has taken a lot of steps to reduce its
budget. Since fiscal year 2014, we have actually decreased our
budget from fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2020 by
approximately 19 percent. In that same period, corporate
support reduction resources have decreased as well by 19
percent. We have decreased our space, our footprint.
We have also re-baselined our activities. We have done
careful FTE analysis to ensure that we do not overbudget, and
we continuously look at our budget models. We look forward to
discussing this more in detail once the budget is released in
February the 10th.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you on that. Because the law limits
the amount that the commission can charge operating nuclear
power plants, starting in this upcoming fiscal year; this is
going to ensure that the remaining nuclear plants don't pay
more to fund the agency to make up for lost revenue because
other plants have shut down.
I am concerned the commission may shift funding to
circumvent the requirement, but what are you doing to reduce
the portion of the agency's budget that the nuclear reactors
fund?
Mr. Ficks. Again, we have used analytics to look at our
model for when a plant goes from operating to decommissioning,
and we have adjusted the model and the budget formulation
process. That has yielded very good results. You can see that
in the fiscal year 2018 and fiscal year 2019 fee rule rates for
operating reactor fee class, which actually are below the level
specified in NEIMA, which is tied to the fiscal year 2015 fee
rule, which is $4.8 million before it is adjusted for
inflation.
Senator Barrasso. Does this tie in, to say, a broader
effort to reduce spending as additional reactors may shut down
over time?
Mr. Ficks. Yes.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
One of the things I love to do back in Delaware when we are
not in session, and actually around the country, when I visit,
I visit businesses, large and small. I call them customer
calls.
I ask three questions of those businesses. I ask, how are
you doing, how are we doing, the Federal Government, our
congressional delegation, the State of Delaware, and what can
we do to help. I hear over and over again, one of the things we
can do to help is to focus on work force. We have a tight labor
market, as you know. There are like 5 million jobs going
unfilled today because folks don't have the skills or education
or desire to do those jobs.
One of the things I always hear when I visit businesses is
a need for certainty and predictability, certainty and
predictability. At a time when businesses are having to put up
with these changes in tariffs, in tariff laws imposed, not
imposed, they want some certainty and predictability.
Let me just ask this question of you, Ms. Doane. Do you
believe the changes that we made are helping provide more
certainty for the advanced nuclear licensing process? Since its
implementation, have you received any more interest in
stakeholders that may want to pursue an advanced nuclear
license?
That is my question. I am sticking with it.
Ms. Doane. Yes, thank you, Senator.
These changes are helping because we have looked at our
processes and also our regulations to determine whether they
have any obstacles as NEIMA mandates and make sure that we are
improving these documents so that the users of these documents
will be able to come into our processes. There will be a
meeting of the minds, and an understanding of the timetables
and the resources, so all of these things are providing
predictability in how to use our processes, but also in the
length of time that it would take in meeting these time scales.
It is also giving us an understanding of the technology
that they are going to be using so that we can get ahead. You
were talking about skills, so that we can get ahead on what we
need to know so that we can resolve questions earlier in the
process, the sooner we know about these issues.
Senator Carper. All right, thank you.
I am going to build on the question raised by the Chairman
a few minutes ago, and ask this. When we have multiple nuclear
reactors closing, and as a result, additional spent fuel going
into dry cask storage, you have proposed a dramatic reduction
in dry cask storage inspections.
I just wanted to ask if you, Ms. Doane, if you would
explain why you think it is necessary to make this change at
this time.
Ms. Doane. Thank you, Senator, for that question.
It is not a proposal yet. It is under consideration. There
is a working group, and they are considering changes to the
inspections for independent spent fuel storage facilities or
dry cask storage facilities.
Senator Carper. I hope that working group will just
consider the question that I just raised.
Thank you. Go ahead and finish your thought.
Ms. Doane. Yes. I think the more interest that we have, the
more views that we have, we do consider them. The changes are
being made based on a long history of these processes and
looking at the other inspection activities that are already
going on. So they are looking at redundancy, but they are also
looking at how we can do our work smarter.
In any event, the inspection process, I can assure you,
will remain adequately protective of public health and safety.
We take these issues very seriously.
Senator Carper. OK, thank you.
Another question for you, if you don't mind, then we will
pick on Mr. Ficks.
For 60 years, the Halden test reactor in Norway had been
used by nuclear fuel developers globally to test fuels. The
three leading developers of accident tolerant fuel wanted to
use the Halden test reactor for some critical testing.
Unfortunately, the Norwegian government recently closed the
Halden test reactor for good.
My question would be, Ms. Doane, how is the NRC and
industry testing the new accident tolerant fuel technologies,
now that the Halden reactor is closed?
Ms. Doane. I can take this question for the record, because
I don't have all of the specifics. But at a very high level, I
will tell you that we are relying on the Department of Energy
and some of their testing, and they are already working with
the fuel vendors, so we will rely on that testing.
To the extent that other testing is done by our vendors, we
would then validate that testing.
You are right, that the Halden has closed, but we have
given a lot of attention to that issue to ensure that there
will be an adequate way of testing the fuel to make the safety
decisions. More than that, I would want to take it for the
record.
Senator Carper. OK. Let's take it for the record, and just
build on what you just gave me, OK? Thanks so much.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Braun.
Senator Braun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
your testimony.
I am on Health, Education, Labor, and Pension. We just
appointed a new FDA commissioner, and looking at the
comparisons between regulatory bodies and the underlying
industry, there is so much room for improvement there.
You have got an industry that pushes things like patent
thickets, dragging its feet to lower the cost of health care,
and you have got an FDA that I think has been very stodgy in
trying to help the cause as well.
Recently, I was the first Republican to join the Climate
Caucus, and that is going to be, along with the cost of health
care----
Senator Carper. Hopefully not the last.
Senator Braun. True. I think it is going to be a discussion
for a long time. I see, in the attempt to try to lower
CO2, that advanced nuclear technology is the one
bird in the bush that could be close to being a bird in the
hand. I know our own Purdue University recently became the
first nuclear reactor in the U.S. that converted to digital
instrumentation.
I think, and I would like your opinion, in a general sense,
is the NRC in a position to accommodate, or is it like the FDA
has been in my mind, more of an obstructor to moving in the
right direction? And do you think that the timeframe will be
there to where you, as the oversight body, and the industry
itself is going to have enough to work with to push advanced
nuclear technology to the forefront as maybe being our ace in
the hole to address climate issues?
That is kind of a broad, loaded question, and I would like
your opinions, generally, on that.
Ms. Doane. So part of the activities that we have been
doing, a lot of the work that we have been doing is to ensure
that we are not a barrier to new technology. I know you know we
are not a promoter, but we also don't want to be a barrier. We
understand the importance that the Committee places on advanced
technology.
We also agree that our licensing has to be predictable, so
we are taking steps starting from the bottom of the agency all
the way up to the top to transform in a way that we can have
our processes perform in a way that are predictable, that we
have looked at our regulations to ensure that they aren't a
barrier. We have had to do a lot of changes with guidance and
processes.
Then finally, our people. We are making sure that they are
trained. This is technology, that, if it comes in, it will be
technology we have never seen before, so we are working on
ensuring that they are trained.
Senator Braun. That is good to hear. You said, if it comes
in. What is your opinion of where it is currently?
Ms. Doane. I would tell you that we--I might sound a little
bit--if it comes in based on our experience in previous--about
a decade ago, we built up the agency in a way and didn't
materialize it as much as we thought it would. So that is
probably my hesitancy, but we are told that it will come in. We
are told that they are going to be filed and that later this
month, or perhaps the very beginning of the next month will be
the first non-light-water reactor, or microreactor.
Senator Braun. Mr. Ficks.
Mr. Ficks. I would just point to all the transformation
efforts that we have undertaken within the office of the Chief
Financial Officer to be more modern and risk informed. I think
the e-billing example that I highlighted in my testimony gives
you a sense of that. We also partner very closely with the
program offices, including nuclear reactor regulation to ensure
that there are adequate resources.
Senator Braun. So, in summarizing, I think it is incumbent
on you to be careful, but not create undue barriers. I think
that, unlike the healthcare industry, I see an energy industry
that is interested in trying to move to the forefront, bringing
new technology to address CO2. It is good to hear
that it sounds a lot better than my sense of what is happening
in the healthcare arena.
Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Braun.
Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank our witnesses. I first want to acknowledge
the incredible work force we have at NRC. We are pretty proud
of it, and very proud that it is located in the State of
Maryland.
I am concerned that we seem to be losing a lot of the
experienced work force at NRC. The work that you do is the best
in the world, as far as nuclear safety is concerned.
Are we attracting the bright talent of the future to work
at NRC, considering the circumstances of the Federal budget and
the recruitment issues and the morale issues?
I just raise that because to me, as we talk about the
urgency that Senator Carper mentioned on climate change and how
nuclear power is friendly toward our greenhouse gas and climate
change issues, we also have to recognize that part of this is
having the work force at NRC to be able to properly evaluate
new technology, so that we can move aggressively in that
direction.
Our existing nuclear energy reactors are old, 1960s and
1970s, most of them. They need attention. As we talk about
bringing on new technologies, which are very important, we also
have to recognize that maintaining the existing force in a safe
manner to meet the energy needs of our country without
contributing more greenhouse gas emissions is also a challenge.
One of the reasons that I was very excited about the
Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act is to deal with
one of those issues that has made nuclear power not as
competitive as it needs to be in the current marketplace in
order to be able to get the type of investments to maintain our
force, as well as to invest in new technologies. The regulatory
process is just too costly, and we don't want to compromise
safety. But we recognize that the process is too costly.
When we are looking at having a somewhat level playing
field on the sources of energy, nuclear is at a disadvantage.
It is at a disadvantage because the regulatory cost is much,
much higher than any other source of energy, including the
fossil fuels.
Then there is a second area that we don't have the level
playing field or a competitive playing field, and that is in
the tax structure. All energy sources except nuclear get help
from the tax code in regard to their improvements and their
explorations, et cetera, but nuclear does not.
Senator Cramer and I have introduced legislation that would
provide an investment tax credit in regard to the nuclear
industry to try to provide some parity here.
I know today's hearing is focused on how we can implement
the law we passed a year ago to deal with the regulatory costs
and how we can make sure that it is easier in regard to
advanced nuclear technology.
But my question is a little bit broader. Don't we have to
deal with the economics of energy that is out there, and
recognize that today, nuclear is really at a disadvantage, not
only from the regulatory point of view, but from the tax point
of view? And that if we want to attract the type of investment
that we need, that we have to also take issue with the tax
structures.
I say that because three of the four members that are here
also serve on the Finance Committee, and I hope that we will
have a chance this year to take up an energy tax package.
We were shortchanged in the omnibus bill that moved through
the Congress. It was not, I think, fair toward the
environmentally friendly energy sources. We are making it a
priority to bring up that type of legislation in this Congress
this year.
I would hope that we would get some support for looking at
the economics of fairness in the nuclear industry and take a
serious look at Senator Cramer and my bill that would try to
provide some degree of fairness in that regard.
I have 56 seconds left; do either one of you want to
comment? Fine. You want to endorse my bill? That is fine.
Perhaps just dealing with the economics of energy sources
today. We know that there is a lot of natural gas that is out
there, and that is affecting the price. We know that we have
significant fossil fuel production here in the United States as
far as being sources. So we know that it has been a challenge
from an economic point of view. Don't we have to deal with that
in the reality? Just say yes.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Doane. Our hesitancy really isn't--it is just because
of our role as safety regulators. We really don't play a role
there.
Senator Cardin. But you need to have investment by the
private sector if this is going to work. Investment depends
upon the economic model, and the economic model today is
challenged.
Ms. Doane. I understand, Senator Cardin, thank you. I will
tell you for our part, what will be essential here is that our
process is predictable. And as for making a very hard case on
assuring adequate protection of public health and safety and
security and the environment, we need to do it in a way that
is--NEIMA mandates us to look at that and make sure that we are
focused on the most significant safety issues and not to be
distracted and create much more cost increases to things that
aren't safety significant.
So I think in some ways, it does feed into the points that
you are making.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, I appreciate that relevant
response.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman.
Before I ask my questions, let me make a point reacting to
what you said earlier about nuclear waste and your desire to
solve the nuclear waste problem. It is my observation that if
our nuclear waste stockpiles were in the hands of private
corporations, then the accounting methodology, to which private
corporations are subject, would take a look at that as a
liability.
Whoever was doing their accounting reports or doing their
shareholder reports would go, and they would say, wow, you have
all this nuclear waste, that is a problem; And then they would
do their level best to try to put a price on the problem, so
they could be booked as a liability for shareholders and the
public to know about.
The instant that you put a number on that on a company's
books, let's say the number is $2 trillion, I don't know what
it is; it is a big number, I expect. Then that gives that
company a $2 trillion minus $1 incentive to spend money to
solve the problem. It is, right now, from an accounting
perspective, free to have all this nuclear waste simply sit
there with no solution.
The flip side of that is that there is no market incentive,
there is no financial reward, to anybody who solves the
problem. That puts it on us, as Members of Congress, to force
that solution. But I hope and expect that there may be a way to
bring that market analysis to bear in the solution that you are
trying to develop, and I look forward to working with you on
that proposition.
We would not have the problem we have if somewhere on the
books of the United States of America was an X-billion dollar
liability for this that affected our financial reporting.
Somebody would be incented to solve the problem.
So my question is to both of you. I just want to make sure
that it is clear that a lot of the support for this, the
bipartisan support for this, came because people care about
some of the goals that we believe there is a chance for these
modern nuclear technologies to achieve. There were two of them.
I would ask you to guess what you think our two priorities
were in supporting this legislation. What were the two policy
goals that you think most drove us?
Ms. Doane. You really want me to guess? OK.
Senator Whitehouse. I would hope you would know. It was so
clear that what our point was in giving you this power. If you
don't know, then that is a big signal to me that we need to
make it really clear why we did this.
Ms. Doane. Yes, sir. I think that the most important goals
would be to provide an energy source that is carbon-free.
Senator Whitehouse. Bingo. Well said. That is one.
Ms. Doane. No. 1, and that in addition, it would address--
so one would be carbon-free because of the climate issues that
are being addressed. But the other is energy itself and the
need for energy, and that this would be another source. I would
say additionally, to keep involved in the national policy
interest in staying involved in nuclear. So all of these things
I think are rooted together.
Senator Whitehouse. OK. You are getting a little bit closer
with the last two, but I would not give you a passing grade on
that. I would say that, you know, maybe good effort.
What I would say one of our clear purposes was was to try
to make sure that these new technologies, as they came online,
explored the possibility of repurposing our existing nuclear
waste stockpile. Some of these technologies have been proposed
as promising to turn this massive liability into actually a
positive value as a fuel.
I don't know if that is going to pan out. I honestly don't.
I am not a technologist. But people who are very smart about
this, and who have invested millions and millions of dollars in
these new technologies, tell me that that is their intention,
that that is their purpose.
So as you are looking at these new technologies, I very
much want--and I think I speak for a considerable number of us
who have encouraged, supported, and authorized you to do this--
we very much want to see that as this work gets done, it gets
done in a way in which we are focused on the possibility of
turning all that nuclear waste sitting around now as a health
hazard and as an economic drag into something that could be
positive.
If, all things being equal, you have two different
technologies that you could fund, or that you could pursue, or
that you could authorize, I would urge that in every way you
can, you lean toward the one that has the better chance of
allowing us to repurpose this enormous, poisonous stockpile for
which we have no other plan.
Clear enough? Is that a yes from both of you? Because we
don't have a record.
Ms. Doane. Yes.
Mr. Ficks. Yes.
Senator Whitehouse. OK, then I have said my piece. Thank
you very much for what you are doing to try to implement the
law that we passed.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse, for your
continued leadership and thoughtfulness on this issue. Thank
you.
Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. While Senator Whitehouse is still here, I
spoke in my opening statement about the liability that we have
on the Delmarva Peninsula that goes from an important industry
for us, and the important industry is agriculture, and the
important industry within agriculture is poultry. We have just
huge numbers of chickens living in the Delmarva Peninsula.
Senator Whitehouse. Rhode Island Reds, I hear.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. There you go. Yes and no.
The liability that comes from that is this amount of
chicken manure, which has the virtue of being high in
phosphorus, high in nitrogen, which is coveted by farmers. But
if used to a great extent, it creates runoff, it creates real
problems for our friends in Maryland and the Chesapeake Bay and
areas to clean up the Chesapeake and not end up with all these
dead zones.
I mentioned, I think before you got here, that I had lunch
in Salisbury, Maryland, Ben's territory, with folks from
Purdue, the big poultry operation and a company that uses
European, German technology. They have over 200 facilities
around the world where they actually take this liability, and
they turn it into something that is good, sustainable energy
and fertilizer.
We get a lot of it; we have the potential to get so much of
this off the peninsula, the Delmarva Peninsula, where we have
way too much to be able to spread it in some other parts of the
country where they could use it. It is like what Einstein used
to say, in adversity lies opportunity.
Laura Haynes is sitting right behind me, so my brain is on
a bunch of issues, including this one. Several years ago, we
were in France, and we visited some French facilities where
they were trying to take spent fuel and figure out how to reuse
it, repurpose it, recycle it, in order to drive some of the
spent fuel, some of the energy that is right there in the spent
fuel. I think there is still great potential for that. I think
part of our job may be to figure out how to unleash that.
Senator Whitehouse. The equation that waste plus technology
can equal value, I think is the equation that we need to
pursue, whether we are dealing with nuclear waste, or chicken--
--
Senator Carper. Chicken litter.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you.
Senator Carper. We call them ``nutrients.''
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. I want to go back and revisit, if I could,
with our panel on an issue sort of raised by our Chairman, and
I touched on it as well.
For our guests, do you believe that the NRC will have the
resources needed in the long run? Do you believe the NRC will
have the resources needed in the long run to do its job
effectively? If the NRC does not have the needed funding, are
there tools in the law to ensure that the NRC is able to inform
Congress that additional funding is needed?
And that would be for both of you.
Mr. Ficks, why don't you take the first shot at that?
Mr. Ficks. We believe that Congress has given us the
support we need to get the resources we need, and we continue
looking forward to interacting positively to make sure that
that continues.
Senator Carper. All right, thank you.
Ms. Doane. Will you use fewer words? I thought he spoke too
long.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. I am kidding. I wish, Mr. Chairman, all of
our witnesses are so economical in their use of words for
responses. They are probably wish that we were, too.
Ms. Doane. OK. You know, what I think he says in those few
words, it is so meaningful, so it is a good economy of words.
Yes, I agree with Ben that we have had the adequate
resources, and we recognize that, for example, there are caps
that will come into play in 2021, and we look forward to
building our budgets to ensure that we have adequate resources.
At this time, we have adequate resources in fiscal year 2020.
Senator Carper. I guess the question is about the long term
in making sure that if it turns out that you don't have the
resources for the long term, do you feel that our law is
adequate to ensure that the NRC is able to inform Congress that
additional funding is needed?
Ms. Doane. I do, because there are the caps in the
legislation, but there is also a provision that says that, to
take into consideration if these caps are practical. I think
with that two part process, that it is adequate for us to get
the funding that we need.
But I will add that it will be challenging in the future to
continue to bring down, I don't want to leave a misimpression,
to continue to bring down corporate costs, for example, because
we have been bringing this, as Ben had said, we have been
bringing down this cost over the years. Since 2014 we have
brought these costs down dramatically.
So we have already taken advantage of the most obvious ways
of reducing those costs, like space and things like that. In
the future, it will get tougher and tougher to find these
things. But like I said, the legislation does provide then a
provision to say that these caps are applied, and then if it is
practical.
Senator Carper. All right, thanks so much.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Van Hollen.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member.
Thank you for your testimony today.
I have a few questions regarding the interaction between
this effort to innovate our nuclear reactors and nuclear
nonproliferation, because NEIMA was designed primarily to
update the NRC's licensing framework for advanced nuclear
reactors and technologies. It will help ensure that our
domestic regulatory structure evolves in tandem with nuclear
technology.
But I think it is also important that as nuclear
technologies progress, the international nonproliferation
regime evolves as well. Part of the reason that we are trying
to advance these new technologies is obviously our domestic
industry, but we also hope that with the proper safeguards,
this will allow some of these new reactors to be located
overseas.
There are some reactor designs that could pose
proliferation issues. Specifically, those that would use
proliferation sensitive fuels, like uranium fuel enriched to
close to 20 percent HEU, while others would use a closed fuel
cycle that would be capable of producing spent fuel that
contains weapons grade plutonium.
Production of those fuels and the spread of reprocessing
technologies may run up against longstanding U.S. policy to
secure global supplies of fissile material. On top of that, the
IAEA has indicated that several advanced reactor designs could
pose safeguard challenges and make monitoring of nuclear
facilities more difficult than it is today.
I have a couple questions related to that, and I am
wondering whether in your licensing criteria and evaluation of
advanced nuclear reactors, whether the NRC has taken into
account the ``safeguards by design'' measures that would
facilitate the implementation of international IAEA safeguards.
Ms. Doane. Yes. Our reactor licensing process will take
into consideration the implementation of the safeguards
measures. As you know, our regulations provide for our agency
to review the safeguard methods that are used at these reactor
facilities to ensure that there is not--to reduce the threat or
the up diversion and other issues that this addresses. Our
licensing does, yes.
Senator Van Hollen. Have you been in direct communication
with the folks at the IAEA to discuss how this will work and
how your work here meshes with their international safeguards?
Ms. Doane. I personally have not. For the record, I can get
back to you.
Our staff is very active in the area of safeguards and
ensuring that the U.S. complies with all of its obligations,
but specifically, whether our staff has been discussing this
particular issue with the IAEA with safeguards by design, I
would request to take that for the record.
Senator Van Hollen. Got it. OK, if you could get back to us
in writing. I also have some other written questions on this
topic. Because I do, I think as many of my colleagues do, hope
that we will be able to innovate in this area of nuclear
technology for a variety of reasons.
At the same time, we need to be very careful in making sure
that it doesn't undermine the nuclear nonproliferation regime
that we have worked very hard to build over a period of time.
I hope that will be done in tandem going forward, in fact,
not just hope. We are going to work with you to insist that
that be done in order to protect against the risks of nuclear
nonproliferation.
Thank you both for being here.
I will submit some additional questions for the record.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, we welcome those.
Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
As you may know, Senator Whitehouse and I sent a letter to
Chairman Svinicki regarding the post-Fukushima rule that was
finalized by the commission last January. As you may know,
these changes made by the commission were against staff
recommendations.
Senator Whitehouse and I expressed concerns that changes to
the final rule made by the chairman missed the mark in
addressing the lessons learned from the Fukushima Daiichi
nuclear accident.
My question, and I guess this would be to you, Ms. Doane.
Our Nation's leading scientists tell us that flooding and storm
surges will continue to be the new normal in many parts of the
country, many parts of the world, as we are reminded of in
Australia today due to climate change. Do you still believe our
Nation's nuclear reactors should be required to be able to meet
the new flooding hazards that now exist due to climate change?
Ms. Doane. Yes, I do agree that they should meet the
hazards at the facilities. Yes.
Senator Carper. All right. Did the commission miss the mark
when they overturned the recommendations from you and your
staff?
Ms. Doane. As the staff, we will implement those directions
in a way that ensures adequate protection of public health and
safety with respect to reevaluated hazards, which is the issue
that was raised.
At this time, we are receiving documentation from the
licensees on how they are going to meet those reevaluated
hazards, and we have the authority to take all measures
necessary for adequate protection and also take measures where
we can demonstrate a substantial benefit to safety that is
justified by the cost of new changes.
So, yes, we have the full authority to ensure adequate
protection, even for the reevaluated hazard.
Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, can I ask just one more short
question?
Senator Barrasso. Go right ahead.
Senator Carper. Sometimes we ask questions of you that you
are able to answer, and sometimes you ask to be able to answer
for the record.
I am going to answer a different kind of question. For each
of us, give us one question that you wish you had been asked. I
want each of you to give us one question you wish you had been
asked.
Mr. Ficks. Do you like working at NRC?
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. Do you like working at NRC?
Mr. Ficks. I do, I love it.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. That is a good question. Do you want to ask
us the same question?
Mr. Ficks. Do you like working at the Senate?
Senator Carper. Almost every day.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. One or 2 days we could probably get by
without, but mostly we get a lot more done. We work a lot
better together, especially in this Committee, than you read
about it or hear about it in the media. They like to report bad
news and conflict. We are not very good at conflict.
Ms. Doane, same question. Give us a question that you wish
you had been asked. You can't use the same question.
Ms. Doane. Darn it, because it was a really good one, and
it was short, again. He has got a good economy with words.
Senator Carper. It is his nature.
Ms. Doane. Yes. So, the question I would want you to ask me
is, the staff of the NRC is incredible. They are so well
trained and I would have wanted to be asked, are we doing
everything we can to both retain them and recruit staff to meet
the needs of the future?
Senator Carper. I would like to ask that question, with
your permission. How would you respond?
Ms. Doane. I would respond in that we are very focused on
ensuring that we get them what they need. On these--with
respect to advanced reactors, our staff is very open minded,
and they are looking forward to this. They actually look at
this as a great possibility and good work to be done for the
country. They are very enthusiastic.
So, yes, we are looking our program start to finish, making
sure we identify gaps and using staff that is already there.
When the number of issues go down, like with a reactor closing,
taking staff and moving them over and getting them
opportunities for transformational learning.
Also, recruiting good staff, we have put in place a new
apprenticeship program. We are going to have our first class
this summer, so we are very excited about that. We have gone
out to universities, and really ensuring that we are going to
retain, bring in new staff, but also retain those really
important staff that are there doing such a great job.
Senator Carper. Well, that was a really great question. I
thought a pretty good answer, too.
Mr. Ficks, you get one more shot if you have a more serious
question.
Mr. Ficks. I guess the question would be, do you really
think NRC is becoming more modern.
Senator Carper. Do you?
Mr. Ficks. Yes. I tried to put the success stories in my
written testimony, just to make it very clear to you, but these
things don't happen overnight. They are a lot of work, and my
office, the Chief Financial Officer's office, has invested a
lot in fee transformation over the past 4 years, and I think
you are really seeing the yields of all that investment and
hard work, like the e-billing. We see that as a capstone, and
that fee validation process.
We are excited about the successes, and we want to continue
those.
Senator Carper. Great. Thank you both.
Senator Barrasso. If there are no more question from the
Senators, or questions of yourself, members may submit follow
up written questions for the record, and if you have additional
questions you would like to ask yourself, please include those
as well for the record because the hearing record is going to
stay open for 2 weeks.
[Laughter.]
Senator Barrasso. With that, I want to thank you both for
your testimony and for your cooperation and for all your help
today in understanding some of the complexities that we are
facing. Thank you.
With that, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:07 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[all]