[Joint House and Senate Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                  KEEPING US SAFE AND SECURE: OVERSIGHT OF 
                   THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

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

                          HYBRID JOINT HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

                                AND THE

                SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE 
                                 CHANGE

                                 OF THE

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             JULY 14, 2021

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-43
                           
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                           


     Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                   govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
                        energycommerce.house.gov
                        
                              __________

                                
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
51-911 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                          
                        
                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                     FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
                                 Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
ANNA G. ESHOO, California              Ranking Member
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              FRED UPTON, Michigan
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania             MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California          BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
KATHY CASTOR, Florida                DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland           ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
JERRY McNERNEY, California           H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
PAUL TONKO, New York                 BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York           BILLY LONG, Missouri
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
TONY CARDENAS, California            MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RAUL RUIZ, California                RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
SCOTT H. PETERS, California          TIM WALBERG, Michigan
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan             EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire         GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois, Vice       NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
    Chair                            JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California    DEBBBIE LESKO, Arizona
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia         GREG PENCE, Indiana
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware       DAN CRENSHAW, Texas
DARREN SOTO, Florida                 JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona              KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
KIM SCHRIER, Washington
LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
                                 ------                                

                           Professional Staff

                   JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
                TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
                  NATE HODSON, Minority Staff Director
                         Subcommittee on Energy

                        BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
                                 Chairman
                                 
SCOTT H. PETERS, California          FRED UPTON, Michigan
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania               Ranking Member
JERRY McNERNEY, California, Vice     MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
    Chair                            ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
PAUL TONKO, New York                 DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
KIM SCHRIER, Washington              H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
DORIS O. MATSUI, California          TIM WALBERG, Michigan
KATHY CASTOR, Florida                JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire         GREG PENCE, Indiana
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California    KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia         CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware           (ex officio)
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex 
    officio)
                                 ------                                

             Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change

                          PAUL TONKO, New York
                                 Chairman
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois               Ranking Member
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland           BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York           MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RAUL RUIZ, California, Vice Chair    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
SCOTT H. PETERS, California          EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan             JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California    GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia         JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware       DAN CRENSHAW, Texas
DARREN SOTO, Florida                 CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona                  (ex officio)
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex 
    officio)
                             C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of Illinois, opening statement.................................     3
    Prepared statement...........................................     4
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Michigan, opening statement....................................     4
    Prepared statement...........................................     6
Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  New York, opening statement....................................     7
    Prepared statement...........................................     8
Hon. David B. McKinley, a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of West Virginia, opening statement......................     9
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................    10
    Prepared statement...........................................    11
Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from 
  the State of Washington, opening statement.....................    12
    Prepared statement...........................................    14

                               Witnesses

Christopher T. Hanson, Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission...    15
    Prepared statement...........................................    17
    Answers to submitted questions \1\
Jeff Baran, Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission..........    31
    Prepared statement...........................................    33
    Answers to submitted questions...............................    96
David A. Wright, Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.....    35
    Prepared statement...........................................    37
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   100

----------

\1\ Mr. Hanson's replies have been retained in committee files and are 
available at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=112900.

 
    KEEPING US SAFE AND SECURE: OVERSIGHT OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY 
                               COMMISSION

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 2021

                  House of Representatives,
                             Subcommittee on Energy
                                 joint with
    Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 11:30 a.m., in 
the John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, 
and remotely via Cisco Webex online video conferencing, Hon. 
Bobby L. Rush (chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy) 
presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Rush, Tonko (Subcommittee 
on Energy chairman), DeGette, Schakowsky, Matsui, Castor, 
Sarbanes, McNerney, Welch, Clarke, Schrader, Ruiz, Peters, 
Dingell, Veasey, Kuster, Barragan, Blunt Rochester, Soto, 
O'Halleran, Schrier, Pallone (ex officio), Upton (Subcommittee 
on Energy ranking member), McKinley (Subcommittee on 
Environment and the Economy ranking member), Burgess, Latta, 
Kinzinger, Griffith, Johnson, Bucshon, Mullin, Hudson, Walberg, 
Carter, Duncan, Palmer, Curtis, Lesko, Pence, Crenshaw, 
Armstrong, and Rodgers (ex officio).
    Also present: Representative Joyce.
    Staff present: Jeffrey C. Carroll, Staff Director; Waverly 
Gordon, General Counsel; Tiffany Guarascio, Deputy Staff 
Director; Perry Hamilton, Clerk; Zach Kahan, Deputy Director, 
Outreach and Member Service; Rick Kessler Senior Advisor and 
Staff Director, Energy and Environment; Mackenzie Kuhl, Digital 
Assistant; Jourdan Lewis, Policy Coordinator; Tyler O'Connor, 
Energy Counsel; Lino Pena-Martinez, Policy Analyst; Kaitlin 
Peel, Digital Director; Tim Robinson, Chief Counsel; Chloe 
Rodriguez, Clerk; Andrew Souvall, Director of Communications, 
Outreach, and Member Services; Rebecca Tomilchik, Policy 
Analyst; Tuley Wright, Senior Energy and Environment Policy 
Advisor; Sarah Burke, Minority Deputy Staff Director; Michael 
Cameron, Minority Policy Analyst, Consumer Protection and 
Commerce, Energy, Environment; Nate Hodson, Minority Staff 
Director; Peter Kielty, Minority General Counsel; Emily King, 
Minority Member Services Director; Mary Martin, Minority Chief 
Counsel, Energy and Environment; and Michael Taggart, Minority 
Policy Director.
    Mr. Rush. Good morning, all. I am certainly happy to see 
you all this morning at today's hearing.
    There are some preliminary statements that we want to 
proceed with, but let me, in an official way, call the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Power and the Subcommittee on the 
Environment to order, and we will proceed. The joint committee 
is called to order.
    In order to provide our technical and digital staff with 
notice of the hearing start, I want to count down from five 
before calling the hearing to order, so let's do it all over 
again.
    Five, four, three, two, and one. The hearing is, once 
again, called to order.
    The Subcommittee on Energy and the Subcommittee on 
Environment and Climate Change will, for the third time, now 
come to order, just in case any of you might have missed it 
earlier.
    Today, the subcommittee is holding--subcommittees, rather, 
are holding a hearing entitled ``Keeping Us Safe and Secure: 
Oversight of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.''
    Due to the COVID-19 public health emergency, Members can 
participate in today's hearing either in person, or remotely, 
video online, video conferencing.
    Members who are not vaccinated and participating in person 
must wear a mask and be socially distanced. Such Members may 
remove their masks when they are under recognition and speaking 
from a microphone.
    Staff and press who are not vaccinated and present in the 
committee room must wear a mask at all times and be socially 
distanced.
    For Members participating remotely, your microphone will be 
set on mute for the purpose of eliminating inadvertent 
background noise. Members participating remotely will need to 
unmute your microphone each time you wish to speak.
    Please note that once you unmute your microphones, anything 
that is said in Webex will be heard over the loudspeakers in 
the committee room, and they will be subject to be heard by 
live stream and by the ever-present and omniscient C-SPAN.
    Since Members are participating from different locations in 
today's hearing, all recognition of Members, such as for 
questionings, will be in the order of full committee seniority.
    Documents for the record can be sent to Lino Pena-Martinez 
at the conclusion of today's hearing.
    The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes for the 
purposes of an opening statement.
    Today, the Subcommittee on Energy and the Subcommittee on 
Environment and Climate Change convene for a joint oversight 
hearing with a focus on maintaining the safety and security of 
our Nation's nuclear power facilities and nuclear materials.
    The committee will gavel--will recess for a moment.
    Stand in recess.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. Rush. The committee will now resume and reconvene. The 
committee is now reestablished, and the committee will now be 
called to order once again.
    Let me repeat that our recess was caused by technical 
difficulties that were experienced by not only the Chair but 
also various other Members of the subcommittees, and the House 
Recording Studio has now resolved those issues, so we will 
proceed again.
    The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes, for the 
remaining 4 minutes, 21--for 5 minutes for purposes of an 
opening statement.

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

    Once again, good morning.
    Today, the Subcommittee on Energy and the Subcommittee on 
Environment and Climate Change convenes for a joint hearing--
oversight hearing with a focus on maintaining the safety and 
security of our Nation's nuclear power facilities and nuclear 
materials.
    For this important topic, it is indeed a pleasure to have 
Chairman Christopher Hanson, Commissioner Jeff Baran, and 
Commissioner David Wright of the NRC before us today.
    Chairman Hanson, let me, first of all, take a moment to 
congratulate you on recently becoming the 18th chairman of the 
NRC.
    Since the NRC's establishment through the Energy 
Reorganization Act of 1974, it has functioned at being 
protection of public health through the licensing and 
regulation of the civilian use of radioactive material 
application. Further, it is promoting the protection of the 
environment and the security of nuclear activities through 
nuclear waste evaluation and international agreements.
    NRC's continued leadership is essential for these reasons 
and many, many more. For example, the NRC is a tool in the 
licensing and regulation of the commercial nuclear power 
industry, which is a major source of low-carbon electricity. 
The generation of electricity from carbon-free and low-carbon 
energy sources, like nuclear energy is critical in the face of 
the ever-present climate change.
    At present, nuclear power is the world's second-largest 
source of low-carbon electricity, just behind hydroelectric 
power. In the United States alone, last year, over 407 million 
metric tons of carbon dioxide pollution were avoided through 
nuclear power plants despite the decommissioning and closure of 
plants like those in my home State of Illinois.
    In light of these facts, nuclear power facilities and the 
low-carbon electricity that they produce are valuable tools as 
we work to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, which reduce 
climate change, reducing greenhouse gas pollution. In addition, 
the review of developing nuclear technologies, like small 
modular reactors and advanced reactors, is also equally 
important.
    Taking this all into account, we must make sizable 
investment in the oversight of nuclear facilities and materials 
to ensure their safety and security. That is why I am pleased 
to see the NRC's fiscal year 2022 budget request, which 
recommends a budget increase of $43.4 million above the fiscal 
year 2021 enacted level.
    In addition to this, it is important that the NRC conduct 
its oversight with deliberate consideration of these--of those 
populations that have historically borne the brunt of 
persistent environmental health disparities, which is caused by 
energy production and other environmental hazards.
    In this vein, I applaud the NRC's leadership for directing 
staff to review how environmental justice is addressed through 
the agency's programs, policies, and activity. Today, I look 
forward to a progress report on this directive and any related 
findings.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Rush follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Hon. Bobby L. Rush

    Good morning. Today, the Subcommittee on Energy and the 
Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change convene for a 
joint oversight hearing with a focus on maintaining the safety 
and security of our nation's nuclear power facilities and 
nuclear materials. For this important topic, it is a pleasure 
to have Chairman Christopher Hanson, Commissioner Jeff Baran, 
and Commissioner David Wright of the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) before us today. Chairman Hanson, I would like 
to take a moment to congratulate you on recently becoming the 
18th Chairman of the NRC.
    Since the NRC's establishment via the Energy Reorganization 
Act of 1974, it has fostered the protection of public health 
through the licensing and regulation of the civilian use of 
radioactive material applications. Further, it has promoted the 
protection of the environment and the security of nuclear 
activities through nuclear waste evaluations and international 
agreements.
    The NRC's continued leadership is essential for these 
reasons and more. For example, the NRC has a key role in the 
licensing and regulation of the commercial nuclear power 
industry, which is a major source of low-carbon electricity. 
The generation of electricity from carbon-free and low-carbon 
energy sources, like nuclear energy, is critical in the face of 
climate change.
    At present, nuclear power is the world's second largest 
source of low-carbon electricity just behind hydroelectric 
power. In the United States alone, last year, over 470 million 
metric tons of carbon dioxide pollution were avoided through 
nuclear power plants--despite the decommissioning and closure 
of plants, like those in my home state of Illinois.
    In light of these facts, nuclear power facilities, and the 
low-carbon electricity they produce, are valuable tools as we 
work to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels--which produce 
climate change inducing greenhouse gas pollution. In addition, 
the review of developing nuclear technologies, like small 
modular reactors and advanced reactors, is equally important. 
Taking this all into account, we must make sizeable investment 
in the oversight of nuclear facilities and materials to ensure 
their safety and security. This is why I am pleased to see the 
NRC's Fiscal Year 2022 budget request, which recommends a 
budget increase of $43.4 million above Fiscal Year 2021 enacted 
levels.
    In addition to this, it is important that the NRC conduct 
its oversight with deliberate consideration for those 
populations that have historically borne the brunt of 
persistent environmental health disparities--which have been 
caused by energy production and other environmental hazards. In 
this vein, I applaud NRC's leadership for directing staff to 
review how environmental justice is addressed through the 
agency's programs, policies, and activities. Today, I look 
forward to a progress report on this directive and any related 
findings.
    And with that, I yield to my friend and colleague, the 
Gentleman from Michigan, Ranking Member Upton, for 5 minutes.

    Mr. Rush. And, with that, I yield to my friend and 
colleague from the great station--great State, rather, of 
Michigan, our eminent ranking member, Ranking Member Upton, for 
5 minutes.
    You are now recognized.

   OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

    Mr. Upton. Well, thank you, my friend, Mr. Chairman.
    And this is one of those days where you could--even though 
this hearing is on Zoom, you could actually be just a few miles 
south of me in the great county of Berrien County in southwest 
Michigan, as we are not too far apart.
    You know, it has been a couple years since we have heard 
directly from the Commission, and, for the two of you, Chairman 
Hanson and Commissioner Wright, this is the first time before 
the committee as Commissioners, so I want to make sure that we 
have the welcome mat out for you.
    And welcome back, Commissioner Baran. As a former committee 
staffer, you understand our long interest in effective nuclear 
policies.
    So today's hearing offers the chance to hear how the NRC is 
rightsizing and adopting the changing industry dynamics and 
technologies in improving its own performance. The hearing 
should allow us to discuss your approach to regulating. It 
should allow us to hear an update on the agency's budget, its 
work to implement new statutory directives, and its work to 
transform itself to meet these future challenges.
    The NRC's focus on assuring adequate safety of radiological 
materials serves as a key role in shaping our nuclear future, 
and its mission to provide reasonable assurance of safety and 
security is critical for sure to building the public trust in 
nuclear technologies.
    I have seen the good results of the NRC's work. There are 
three nuclear power reactors in my district, two at D.C. Cook 
Nuclear Power, just about 10 miles south of where I am right 
now, and one at the Palisades plant just about 10 miles to the 
north.
    All of the men and women at these sites--the engineers, 
electricians, professional security workforce--help provide 
clean electricity for thousands--tens of thousands of 
Michigan's households. Their dedication to their work and the 
positive impacts on the surrounding communities is commendable 
for sure. And they have shown the community value of nuclear 
power and demonstrated safe, productive operations.
    When you consider the amazing benefits of clean, reliable 
nuclear power, when you think about the quality of work, the 
pride in the communities that nuclear produces, it is 
disheartening to watch what is happening to the Nation's 
operating fleet. Yes, there are now only 93 reactors, down from 
104 a decade ago, with several more to close soon, including 
the Palisades just to my north.
    The electricity market structure, renewable tax subsidies, 
abundant natural gas, reliable stable energy demand produced 
unprecedented economic impacts on nuclear power generation. The 
negative effects of this are happening and even impacting the 
NRC, just as a new class of advanced reactors is emerging on 
the horizon.
    So these are challenging times, and the NRC has got to meet 
them.
    Shortly before our last hearing with the Commission, the 
NRC's executive director of operations initiated a 
transformational effort building on other recent reforms that 
have led to ongoing work to improve its performance. And by the 
end of 2018, the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization 
Act also was enacted into law, which required the NRC fee 
reforms and a steady push for the development of a new advanced 
reactor regulatory framework.
    I would like to know how these efforts are playing out, and 
what do you think the end result ought to look like? Now, what 
we want is a nimble agency that ensures its procedures don't 
become impediments to a robust industry and our energy and 
national security interests.
    During my time as full committee chair, we dealt with some 
contentious NRC regulatory issues and would focus on NRC's 
principles of good regulation to guide our oversight. These 
principles remain as clear a guide as ever for what ought to be 
expected of the agency as it develops policies to assure 
safety. And I would remind you that these were bipartisan.
    We can talk about what these mean during the hearing, but I 
think it is crucial that the agency, under your leadership, 
focuses on these principles as you update management and 
regulatory activities that is going to benefit all taxpayers, 
ratepayers, licensees, and the public.
    I look forward to the discussion, and I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Fred Upton

    It has been a few years since we've heard directly from the 
Commission.
    For two of you--Chairman Hanson and Commissioner Wright--
this is the first time before the Committee as Commissioners, 
so welcome. And welcome back Commissioner Baran. As a former 
Committee staffer, you understand our long interest in 
effective nuclear policies.
    Today's hearing offers the chance to hear how the NRC is 
right-sizing and adapting to changing industry dynamics and 
technologies and improving its own performance. This hearing 
should allow us to discuss your approach to regulating. It 
should allow us to hear an update on the agency's budget, its 
work to implement new statutory directives, and its work to 
transform itself to meet future challenges.
    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's focus on assuring 
adequate safety of radiological materials serves a key role in 
shaping our nuclear future. Its mission to provide reasonable 
assurance of safety and security is critical to building the 
public trust in nuclear technologies.
    I've seen the good results of NRC's work. There are three 
nuclear power reactors in my district, two at the D.C. Cook 
Nuclear Power Plant, just south of my home town of St. Joseph 
and one at the Palisades Nuclear Plant, just to the north. All 
the men and women at these sites, the engineers, electricians, 
and the professional security workforce, help provide clean 
electricity for thousands of Michigan households. Their 
dedication to their work and the positive impacts on the 
surrounding communities is commendable.
    They have shown the community value of nuclear power--and 
demonstrated safe, productive operations. When you consider the 
amazing benefits of clean, reliable nuclear power. When you 
think about the quality of work, the pride in communities that 
nuclear produces, it is disheartening to watch what is 
happening to the nation's operating fleet.
    There are now 93 operating reactors, down from 104 a decade 
ago, with several more to close soon, including Palisades. 
Electricity market structures, renewable tax subsidies, 
abundant natural gas, and relatively stable energy demand 
produced unprecedented economic impacts on nuclear power 
generation.
    The negative effects of this are happening--and even 
impacting NRC--just as a new class of advanced reactors is 
emerging on the horizon. These are challenging times. And NRC 
has to meet them.
    Shortly before our last hearing with the Commission, the 
NRC's Executive Director of Operations initiated a 
``transformation'' effort building on other recent reforms that 
has led to ongoing work to improve its performance. By the end 
of 2018, the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act 
also was enacted into law, which required NRC fee reforms and a 
steady push for the development of a new advanced reactor 
regulatory framework.
    I'd like to know how these efforts are playing out--and 
what you think the end result should look like. What we want is 
a nimble agency that ensures its procedures do not become 
impediments to a robust industry, and our energy and national 
security interests.
    During my time as Full Committee Chairman, we dealt with 
some contentious NRC regulatory issues and would focus on NRC's 
Principles of Good Regulation to guide our oversight. Those 
principles remain as clear a guide as ever for what should be 
expected of the agency as it develops policies to assure 
safety.
    We can talk about what these mean during the hearing, but I 
think it is crucial the agency, under your leadership, focus on 
these principles as you update management and regulatory 
activities. This will benefit taxpayers, rate-payers, licensees 
and the public. I look forward to the discussion. Yield back.

    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
    And the Chair now recognizes Mr. Tonko, the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change, for 5 minutes 
for the purposes of an opening statement.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Am I audible? Can you hear 
me, Bobby?
    Mr. Rush. No, I can't.
    Yes, I hear you now.

   OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

    Mr. Tonko. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Rush, for 
leading today's hearing. It is a pleasure to cohost with you. 
And welcome to Chairman Hanson and Commissioner Wright, and a 
special welcome back to Commissioner Baran. We always 
appreciate your taking time from your important work to update 
the committee on the NRC's budget request and issues that come 
before the Commission.
    I will start by echoing Chairman Rush's comments about the 
importance of nuclear power, which accounts for one half of our 
carbon-free electricity. Nuclear is an important clean part of 
our energy mix, but as we know, many facilities face economic 
challenges. Several have closed prematurely in recent years, 
and several more are planned to close in the 2020s.
    We also know the reality that some portion of these plants' 
power will not be replaced with carbon-free electricity. And, 
even if it were to be, new clean megawatt hours brought online 
will backfill those lost clean electrons rather than increasing 
our overall supply of zero-emissions resources.
    So, for the sake of our urgent climate needs, it is, 
indeed, critical that existing reactors continue to operate 
through the end of their licenses. I support several potential 
Federal policies that would enable that to happen by 
recognizing the positive environmental attributes of nuclear 
energy.
    I also think that the Federal Government can help realize 
new potential revenue streams for these facilities, such as the 
production of clean hydrogen, through proper incentives, such 
as demonstration projects and loan guarantees. But of course, 
first and foremost, these reactors must continue to operate 
safely.
    In May, I was able to visit the Beaver Valley Power Station 
in Pennsylvania. I met with the facility's management, the 
security officials, and IBEW workforce. I was also fortunate 
enough to be able to spend time with the site's two NRC 
resident inspectors.
    It was clear that the NRC staff are dedicated public 
servants that care about safety, not only because they are 
consummate professionals but because they and their families 
live in the very communities that these facilities operate.
    Now, I have the utmost respect for the work of the NRC 
staff, and I want to ensure the Commission has the resources 
necessary to keep these onsite inspectors in place. Over the 
past 16 months, we have learned a lot about the nature of work 
and how much can be done remotely, including even congressional 
business. But safety and security inspectors--inspections at 
nuclear facilities cannot be conducted over Zooms.
    So I do hope that NRC inspectors are able to get back to 
work safely and that the Commission does not pursue actions 
that would reduce inspections or seek to substitute remote 
monitoring for in-person inspections and security tests. And, 
while safe operations are the top priority, I know Members are 
interested in learning about other proceedings before the 
Commission, including advanced reactors, environmental justice, 
and decommissioning.
    We also know the Commission, along with DOE and Congress, 
has a role to play in addressing our Nation's waste challenges. 
A long-term solution for existing spent fuel, not to mention 
potential waste from new advanced reactors, will certainly be 
critical to the long-term viability of nuclear power in this 
country.
    I want to thank the Commissioners again for joining us 
today and for their commitment to nuclear energy. I look 
forward to hearing your testimony about issues before the 
Commission, and I do hope that we can work together to ensure 
safe and secure nuclear energy continues to play a role in our 
Nation's effort to reduce air pollution and achieve science-
based climate targets.
    With that, I thank you, Chair Rush, and I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul Tonko

    Thank you, Chairman Rush for leading today's hearing.
    And welcome to Chairman Hanson and Commissioner Wright, and 
a special welcome back to Commissioner Baran.
    We always appreciate you taking time from your important 
work to update the Committee on the NRC's budget request and 
issues before the Commission.
    I'll start by echoing Chairman Rush's comments about the 
importance of nuclear power, which accounts for half of our 
carbon-free electricity.
    Nuclear is an important, clean part of our energy mix.
    But we know many facilities face economic challenges, 
several have closed prematurely in recent years, and several 
more are planned to close in the 2020s.
    We also know the reality that some portion of these plants' 
power will not be replaced with carbon-free electricity.
    And even if it were to be, new clean megawatt-hours brought 
online will backfill those lost clean electrons rather than 
increasing our overall supply of zero-emissions resources.
    So, for the sake of our urgent climate needs, it is 
critical that existing reactors continue to operate through the 
end of their licenses.
    I support several potential federal policies that would 
enable that to happen by recognizing the positive environmental 
attributes of nuclear energy.
    I also think the federal government can help realize new 
potential revenue streams for these facilities, such as the 
production of clean hydrogen, through proper incentives, such 
as demonstration projects and loan guarantees.
    But of course, first and foremost, these reactors must 
continue to operate safely.
    In May, I was able to visit the Beaver Valley Power Station 
in Pennsylvania. I met with the facility's management, security 
officials, and IBEW workforce. I was also fortunate enough to 
be able to spend time with the site's two NRC resident 
inspectors.
    It was clear that the NRC staff are dedicated public 
servants that care about safety not only because they are 
consummate professionals, but because they and their families 
live in the communities that these facilities operate.
    I have the utmost respect for the work of the NRC staff, 
and I want to ensure the Commission has the resources necessary 
to keep these on-site inspectors in place.
    Over the past 16 months, we have learned a lot about the 
nature of work and how much can be done remotely, including 
even Congressional business.
    But safety and security inspections at nuclear facilities 
cannot be conducted over Zooms.
    So, I hope NRC inspectors are able to get back to work 
safely, and the Commission does not pursue actions that would 
reduce inspections or seek to substitute remote monitoring for 
inperson inspections and security tests.
    And while safe operations are the top priority, I know 
Members are interested in hearing about other proceedings 
before the Commission, including for advanced reactors, 
environmental justice, and decommissioning.
    We also know the Commission, along with DOE and Congress, 
has a role to play in addressing our nation's waste challenges.
    A long-term solution for existing spent fuel--not to 
mention potential waste from new advanced reactors--will 
certainly be critical to the long-term viability of nuclear 
power in this country.
    I want to thank the Commissioners again for joining us 
today.
    I look forward to hearing your testimony about issues 
before the Commission, and I hope that we can work together to 
ensure safe and secure nuclear energy continues to play a role 
in our nation's efforts to reduce air pollution and achieve 
science-based climate targets.
    Thank you, Chairman Rush. I yield back.

    Mr. Rush. The chairman on the--of the Environment--on 
Environment and Climate Change, my friend from West Virginia, 
Mr. McKinley, for 5 minutes.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID B. McKINLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE 
          IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

    Mr. McKinley. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Look, there is a fundamental question that I think we need 
to address, and that is: Is Congress trying to address climate 
change that can be achieved by reducing carbon emissions, or is 
it using this debate as an opportunity to eliminate nuclear and 
fossil fuels? So, if the left wants to address climate change, 
then we should be embracing nuclear power and carbon capture.
    But, on nuclear power, Sanders--Bernie Sanders has said it 
is a false solution. In 2019, Elizabeth Warren said she hopes 
to phase out nuclear power by 2035--phase it out. The Sierra 
Club says it is unequivocally opposed to nuclear energy. 
Greenpeace calls nuclear power dirty, dangerous, and expensive. 
And, last month, Biden's hand-picked Environmental Justice 
Council concluded in its report that it is unalterably opposed 
to nuclear energy.
    So I know people will say one thing, but I want to make 
sure Congress is doing the right thing. It is clear to me that 
the left in Congress want to eliminate nuclear power and 
replace it with wind and solar, but what are the consequences 
of that, of transitioning to 100 percent by 2030 or 2035?
    Let me do the math for you. To replace a typical 1,000 
megawatt nuclear power plant with wind turbines and battery 
backup, we would require 1,430 windmills--wind turbines would 
need to be installed, and that, according to the National 
Renewable Energy Laboratory, which says that windmills require 
two-tenths of a square mile of land on average across the 
country, so do the math. That is the equivalent of 286 square 
miles--286 square miles, roughly the size of the land mass in 
New York City. And also, for Frank Pallone, that is still 
larger--almost 50 percent larger than his entire congressional 
district.
    And this is just for one of 94 existing nuclear power 
plants, let alone adding in the fossil fuel power plants that 
would have to be replaced with land mass. According to this 
much land, to acquire that by 2030 or 2035, we are--Congress or 
the utilities and the States would have to have--use eminent 
domain. And then that would cause extensive litigation.
    So the idea of trying to achieve it by 2035 is simply not 
feasible. And, on top of the land mass grab, if the U.S. did 
transition to 100 percent renewables by 2030, 2035, it is--we 
have already had testimony, Mr. Chairman, of course utility 
bills are going to go up. Thousands of jobs would disappear. 
The global CO2 levels would still be a dangerous 
level--above 350 parts per million, according to John Kerry--
and America would still experience extreme weather events, like 
hurricanes on the East Coast, wildfires, droughts, and 
flooding.
    So--but, if the objective is to reduce carbon emissions, we 
should be promoting nuclear energy and investing in carbon 
capture. But in order to have a serious conversation about 
that, about climate change, the left needs to be honest with 
the American people about the true motive. Are we trying to 
reduce carbon emissions, or are we trying to eliminate nuclear 
and fossil fuels?
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the chairman of the full 
committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE 
            IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Rush.
    Today, the committee continues its longstanding tradition 
of conducting oversight of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
and I want to welcome new NRC Chairman Christopher Hanson, 
Commissioner Jeff Baran, and former Energy and Commerce staffer 
and Commissioner David Wright. Thank you for joining us today.
    Nuclear power has a role to play in our efforts to tackle 
the climate crisis. Last year, the power sector accounted for 
nearly a third of total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. Studies 
show that, to achieve 100 percent decarbonization affordably, 
we need reliable, carbon-free resources that can sustain output 
for long periods of time.
    Now, my home State of New Jersey has three operational 
nuclear power reactors at the Salem and Hope Creek plants in 
the southern part of our State. The State is also home to the 
Oyster Creek Nuclear Plant, which ceased operations in 2018, 
and is now in the decommissioning process. NRC's oversight of 
operating reactors and those in the decommissioning process is 
critical to the health and safety of those in surrounding 
communities.
    One issue that is important to my State and many others 
that are home to these shuttered nuclear power plants is NRC's 
proposed decommissioning rulemaking. As more nuclear plants 
retire, the decommissioning process must work for all 
stakeholders. And this role has been in the works since 2018, 
but I remain seriously concerned with several aspects of it.
    I believe the rule provides an insufficient role for local 
communities to participate in the decommissioning process. 
Further, the lack of official NRC approval or disapproval of a 
plant's decommissioning plan is both puzzling and disturbing.
    I also have concerns with proposed changes of the 
Commission's Reactor Oversight Process, the program that 
oversees safety and security of our Nation's nuclear power 
plants. I am particularly troubled by proposals that would 
arbitrarily reduce core safety inspections and reduce the 
importance of public reporting of so-called white findings, 
which are safety or security issues of moderate significance.
    Effecting fewer safety inspections at nuclear plants, even 
at the plants with the best safety records, could lead to 
safety and security gaps that are ultimately missed by nuclear 
regulators. And multiple white findings at a plant can also 
point to larger systematic safety or security issues, and 
therefore we should not underestimate the importance of 
analyzing these factors.
    The nuclear industry frequently touts its safety successes 
over the past decades, but that success is partly due to the 
efforts of Federal regulators to stay on top of inspections and 
safety protocols at plants across the country. Making nuclear 
power more cost competitive by weakening NRC's safety 
oversight, I think, is dangerous and ultimately self-defeating.
    Now, lastly, NRC announced it would begin to review how the 
Commission's programs and policies address environmental 
justice. Underserved communities and communities of color have 
disproportionately faced the negative effects of energy 
generation and climate change, and I welcome the NRC's 
environmental justice review, and I hope it leads to greater 
consideration and inclusion of the views of these marginalized 
communities.
    We must also find a solution to address our Nation's need 
to safely store and dispose of spent nuclear fuel. Last year, 
President Trump drove a stake through the heart of the Yucca 
Mountain project when he reversed his support for the project 
and eliminated its funding. Now, I continue to believe interim 
storage is the best near-term solution to stop the waste 
stalemate and maintain our commitment to communities and 
ratepayers.
    The NRC is critical to ensuring the safe and reliable 
robust nuclear energy sector. I look forward to your testimony 
today as we discuss the path forward, and I yield back the 
balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

    Today the Committee continues its longstanding tradition of 
conducting oversight of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC). I want to welcome new NRC Chairman Christopher Hanson, 
Commissioner Jeff Baran--a former Energy and Commerce staffer--
and Commissioner David Wright. Thank you for joining us today.
    Nuclear power has a role to play in our efforts to tackle 
the climate crisis. Last year, the power sector accounted for 
nearly a third of total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. Studies 
show that to achieve 100 percent decarbonization affordably, we 
need reliable carbon-free resources that can sustain output for 
long periods of time.
    My home state of New Jersey has three operational nuclear 
power reactors at the Salem and Hope Creek plants in the 
southern part of the state. The state is also home to the 
Oyster Creek nuclear plant, which ceased operations in 2018 and 
is now in the decommissioning process. NRC's oversight of 
operating reactors--and those in the decommissioning process--
is critical to the health and safety of those in surrounding 
communities.
    One issue that is important to my state and many others 
that are home to shuttered nuclear power plants is NRC's 
proposed ``Decommissioning Rulemaking.'' As more nuclear plants 
retire, the decommissioning process must work for all 
stakeholders. This rule has been in the works since 2018, but I 
remain seriously concerned with several aspects of it. I 
believe the rule provides an insufficient role for local 
communities to participate in the decommissioning process. 
Further, the lack of official NRC approval or disapproval of a 
plant's decommissioning plan is both puzzling and disturbing.
    I also have concerns with proposed changes to the 
Commission's Reactor Oversight Process, the program that 
oversees safety and security at our nation's nuclear power 
plants. I am particularly troubled by proposals that would 
arbitrarily reduce core safety inspections and reduce the 
importance and public reporting of so-called "white" findings, 
which are safety or security issues of moderate significance. 
Conducting fewer safety inspections at nuclear plants--even at 
the plants with the best safety records--could lead to safety 
and security gaps that are ultimately missed by nuclear 
regulators. And multiple white findings at a plant can often 
point to larger, systemic safety or security issues, and 
therefore we should not underestimate the importance of 
analyzing these factors.
    The nuclear industry frequently touts its safety successes 
over the past decades, but that success is partly due to the 
efforts of federal regulators to stay on top of inspections and 
safety protocols at plants across the country. Making nuclear 
power more cost competitive by weakening NRC's safety oversight 
is dangerous and, ultimately, self-defeating.
    Last week, NRC announced it would begin to review how the 
Commission's programs and policies address environmental 
justice. Underserved communities and communities of color have 
disproportionately faced the negative effects of energy 
generation and climate change. I welcome the NRC environmental 
justice review and hope it leads to greater consideration and 
inclusion of the views of these marginalized communities.
    We must also find a solution to address our nation's need 
to safely store and dispose of spent nuclear fuel. Last year, 
President Trump drove a stake through the heart of the Yucca 
Mountain project when he reversed his support for the project 
and eliminated its funding. I continue to believe interim 
storage is the best near-term solution to stop the nuclear 
waste stalemate and maintain our commitment to communities and 
ratepayers.
    The NRC is critical to ensuring a safe and reliable U.S. 
nuclear energy sector. I look forward to your testimony today 
as we discuss the path forward, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.

    Mr. Rush. Thank you. The chairman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full 
committee, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, for 5 minutes for the 
purposes of an opening statement.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A 
    REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

    Mrs. Rodgers. Good morning.
    From clean, reliable power generation to industrial uses, 
to medical diagnostics and treatment, nuclear technologies are 
helping America win the future. These benefits extend 
worldwide, thanks to long-established American leadership.
    Sixty-seven years ago, Congress enacted the essential 
policies that continue to guide safe nuclear development for 
here at home and that we export abroad. The Atomic Energy Act 
sought to encourage the widespread use of atomic energy for 
peaceful purposes, consistent with ensuring our common defense 
and our public health and safety.
    With that policy, we led the world for decades in the 
development of civilian nuclear technologies. It also set the 
standard for safety and security that continues to this day. 
The world we are confronting today, however, presents new 
challenges to our technological leadership.
    For nuclear power generation, there are international 
challenges, notably from China and other nation states that are 
working to dominate emerging nuclear markets. There are 
domestic economic challenges. Certain Federal and State 
policies undermine the economic vitality of nuclear reactors in 
some regions, even if they are necessary to provide reliable, 
clean, zero-emission power.
    This, in turn, threatens long-term American nuclear 
competitiveness and strategic interests. It risks loss of our 
nuclear industrial base, future innovation, and workers with 
operational know-how, not to mention the harmful consequences 
in communities when nuclear plants shut down.
    To be sure, these nuclear policy issues hover outside the 
purview--some of these energy policies hover outside the 
purview of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's mission as an 
independent safety regulator.
    In keeping the Atomic Energy Act goals, the agencies should 
operate in ways that do not add to the challenges. As the NRC 
chairman, Chris Hanson himself, noted in March in a speech that 
he gave, quote, ``The NRC must do its best not to be an 
impediment to innovation and deployment.'' I agree with that.
    A key question for this hearing concerns how this agency 
plans to unleash innovation going forward. Will it update its 
regulations to account for the best available data and 
operational experience? Will it establish predictable, clear 
regulations appropriate to the risk of the technologies it 
licenses? To address future climate risk, to strengthen our 
global competitiveness and security, beat China, and win the 
future of nuclear, there is an urgent need to deploy innovative 
new technologies.
    There is a lot to be excited about. The Pacific Northwest 
alone hosts a number of advanced nuclear companies working 
toward demonstrating and licensing. NRC's actions in the next 
few years will be critical for these companies. Oregon-based 
NuScale Power's small nuclear reactor, the modular reactor, has 
just reached the last step to finalize NRC's design 
certification. TerraPower's Natrium and X-energy's Xe-100, both 
are collaborating with Energy Northwest to develop projects for 
demonstration.
    The safety attributes of these small nuclear technologies 
promise a range of new deployment opportunities. X-energy also 
is seeking to certify TRISO fuels, which promise additional 
safety benefits.
    To fully capture these economic, innovative, and climate 
benefits, the NRC must be prepared to renew, license, and 
regulate these technologies in a timely and efficient manner. 
Fortunately, the NRC has been working toward this goal, and it 
possesses a wealth of information for smart regulations that 
meet the safety mission appropriately.
    Former Commissioner Annie Caputo noted recently that the 
nuclear industry has more than 4,500 combined years of 
operational experience with generating nuclear power. Because 
of the lessons of this experience, the U.S. nuclear fleet is 
operating at the highest levels of performance and safety in 
its history.
    In 2019 and 2020, the industry produced record levels of 
power with fewer operating plants. Performance like this is 
achieved through safe operations, and this experience should 
continue to inform NRC as it seeks to improve how it performs 
its mission.
    I look forward to this discussion today. And, with that, I 
yield back the balance of my time.
    Thank you, everyone.
    [The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:]

           Prepared Statement of Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers

    From clean, reliable power generation to industrial uses to 
medical diagnostics and treatment, nuclear technologies are 
helping America win the future.
    These benefits extend world-wide, thanks to long 
established American leadership. Sixty-seven years ago, 
Congress enacted the essential policies that continue to guide 
safe nuclear development for here at home and that we export 
abroad.
    The Atomic Energy Act sought to encourage the widespread 
use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes, consistent with 
ensuring our common defense and public health and safety. With 
that policy, we led the world for several decades in 
development of civilian nuclear technologies. It also set the 
standard for safety and security that continues to this day.
    The world we are confronting today, however, presents new 
challenges to our technological leadership. For nuclear power 
generation there are international challenges; notably from 
China and other nation-states that are working to dominate 
emerging nuclear markets.
    There are domestic economic challenges. Certain federal and 
state policies undermine the economic vitality of nuclear 
reactors in some regions-even if they are necessary to provide 
reliable, clean, zero-emission power.
    This in turn threatens long-term American nuclear 
competitiveness and strategic interests. It risks loss of our 
nuclear industrial base, future innovation, and workers with 
operational know-how, not to mention harmful consequences in 
communities when nuclear plants shut down.
    To be sure, these energy policy issues hover outside the 
purview of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's mission as an 
independent safety regulator. In keeping with Atomic Energy Act 
goals, the agency should operate in ways that do not add to the 
challenges.
    As NRC Chairman Chris Hanson himself noted in a March 
speech: ``The NRC must do its best not to be an impediment to 
innovation and deployment.'' I agree with that. A key question 
for this hearing concerns how this agency plans to unleash 
innovation going forward.
    Will it update its regulations to account for the best 
available data and operational experience? Will it establish 
predictable, clear regulations appropriate to the risks of the 
technologies it licenses?
    To address future climate risks, to strengthen our global 
competitiveness and security, beat China, and win the future of 
nuclear, there is urgent need to deploy innovative new 
technologies.
    There is a lot to be excited about. The Pacific Northwest 
alone hosts a number of advanced nuclear companies working 
towards demonstrating and licensing. NRC actions in the next 
few years will be critical for these companies.
    Oregon-based NuScale Power's small modular reactor has just 
reached the last step to finalize NRC's design certification.
    TerraPower's Natrium and X-Energy's Xe-100 both are 
collaborating with Energy Northwest to develop projects for 
demonstration.
    The safety attributes of these small modular technologies 
promise a range of new deployment opportunities. X-Energy also 
is seeking to certify advanced TRISO [TRY-so] fuels, which 
promise additional safety benefits.
    To fully capture these economic, innovation, and climate 
benefits, the NRC must be prepared to review, license, and 
regulate these technologies in a timely and efficient manner. 
Fortunately, the NRC has been working towards this goal. And it 
possesses a wealth of information for smart regulations that 
meet the safety mission appropriately.
    Former Commissioner Annie Caputo noted recently that the 
nuclear industry has more than 4,500 combined years of 
operational experience with generating nuclear power. Because 
of the lessons of this experience, the U.S nuclear fleet is 
operating at the highest levels of performance and safety in 
its history.
    In 2019 and 2020 the industry produced record levels of 
power, with fewer operating plants. Performance like this is 
achieved through safe operations. And this experience should 
continue to inform NRC as it seeks to improve how it performs 
its mission. I look forward to discussing that today.

    Mr. Rush. The ranking member for the full committee yields 
back.
    It is now the time for our witnesses' testimony, their 
statements, and I would like to, once again, welcome our 
witnesses for today's hearing.
    Our witnesses are the Honorable Christopher T. Hanson, the 
Chairman of the NRC; the Honorable Jeff Baran, Commissioner of 
the NRC; the Honorable David A. Wright, Commissioner of the 
NRC. I want to thank each and every one of you for joining us 
today. We look forward to your testimony.
    Chairman Hanson, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for 
the purposes of an opening statement.

 STATEMENTS OF CHRISTOPHER T. HANSON, CHAIRMAN, AND JEFF BARAN 
    AND DAVID A. WRIGHT, COMMISSIONERS, NUCLEAR REGULATORY 
                           COMMISSION

               STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER T. HANSON

    Mr. Hanson. Chairman Rush, thank you very, very much for 
that introduction. And Chairman Pallone and Chairman Tonko, 
Ranking Members McMorris Rodgers, Upton, and McKinley, and 
distinguished members of the subcommittees, Commissioner Baran, 
Commissioner Wright, and I appreciate the opportunity to update 
you on the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's licensing and 
oversight activities, as well as the fiscal year 2022 budget 
request.
    The NRC is an independent Federal agency established to 
protect the public health and safety through the regulation of 
commercial nuclear power plants; research, test, and training 
reactors; nuclear fuel cycle facilities; and civilian use of 
nuclear materials.
    Additionally, the agency regulates transportation, storage, 
disposal, and export and import of nuclear materials and waste, 
and the export and import of nuclear reactors and production 
facilities, and the export of nuclear facility components.
    The past year has been one of change and innovation for the 
agency. In response to the Department of Health and Human 
Services declaration of the COVID-19 public health emergency, 
the NRC took several steps to protect the safety of our 
workforce, while continuing to perform our important safety and 
security mission. To ensure that the agency could remain agile 
and responsive in its regulatory oversight role during the 
pandemic, the NRC implemented a number of interim processes and 
procedures.
    In addition, the agency was able to remain committed to 
public service and engagement, despite limitations of in-person 
meetings due to the public health emergency. Most of our public 
meetings held over the last 15 months have taken full advantage 
of communications technology, and effectively reached broad 
audiences.
    In short, while the public health emergency posed some 
challenges, the NRC has remained committed to its regulatory 
oversight role and steadfast at adhering to its mission.
    In March, the NRC issued annual performance letters to the 
operators of the Nation's 93 operating commercial nuclear 
reactors. Eighty-nine reactors reached the highest performance 
category and fully met our safety and security performance 
objectives. Only four reactors were in the second and third 
performance categories, needing additional inspection and 
oversight. There were no reactors in the fourth performance 
category, and all continue to operate safely.
    Since December 2019, the NRC renewed reactor licenses for 
three nuclear power plants for a period of--from 60 to 80 
years, and is currently reviewing two more applications for 
subsequent license renewal while performing acceptance review 
of another.
    The staff is also preparing for completion of construction 
and anticipated transition to operations of the two Vogtle 
reactor units in Georgia, subject to the agency's regulatory 
approval process. Inspections are proceeding in accordance with 
the licensees' continued work at the site.
    Further, the agency is hard at work developing the new 10 
CFR Part 53, which will define a technology-inclusive, 
performance-based requirements for advanced nuclear reactors. 
We anticipate publication of the final rule in October 2024, 
well ahead of the schedule required by the Nuclear Innovation 
and Modernization Act.
    Working closely with our international counterparts, the 
NRC regularly engages in a wide range of bilateral and 
multilateral activities that enhance the safety and security of 
nuclear activities worldwide. With all this work going on at 
the agency, we understand the importance of having a highly 
skilled and committed workforce, with the expertise needed to 
carry out its duties now and in the future.
    To this end, the agency is engaging in strategic workforce 
planning for the future, and prioritizing an open, inclusive, 
and collaborative work environment where members of our 
workforce feel comfortable raising questions or concerns 
without fear of reprisal or retaliation.
    Finally, the NRC's fiscal year 2022 budget request is 
$887.7 million, including 2,879 full-time equivalent employees. 
When compared to the fiscal year 2021 enacted budget and 
authorized carryover, this represents an increase of 24.4 
million, primarily to support salaries, benefits, and awards 
adjustments. The budget request reflects the funds needed for 
important future and ongoing work at the agency. For example, 
it includes 23 million for the continued development of the 
regulatory infrastructure for advanced reactor technologies.
    In closing, the NRC remains deeply committed to protecting 
public health and safety and the environment, as well as 
ensuring the long-term safety and security of nuclear power 
facilities and nuclear materials. We are closely monitoring the 
changing environment, tackling new challenges, and taking new 
approaches to address the issues that confront us.
    Chairman Pallone, Chairman Rush, and Chairman Tonko, 
Ranking Members McMorris Rodgers, Upton, and McKinley, and 
distinguished members of the subcommittees, I thank you for the 
opportunity to appear before you today, and we look forward to 
taking any questions that you might have.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hanson follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Rush. Thank you so very much.
    The Chair now recognizes Commissioner Baran for 5 minutes 
for purposes of an opening statement.

                    STATEMENT OF JEFF BARAN

    Mr. Baran. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 
It is great to be back with my colleagues to discuss NRC's 
important work.
    I want to take a few minutes to focus on three pressing 
challenges affecting NRC: The fight against climate change, the 
response to COVID-19 pandemic, and the pursuit of environmental 
justice.
    Policymakers and the public are increasingly focused on 
climate change and on dramatically reducing carbon emissions. 
The urgency and scale of the climate challenge have led to a 
public debate about the available emission-reduction 
technologies and the role of nuclear. Obviously NRC is not 
charged with setting broad energy policy. We don't get involved 
in decisions about electricity market design, carbon pricing, 
or electricity generation portfolios.
    Our focus is on ensuring the safety and security of 
whatever amount of nuclear power is used. But I think it is 
clear that meeting ambitious climate goals will involve nuclear 
power. I see NRC's nexus to climate change in two main areas: 
the operating fleet and new reactors. For the long-term 
operation of existing nuclear power plants, NRC's role is to 
provide strong safety and security standards and rigorous 
independent oversight.
    In recent years, there has been a counterproductive 
emphasis on reducing inspections, cutting costs, and creating 
ever more restrictive constraints on agency action. In my view, 
we need to refocus on safety and the basic value of oversight. 
Instead of contemplating reductions in the frequency or number 
of vital safety and security inspections, we need to pursue 
changes that will improve NRC oversight, not weaken it.
    The Reactor Oversight Process has generally been an 
effective safety framework. If we are going to make a 
particular change, there should be a solid safety case for the 
change. We should not adjust safety standards or oversight 
based mainly on cost considerations. This program affects every 
operating reactor in the country, and we need to firmly focus 
on the safety and security impacts of our decisions.
    Of course, NRC needs to be open to and ready for new 
technologies that could improve safety. Whether it is digital 
instrumentation and control, accident-tolerant fuels, sensors, 
advanced manufacturing techniques, or artificial intelligence, 
we need to establish a reliable regulatory framework for 
reviewing these technologies while ensuring that they are 
adopted safely without introducing any unacceptable risks.
    The other main climate-related role for NRC is the 
licensing and oversight of new reactors. Right now, our main 
goal is to establish the right regulatory framework for the 
review and safe operation of new technologies, such as advanced 
reactors.
    NRC's current power reactor regulations were written for 
light-water reactors, which make up the entire existing fleet. 
It makes sense to update those requirements to address 
different technologies.
    New reactor designs have the potential to be safer than 
existing designs. The challenge is striking a reasonable 
balance between taking into account the value of new safety 
attributes and maintaining a prudent degree of defense-in-
depth. Some elements of NRC's existing regulations for large 
light-water reactors won't be appropriate for nonlight-water 
reactors.
    Other requirements reflect enduring defense-in-depth 
principles that should apply to advanced reactors, such as the 
need for appropriate emergency planning and siting. This is 
especially true for new technologies with little or no 
operating experience.
    As Chairman Hanson noted, responding to the COVID-19 
pandemic has been another major priority for the agency. To 
continue our work, the agency has largely been operating 
virtually with almost all the headquarters and regional staff 
teleworking. Fortunately we have had the IT in place to carry 
on effectively.
    The toughest balance for NRC to strike has been on 
inspections. For the first few months of the pandemic, we were 
conducting very few in-person safety and security inspections, 
and resident inspectors were on site far less than usual. The 
resident inspectors are now getting back on site more 
frequently, and the regions are getting back to in-person team 
safety and security inspections. I think it is a very positive 
development that the staff has set a goal of getting back to 
normal levels of oversight this year.
    During the pandemic, some inspections were performed 
remotely out of necessity. I see that as a temporary measure 
that made sense during an extremely unusual and challenging 
public health emergency. As we move into the new normal in the 
coming months, I think there is broad agreement on the value of 
and need for in-person safety and security inspections. There 
is no substitute for having independent NRC inspectors on site.
    NRC must also pursue environmental justice. We must meet 
the moment and be ambitious. We cannot settle for doing things 
the way they have always been done. We need to ask tough 
questions about our programs and procedures to understand if 
they are serving disadvantaged communities or, instead, 
creating barriers for them to overcome.
    I am excited that the Commission unanimously tasked the 
staff with performing a systematic review of whether 
environmental justice is appropriately considered and addressed 
in the agency's programs, policies, and activities. It is my 
expectation is that the staff will consult with a broad range 
of stakeholders and develop recommendations to improve how the 
agency pursues environmental justice. Our goal should be to 
achieve significant tangible results.
    We have a lot of work ahead of us, but I am confident that 
the NRC will do its part to tackle these challenges.
    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Baran follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the Commissioner.
    And the Chair now recognizes Commissioner Wright for 5 
minutes for the purposes of an opening statement.

                  STATEMENT OF DAVID A. WRIGHT

    Mr. Wright. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Rush.
    And, if I could, before I begin, I would just like to 
clarify the record maybe really quick. And really, thank you 
for the warm welcome, but I can't for a minute take credit for 
the work of Commissioner Baran before this committee when he 
worked here, I think, under Chairman Waxman. So it was he that 
worked for the committee, not me. So I just wanted to make that 
clarification, if I could.
    So, with that, good morning, Chairman Rush and Chairman 
Tonko and Ranking Members Upton and McKinley and esteemed 
members of the subcommittees, thank you for the opportunity to 
testify today. And it is wonderful to be here in person too.
    I would like to start by thanking my colleagues, my staff, 
and the NRC staff for their assistance in getting ready for 
this hearing. I am honored to serve alongside my fellow 
Commissioners, and I appreciate their collegiality and insights 
on each of the matters that come before the Commission.
    It is bittersweet, though, to be here today with only three 
of us now. We work best with the full complement of 
Commissioners. And, although it has only been a couple of weeks 
since Commissioner Caputo departed, I know we are missing out 
on the additional perspectives and wisdom two additional 
Commissioners would bring to our deliberative process.
    I would also like to thank the NRC staff for their work and 
dedication to the agency's critical safety mission. I am 
humbled by their efforts, particularly during the past year and 
a half during COVID and the pandemic. So, before the pandemic, 
I spent considerable time walking the halls of the NRC and 
visiting facilities. These impromptu meetings and visits 
provided me invaluable insights into the agency's priorities, 
successes, and challenges.
    I learned that success is easy to define. It is the safe 
and secure operation of the civilian nuclear fleet. And this is 
a shared goal of the Commission, our staff, and our licensees. 
The challenge now is how to reach that goal in the most 
effective, efficient, and reliable way while dealing with 
uncertainties, new technologies, and changes in the regulatory 
environment.
    I believe the NRC is up to the challenge, and I am excited 
by the transformational and innovative initiatives that are 
going on at the NRC. The staff's hard work and inclusive 
approach is inspiring to me.
    I am also pleased to see the work we are doing to improve 
our budgeting processes in response to the Nuclear Energy 
Innovation and Modernization Act.
    Finally, I am impressed with how the staff has used 
challenges from the pandemic to leverage technology and new 
ways of doing things. I see change--in particular, changes to 
how we perform our work--as an opportunity. Change allows us to 
use data and experience to recalibrate our activities and 
perform our mission in a smarter way, a more effective as a 
regulator, ready to regulate both existing and new 
technologies.
    So, with that, I will close and thank you, and I look 
forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Wright follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Rush. This concludes our opening statements.
    We will now move to Member questions. Each Member will have 
5 minutes to ask questions of our witnesses, and I will begin 
by recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
    The commercialization of small modular and advanced nuclear 
reactors are indeed promising technologies that could further 
power our path toward a cleaner economy. However, some experts 
believe that the licensing of these technologies presents 
regulatory challenges that may require modification to existing 
regulatory requirements.
    Chairman Hanson, in what ways will the requested fiscal 
year 2022 NRC budget support the agency in licensing processes 
or regulations for these varieties of technologies?
    Mr. Hanson. Chairman Rush, thank you for that question.
    The--our fiscal year 2022 budget request includes $23 
million that is off fee--that is, it is strictly appropriated 
from taxpayers for the development of a regulatory framework 
for advanced reactors. One of the key elements of this in the--
among the issues that the staff is balancing is, as you said, 
is ensuring that safety is at the heart of that regulatory 
framework, also that there are some adjacency to regulatory 
frameworks that have come before. That is so that vendors and 
utilities who might come in for those applications can 
recognize key elements.
    But, as also part of that process, Chairman, we are 
having--we have really changed the way we are developing this 
regulation by having frequent and substantive interactions with 
all of our stakeholders early and often as part of that process 
to get as much feedback so that we can learn about the wide 
array of technologies that the agency may have to regulate, and 
understanding the safety aspects of those upfront so that those 
challenges, those issues, those safety matters can be 
incorporated into that rule.
    And also, so that by the time we get through this process 
with a draft rule in May 2022 and a final rule in 2024, that 
stakeholders and the community, both public interest groups, 
vendors, and utilities, will understand well in advance what 
that rule is made of.
    Mr. Rush. And small modular and advanced nuclear reactor 
designs present an opportunity for a commercial nuclear 
industry to evolve in ways that would enhance aforementioned 
safety and increase efficiency.
    Chairman Hanson, again, how should NRC regulations and 
licensing process take the evolution of small modular and 
advanced nuclear reactor designs into consideration?
    Mr. Hanson. Yes. Thank you again for that, Chairman Rush.
    We really are looking at each of the technologies that both 
the size components, where we are evaluating what is known as 
the source term--that is, the constituents of radioactivity 
that could be released in an accident scenario, also looking at 
the other aspects of advanced reactors, such as the fact that 
some of them operate at atmospheric pressure, that they use 
unique coolants or moderators to control the nuclear reaction, 
as well as other kind of ancillary technologies that may be 
bolted onto those reactors, such as molten salt batteries or 
hydrogen production or other kinds of things.
    And we are really kind of taking all of that into 
consideration to understand the safety aspects and the risks so 
that we can make a determination so we can create, first of 
all, a regulatory framework that ultimately allows us to make a 
determination about the safety of these technologies.
    Mr. Rush. This year, the NRC directed Commission staff to 
systematically review how environmental justice is addressed in 
its program, policies, and activities.
    Chairman Hanson and Commissioner Baran, will you provide 
the subcommittee with a brief update of the NRC's environmental 
justice review?
    Mr. Hanson. Happily. As----
    Mr. Rush. Thank you.
    Mr. Hanson [continuing]. The Chair noted--yes.
    Mr. Rush. And, in addition----
    Mr. Hanson. Yes. The--we have a staff group that is looking 
at this kind of per-Commission direction, Chairman Rush, that 
is looking at, as we said, at taking a comprehensive review of 
the environmental justice issue. That group is underway. There 
is a charter that has been developed--we are happy to provide 
that to the committee--that outlines their work.
    And I believe there are a couple of public meetings, if not 
today, then tomorrow on this issue to get public feedback.
    Mr. Rush. Thank you. My time has expired.
    The Chair now recognizes the chairman of the Committee on 
Environment, Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you again to our 
Commissioners.
    We know the difficulties caused by the COVID-19 public 
health emergency. But, during this time, the NRC and licensees 
have continued to operate reliably and safely. So, Chairman, is 
there anything you have learned from that--from this period 
that might help to inform how the NRC could better operate or 
conduct oversight of the industry moving forward?
    Mr. Hanson. Yes. Thank you, Chairman Tonko.
    We are really accumulating the lessons learned from the 
public health emergency as we speak. We do have a couple of 
observations going forward.
    I think the first one from our resident inspectors that you 
mentioned, speaking with two of them at Beaver Valley--and I 
did so recently as well--that there is kind of no substitute 
for boots on the ground when it comes to reactor inspection. 
And we were able to do a lot of that even during the public 
health emergency where we were able to safely bring on our 
inspectors on site.
    Other activities, such as document reviews--and even online 
plant performance data was able to be done in some cases on the 
plant site, but often cases remotely, and that seemed to work 
fairly well.
    So it is that kind of balance where there--you know, we 
recognize there are some activities that can be done, like I 
said, like reviewing plant operating data, that can be done 
remotely. But we also really have an even deeper appreciation 
for the importance of onsite activities through the public 
health emergency.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Chair.
    And, Commissioner Wright, what is your thinking? Any 
lessons learned from NRC's pandemic response that could be 
carried forward?
    Mr. Wright. Yes. Thank you for the question.
    So there is--I was really impressed with how, from day one, 
the NRC adapted. They went completely telework almost 
overnight, and they were--I don't think that they skipped a 
beat. You know, I was very impressed with how engaged all the 
business lines were, all the managers, all the residents that 
were having to perform at the plants as well, too, and how they 
went about doing their job.
    And we work very closely with the licensees on--if there 
had to be exemptions given or certain things so we keep our 
people safe, and their people remain safe as well.
    So there is no doubt that the staff identified things that 
we can carry forward. You would think, in something like a 
pandemic, that you are going to learn those things, and you are 
going to be exposed to those things.
    And I agree with Chairman Hanson that boots on the ground, 
that those--that is the best way to do things, you know. But we 
did learn that there is a place for technology and to improve 
the way we do things, and I think he mentioned a couple. I 
mean, it is like the portals for exemption request, the review 
of election--of inspection documents and real-time plant data 
is available to us. So, you know, we have the opportunity to do 
those things.
    So, you know, our inspection program is based on decades of 
experience and history. And, you know, I don't think--it served 
us well. It is going to serve us well in the future too. But 
I--you know, like everything else, it is not static, and it has 
always evolved over time, and it is going to continue to do so.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    And, Commissioner Baran, your assessment?
    Mr. Baran. Well, thank you, Chairman Tonko.
    I would echo some of what you said earlier and what my 
colleagues just said. You know, when I had my recent 
conversations with inspectors and managers, I hear a renewed 
recognition of the value of in-person safety and security 
inspections, whether it is the ability to put eyes on vital 
equipment, talk informally to plant staff, observe performance 
firsthand, and really, even the intangible but very real 
benefit of having an independent inspector with an NRC hardhat 
walking around doing oversight work.
    You know, as we have all said, I think remote inspections 
during this pandemic period were a necessity. But, frankly, 
they are just not as effective as in-person inspection. And our 
inspectors find issues in person that they wouldn't be able to 
detect remotely.
    Mr. Tonko. Well, I thank you for that. You know, I know 
that our NRC employees are incredibly dedicated, and I believe 
the safety of Federal employees is paramount. With that in 
mind, I would like to acknowledge the work that has been done 
over the past 16 months to continue to ensure the safe 
operations of our Nation's nuclear reactors.
    I had some other questions I wanted get into in regard to 
waste challenges from our nuclear facilities and advanced 
reactors, but I will forward those to our guests today.
    Thank you. With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair sincerely 
apologizes to the ranking member of the Energy and Power 
oversight. So I recognize him. We will go in regular order. It 
is now my honor to recognize the chairman--the ranking member 
of the Energy and Power Subcommittee for 5 minutes for the 
purposes of an opening statement.
    Mr. Upton. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, but I am going to 
be asking questions. And, again, I appreciate the hearing for 
sure.
    I want to follow up on Chairman Rush's question relating to 
the small modular reactors. You indicated that you expected the 
final regs to be completed and final by 2024. What is the--
assuming that we are able to stay on that timeline--you know, a 
number of us have been talking that for many, many years, maybe 
even as long as a decade. What is your expectation? If we are 
able to follow through by getting those regulations done, what 
is your expectation as to what the industry's reaction will be 
in terms of following up and actually looking at following 
through on a petition to get licensed to begin construction? 
And what would your timeline idea then be in terms assuming 
that everything went OK that we would actually have these small 
reactors online in communities, early prediction for across the 
country?
    Mr. Hanson. Ranking Member Upton, thank you for that 
question. You know, recognizing that the NRC's crystal ball is 
somewhat imperfect, let me try and take a stab at answering 
your question here. And assuming that, you know, part of the 
idea of this high level of interaction as we develop the rule 
is that so that industry recognizes what is in the rule as soon 
as we are able to go public with that, and that the rule is 
ideally usable and attractive to applicants that come before 
the Commission.
    Recognizing also that there are certainly companies that 
are looking at submitting applications to us for construction 
and operations before this rule is actually going to be 
published. TerrapPower is a good example. I think we are 
expecting their application in the 2023 timeframe before we are 
final on this.
    So, assuming that there was a company that would maybe come 
in after Part 53 was final and published, our goal is to 
review, combine operating and license applications in roughly 
the 3\1/2\-year or 42-month timeline. So I think you are 
talking about something in the order of 2027, 2028.
    Of course, applicants still have the option of applying 
under the old system where they could apply for both a 
construction and operating permit. So, you know, there is going 
to be a variety of options for folks there. But, certainly, I 
would imagine--you know, assuming everything goes well, as you 
said, Congressman, by the end of the decade.
    Mr. Upton. So if your forecast--let's say, it is rosy, it 
stays that way, the crystal ball looks good--how many of these 
would you have online by, like, pick a number, 2035?
    Mr. Hanson. That is a great question. I think a lot of it 
is going to depend on the economics. As I have said in public 
many times, NRC, we are independent, but we don't want to be an 
impediment to technological innovation in the nuclear area. We 
have a critical but certainly very select role in the energy 
ecosystem, and that is to ensure safety and security of these 
facilities. So I am not sure I am able to say by 2035 how 
likely that is.
    Mr. Upton. OK. I won't hold you to it.
    Mr. Hanson. OK.
    Mr. Upton. Let me ask another question. As I understand it, 
you grew up here in southwest Michigan. And I know that when 
you were sworn in, we had the full complement of Commissioners. 
I think all of us are low. We don't have five Commissioners 
working hard. A lot with abilities, but would you agree with us 
that we really need to see that full complement of five be 
confirmed and through the processes as soon as we can see it 
happen?
    Mr. Hanson. Yes, Congressman, I think we work best when we 
have a full complement. Let me say I think we, among the three 
of us, have a good working relationship. We are very collegial, 
and I think we can continue with the Commission's business. But 
we look forward to the administration and the Congress acting 
to provide us with two additional colleagues.
    Mr. Upton. OK. Let me just ask one final question. As you 
know, I am at both of my facilities and have been quite often. 
And I meet with not only the operating staff and employees, but 
also very talented NRC residential staff was there. I want to 
make sure as we come through this pandemic and people finish, 
it is my understanding that the NRC staff has never been away 
from us. Right? They have had constant 24/7 oversight at not 
only my two facilities in western Michigan, but all across the 
country. Is that not accurate?
    Mr. Hanson. That is reasonably accurate, Congressman. I 
think at the beginning of the pandemic it may have been that we 
were doing more document review and more remote monitoring of 
plant performance. But certainly as we got into, say, the 
second or third month, we were looking for ways for our 
resident inspectors to get back on site.
    You are right, Congressman, I am from southwest Michigan 
originally. In fact, I was just at D.C. Cook a couple of weeks 
ago as I was preparing to visit my family before the July 
Fourth holiday and had the pleasure of meeting with both NRC 
and plant staff at Cook and would like just to share how 
impressed I was on both sides.
    Mr. Upton. I know my time has expired, so I yield back. 
Thank you. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. McKinley for 5 minutes for questioning the 
witnesses.
    Mr. McKinley. Thanks, again, for being part of this panel 
today. I think we all understand the complete perspective that 
U.S. nuclear reactors, we are down to about just 94 units 
across the country.
    Mr. Johnson. Mr. McNerney is not in front of his camera. So 
did you say ``McNerney'' or ``McKinley,'' because I can't hear 
McKinley. David, is your microphone turned on?
    Mr. McKinley. No, it says I am not muted. Can you hear me? 
Can anyone else hear me?
    Mr. Rush. Mr. McKinley is recognized.
    Mr. McKinley. OK. So we know our plants are 94 years old, 
and--49 years old, but now we are down to just 30 to 94. So if 
we are going to reduce emissions, I don't understand why 
Congress is not promoting nuclear energy and incentivizing 
modernizing our aging nuclear fleet.
    But, unfortunately, it appears we are being persuaded or 
influenced by the fear-mongering Hollywood elite and the 
activists who constantly keep focusing on Fukushima and 
Chernobyl. Chernobyl was 35 years ago. Or even when they 
mentioned Three Mile Island, that occurred 52 years ago.
    Mr. Hanson--or Chairman Hanson, why isn't the NRC spending 
more time reaping the benefits of nuclear energy instead of 
promoting politically polarizing issues like environmental 
justice? And, secondly, can you envision the NRC denying a new 
nuclear power plant going to operation because of the 
differences around such a nebulously defined environmental 
justice? Can you respond to those two?
    Mr. Hanson. Oh, yes, thank you, Ranking Member McKinley. In 
our authorizing set with the Atomic Energy Act, we have a 
distinctly nonpromotional role; that is, we are strictly a 
safety regulator. Now, as part of that mission as a safety 
regulator, we have certain responsibilities for public 
participation, particularly as it pertains to environmental 
reviews and other issues. I think when it comes to issues like 
siting, you know, there are issues that come into play with 
regard to public participation and potentially environmental 
justice, historically, that I think could be relevant here. 
And, of course, then siting plays into the impacts of potential 
accident scenarios which we have to take into consideration as 
part of making a safety determination. So I would say that kind 
of how those things are linked together.
    Mr. McKinley. Mr. Chairman, obviously, maybe we need to 
have more of a conversation about this because this is--my 
question primarily was this: Are we going to deny a plant based 
on environmental justice? So maybe we can have that 
conversation later, but because of the timeframe, we only have 
5 minutes total. So let me continue with this question.
    The left has attacked nuclear of spent fuel rods. And, 
currently, the United States is unfortunate. We don't have a 
recycling our nuclear waste due to the high cost. The plant has 
been recycling for years. There are numbers of companies I know 
that are looking at ways to reduce the cost of this so that we 
don't have to bury them in the mountain.
    So, Chairman Hanson, what is the position of the NRC in 
facilitating ways of recycling our spent fuel rods and reducing 
costs? What role do you have?
    Mr. Hanson. Yes, thank you, Ranking Member McKinley. Our 
role in any approach to recycling is going to be primarily that 
of a safety regulator. So if the United States or private 
companies endeavor to undertake spent fuel recycling, then 
under the Atomic Energy Act, that would come to us to make a 
safety determination for that. We have the staff and the 
capability available for such an effort should that policy 
decision or that economic case be made outside of our 
jurisdiction.
    Mr. McKinley. But isn't--OK. I hear you passing on to 
others the responsibility. But I believe it is part of cost-
benefits ratio that we would have here for America. What is 
your personal view? Do you think--would you be encouraging 
recycling for spent fuel?
    Mr. Hanson. Yes, we are--unfortunately, Congressman, we are 
really not in an encouraging or kind of promotional role on 
this. We are really strictly the safety regulator on that kind 
of thing.
    Mr. McKinley. Mr. Chairman, do you personally feel that 
this could be advantageous for promoting nuclear power if we 
could recycle our spent fuel rods? Do you personally?
    Mr. Hanson. As chairman of the NRC, I am going to stay 
strictly, I think, with the--in the safety realm on this. I am 
very happy to discuss this and other topics with you in any 
other venue you would like, Congressman.
    Mr. McKinley. Sorry you are being evasive, but thank you 
for being honest enough not to answer questions. So, Mr. 
Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the chairman of the full 
committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Rush. I want to thank the 
Commissioners again for joining us today. I mentioned the 
Reactor Oversight Process, or ROP, in my opening statement. And 
I sent a letter to the Commission in 2019 outlining concerns I 
have with that proposal, which is still before the Commission.
    Reducing core safety inspections and limiting public 
reporting of low-level safety issues of plants across the 
country is unnecessary, in my opinion, and counter to NRC's 
mission.
    So, Chairman Hanson, what is the status of the ROP changes 
proposed by NRC staff in 2019 at this point?
    Mr. Hanson. Yes, thank you, Chairman Pallone. Those papers 
are still pending before the Commission. I am not aware offhand 
what the vote record is on that, but they are still under 
consideration.
    Mr. Pallone. And then let me ask Commissioner Baran, where 
do you stand on this proposed to ROP changes? Commissioner 
Baran?
    Mr. Baran. I have pretty significant concerns about several 
of the proposals. There was a proposal to have licensee self-
assessments take the place of independent NRC inspections. I 
have real concerns about that. I think NRC safety inspections 
are essential, and that NRC inspectors need to be independently 
conducting them. And at this point, it has been a couple of 
years now, I think everyone actually agrees on that. I don't 
know that anyone is really in favor of that proposal from a 
couple of years ago. My understanding is that the NRC staff is 
actually considering withdrawing that paper that seemed to 
endorse that concept. And I would support their withdrawing 
that proposal, which I think was pretty flawed. There was also 
some proposals there to reduce the frequency of some very 
important inspections, inspections that looked at safety 
culture, inspections that looked at engineering, looked at the 
ability of licensees to identify and correct problems, which is 
just absolutely central to the safety operation of a plant. And 
my understanding is that the NRC staff is looking at that too, 
whether it makes sense at this point to withdraw those 
proposals. And I would be supportive of them withdrawing those 
proposals.
    Mr. Pallone. Well, thank you. Look, I, frankly, say that I 
hope that the Commission can withdraw or table these 
recommendations. That is my opinion. And I would hope that that 
is what you would do, frankly.
    Another topic that is relevant to my State and others would 
shut down nuclear plants is the decommissioning rulemaking, and 
I mentioned that before too. It is a proposed rule before the 
Commission that made several troubling changes of that process, 
but I wanted to highlight one of them in particular.
    State and local governments have always have very little 
say over the cleanup and decommissioning of nuclear power 
plants. And the proposal before the Commission fails to 
properly expand the role of States and local governments in 
this process, which I think has generational impacts on these 
communities. So I am concerned about this, and it is something 
that impacts many States and towns.
    So let me ask Chairman Hanson, can you commit to taking a 
long, hard look at this as the Commission proceeds on this 
proposed rule whether or not towards giving communities a more 
meaningful role in the decommissioning process, if you will?
    Mr. Hanson. Yes, Chairman Pallone, I am happy to take a 
very close look at this. I understand the importance of this 
for local communities and how directly it affects them both for 
plants undergoing decommissioning and those facing the 
prospects of shutdown and decommissioning in the future.
    Mr. Pallone. Well, I appreciate that. And I hope 
improvements can be made to better incorporate these voices 
into the process. So thank you.
    Last question, quickly, the Nuclear Energy Innovation and 
Modernization Act that Congress passed in 2019 that included a 
cap on the Commission's corporate support spending for overhead 
costs that include information technology, agency 
cybersecurity, and facility upgrades--I am concerned that this 
arbitrary cap is forcing the Commission to forgo or delay 
necessary investments in these areas.
    Is this corporate support cap--I guess I will ask the 
chairman again. Is this corporate support cap leading to delays 
in important investments that would have otherwise occurred 
sooner prior to the institution of the cap? Actually, anybody 
can respond, if you would, but let me start with the chairman.
    Mr. Hanson. Yes, thank you, Chairman Pallone. We have been 
able to meet the corporate support caps to date. But as you 
know, I think in 2022 did 30 percent. In 2023, it goes down 29 
percent. Then it declines thereafter. And then it becomes--each 
percentage point amounts to somewhere between 8 and 10 million 
dollars in reduced costs for our corporate support. At a time 
when, I think, we are trying to make investments in IT 
modernization, there are some indications--and we are looking 
more closely at this--but our IT costs are going to be going up 
and that we need to make investments in IT in order to more 
better risk-inform some of our regulations and modernize our 
regulatory processes. We need to invest in our people in order 
to make them--to get them prepared for advanced reactor 
licensing.
    And we need to invest a little bit in our physical space, 
which hasn't been updated in someplace of 20 to 25 years. So we 
have been able to meet those caps so far, but it is going to be 
a very significant challenge, I think, going forward, and I am 
very concerned about it.
    Mr. Pallone. Well, let me just say thank you. I think that 
Congress needs to look at reforming this corporate support cap 
to give the Commission more flexibility for these investments. 
But time has expired. Thank you, Chairman Rush.
    Mr. Rush. The Chair recognizes the ranking member of the 
full committee Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When it comes to 
addressing our clean energy goals, our energy and national 
security interest, nuclear technologies are essential, and many 
have been speaking to that this morning. And there is promising 
advances on the horizon--really exciting, innovative new fuels, 
small reactor technologies that have the promise to revitalize 
the benefits of nuclear for all of us. And they promise to 
ensure a more reliable power, a more flexible deployment, which 
can provide new ways to reduce industrial emissions, all while 
building up American prosperity and our ability to compete and 
share our American know-how with the rest of the world. That is 
what American innovation is all about. And that is why we are 
working so hard to identify what it takes to remove the 
unnecessary barriers to deploying these new technologies.
    There are several pieces of legislation that my colleagues 
and I have introduced, are cosponsoring that seek to ensure the 
NRC performs its safety mission without impeding innovation and 
deployment. Two years ago Congress required the NRC to 
implement a risk-informed regulatory framework for advanced 
reactors.
    So I wanted to start by asking each one of you, beginning 
with Chairman Hanson, can you describe what ``risk-informed'' 
means when it come to practice and why you believe it is 
important for NRC licensing of new reactors?
    Mr. Hanson. Thank you, Congressman McMorris Rodgers. To me, 
risk-informing our regulations means using the incredible body 
of experience that the NRC and, frankly, our licensees have 
developed over the last 40 or 50 or 60 years in the use of 
nuclear technology to inform our efforts going forward so that 
we can focus on the most safety-significant aspects of any new 
technology. So that we do have some experience in this country 
with advanced reactors. We had built some of them in the '50s 
and '60s and '70s. A lot of the technologies that we are seeing 
come back around rely on some of those learnings. And we are as 
an agency and as an industry, I believe, kind of excavating 
some of that information to apply to these new technologies.
    Also, I can say that we are also learning from the 
significant operating experience of the light-water reactor 
fleet and understanding what is important for safety in this 
new regulatory framework. With that, I will let my colleagues 
respond.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. Yes?
    Mr. Baran. Mrs. Rodgers, sure, I think Chairman Hanson said 
it very well. I don't know that I have too much to add, but I 
would just point out, you know, this advanced reactor 
rulemaking we are doing right now. It is a major effort. I 
mean, it is challenging because you want something that is 
conformed, that is performance based, that is technology 
neutral. You need to have something that works for molten salt 
reactors and high-temperature gas coal reactors. You need 
something that works from microreactors and reactors that could 
be several hundred megawatts. It is a tough challenge.
    And you are asking a question that is one of the core 
things that comes up in these stakeholder meetings, which is 
what should it mean to be risk-informed? And some of the 
stakeholders, some of the vendors think it should really be 
tightly focused on probabilistic risk assessment, those 
numerical models. Others want to have more flexibility in how 
they would present their safety case. Maybe they would say, 
``Well, our reactors inherently say for the following reasons 
that these materials are this structure.'' And so that is not a 
purely academic question. It actually goes right to the heart 
of the efforts underway to do this rulemaking.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. Mr. Wright?
    Mr. Wright. So I thought about this a little bit. So we are 
going to be in the best position to continue meeting our 
important safety and security mission. As you know, the NRC 
embarked on a transformation journey to help the agency keep 
pace with the highly dynamic and interconnected environment 
which we operate. We have got to be prepared to regulate an 
industry that is innovative and has new technologies. And as an 
agency, we have to recognize and understand that everything we 
do, either personally or professionally, carries some degree of 
risk. Our mission, as you know, is to provide reasonable 
assurance of adequate protection of the public health and 
safety and promote the common defense and security and to 
protect the public. Reasonable assurance acknowledges that 
there is a risk element. So being a modern risk-informed 
regulator means we have got to be able to use data, historical 
and operational experience, other lessons learned in a way to 
reevaluate the way we conduct business, recalibrate and 
streamline our processes and procedures, and maximize 
efficiencies to better serve the American public.
    So, I mean, that could include a lot things, right? We have 
the law in NEPA, which there is a possible cost sharing. But, 
again, DOE is the promoter. They are the salesman. We are the 
safety regulatories. But that does not mean we cannot work 
together and work with the Members of Congress in order to--you 
know, if y'all decide you want to identify that particular 
technology, we have got to be prepared to regulate it and to 
provide a pathway.
    So regulatory certainty is another thing that we have got 
to provide as well. So I am going to stop there.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Well, yes, and my time has expired. I think 
it is important just to note that we really have the gold 
standard in the United States of America, and we want to make 
sure that we are taking the expertise that we have into 
consideration. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The ranking member yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the chairman of the O&I Subcommittee, the gentlelady 
from Colorado, Ms. DeGette, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and I want to 
thank you and Mr. Tonko for having this important hearing. The 
first thing I want to say is I get really frustrated when my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle demagogue this issue 
for partisan purposes. Because, in fact, many of us recognize 
that nuclear energy can be an important bridge, fuel toward 
energy independence and towards reducing carbon. And that is 
why I am working on a renewable energy bill that is source 
neutral and could include nuclear energy.
    And, frankly, Mr. McKinley and my other colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle, they know that, because we have talked 
to them about this bill. But the purpose of this agency the NRC 
is to make sure that, as we develop nuclear energy, we do it in 
a safe and protective way. And I want to appreciate the efforts 
of the agency to do that. And so I have a couple of questions 
to that end.
    Now, the United States has a wonderful record--safety 
record with nuclear power. But a couple of years ago, I led a 
group and we went to the Fukushima Nuclear Plant in Japan. And 
they also thought that they had a really strong protective 
system at that plant. And of course, in the tsunami, it reached 
the plant, and they are still 10 years later having issues with 
water contamination. Earlier this spring, they announced that 
they are going to start releasing radioactive contaminated 
water into the ocean. And they are still grappling with how 
they can control the terrible breach that happened at 
Fukushima.
    So I want to ask you, Chairman Hanson, 10 years out from 
this accident, what lessons have the NRC and the U.S. nuclear 
industries learned about the tragedy and acted upon to ensure 
the safety of our nuclear facilities?
    Mr. Hanson. Thank you for that question, Congresswoman 
DeGette. In short, I think both the NRC and the industry have 
learned quite a lot in the last 10 years. We have--I can 
provide you some details on that for the record.
    We convened what was known as the Near-Term Task Force 
within the NRC. We sent a delegation to Japan to learn 
firsthand about the accident, about the pre--you know the 
precursors and the other issues associated with the regulatory 
scheme in Japan so that we could take those back so that we 
could learn, but also then to help our Japanese counterparts 
move forward and operate more safely in the future.
    Ms. DeGette. So could you briefly tell me some of the 
things you learned? I appreciate that you went over there. What 
were some of the things you learned?
    Mr. Hanson. I can. We made each of our plants conduct an 
extensive reevaluation of the hazards facing them. So flooding 
and seismic primarily among them, but also just generally all 
external hazards.
    And we really learned a lot from that. We were able to 
deploy equipment centrally in United States, in Memphis and in 
Arizona, to be deployed in the event of an emergency. We had a 
number of other requirements, including installation of 
hardened containment vents and also spent fuel--pool monitoring 
equipment.
    So I think there were a number of things. My colleagues 
were here for that. I don't know if they want to respond.
    Ms. DeGette. Yes, let me ask Commissioner Baran, do you 
know we need further steps to prevent any kind of catastrophe 
in our nuclear system?
    Mr. Baran. Well, you know, I think there is a gap that we 
still have. With the rule that was--the post-Fukushima rule 
that was finalized in 2019 provides for additional pumps, 
generators, hoses at nuclear power plants in case of 
emergencies. It is a very good step. And I think there is broad 
agreement that this flex equipment, as it is called, is the 
single biggest post-Fukushima safety improvement at nuclear 
power plants.
    But there is something that is missing, which is that when 
we finalized that rule in 2019, we did not require it, we did 
not require that flex equipment to be protected from the up-to-
date flooding and seismic risk.
    So we spent all of this time, years and years, getting the 
latest data on what are the latest flooding risk, what are the 
latest seismic risks. In the end, the rule didn't go as far as 
it should have. It did not require that that vital equipment is 
protected from those risks.
    And, you know, with the changing climate, flooding risks 
are not static. It makes no sense to allow licensees to operate 
with obsolete flood hazard estimates that are in some cases 
decades old.
    So I do think that is something we should think about 
revisiting going forward in terms of preparing the plants for 
the impacts of climate change and just the reality of what we 
currently know about those hazards at the plant.
    Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much. I look forward to working 
with you on those issues, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Wright, let 
me just ask you, you heard the responses of the other two 
Commissioners on lessons learned from Fukushima and the 
preparedness. Would you care to have a statement added to that?
    Mr. Wright. Yes, thank you very much for the opportunity. 
So to follow up on Commissioner Hanson, you know, the NRC 
completed all the Near-Term Fukushima Task Force related 
reviews in September 2020, and they confirmed that all sites 
have adequate capabilities, either existing or voluntarily 
added to cope with all the beyond-design basis of the 
reevaluated hazards.
    You know, the Commission approach in our final rule that we 
worked on in 2019, I mean, it retains the flex equipment that 
is already in place at every operating plant in the U.S. It 
allows for a case-by-case determination about further 
enhancements to the plant or to the flex equipment. And it is 
risk-informed.
    It is performance-based. It provides licensees for 
flexibility to address site-specific hazards and other 
configurations that are specific to that plant. You know, 
because one in--that plant that is in the Midwest is not going 
to be the same that is on the Coast.
    So it reflects lessons learned since the proposed rule was 
issued way back. And it is proven effective in maintaining 
safety. And, in fact, everything that they tried to do was done 
through the 5054F letters which were in addition to what the 
rule was talking about, the things that we did to hard-knock 
everything else was 2 years earlier than what the rule had 
required.
    Mr. Burgess. Let me ask you a question. Do you feel as if 
the plant operators are empowered to make safety decisions real 
time, or do they have to consult with someone at the 
Commission?
    Mr. Wright. So I would think that because they 
communicate--and we have got inspectors onsite, right, we have 
got two inspectors onsite every day--so those conversations can 
take place. If they think that they have got to make a 
modification based on new hazard information, flood data, or 
whatever, they can make those decisions. But if it is something 
that they think that has to get NRC approval, there is a way to 
do that.
    Mr. Burgess. Sure. Let me just ask, and here we are, I 
hope, on the backside of the coronavirus pandemic, and we have 
all talked about lessons learned. To the extent that your 
agency has been a learning agency during this time, are there--
and this may be a longer question that you want to respond in 
writing--but are the things that we have learned along the way 
that I hope we have been a learning legislative body during 
this time too--I can't say that that has been a hundred percent 
the case, but I would be--I would be interested in your 
thoughts.
    And, again, it may be a longer question that you need to 
respond to in writing. But, Chairman Hanson, anything that 
comes to the top of the mind?
    Mr. Hanson. Yes, thank you. I think overall across the 
agency, the use of technology has really accelerated during the 
public health agency. So, in some cases, you know, 
communications technology like we are using today.
    But also, you know, we were able to conduct some materials 
inspections during the height of the pandemic when we were 
really, particularly, for instance, at hospitals where we may--
in order to protect the health and safety of our employees 
maybe didn't want those people to go into those facilities, we 
were able--the licensee was able to walk around with their 
iPhone and show our inspectors remotely the safety and security 
measures that they had in place so that our inspectors could 
ensure that that was going on.
    I thought that was a very innovative use of technology. You 
know, I respect and I deeply appreciate the need for boots on 
the ground, but I think that kind of thing is innovative, and 
we should maybe think about that going forward.
    Mr. Burgess. Let me just ask you, because it always has 
been such a headline lately. Has that increased any of cyber 
vulnerabilities because of the increased use or dependence on 
technology--to the extent you can answer in this room?
    Mr. Hanson. I think at the moment we have adequate cyber 
defenses. I think we are constantly looking at our posture, the 
attack surface, if you think about it, for the agency. And our 
CIO organization is evaluating that and making the investments 
necessary at this time.
    Mr. Burgess. So, you know, one of the ongoing things in the 
recovery of the pandemic is going to be the lessons learned. 
And, again, I will just ask each you if you would be willing to 
provide to us on the committee, like, kind of a compendium of 
lessons learned during this time.
    It is not just you. I would ask the same questions of many 
other Federal agencies. We have just come through a time unlike 
any other. It really tested a lot of us in a lot of different 
ways. But to the extent we have learned things, let's not let 
that--let's not let that go unrecorded.
    I thank you all for the work that you do, and I appreciate 
so much that the Atoms for Peace is still alive and well and 
evolved into the Commission we have in front of us today. Thank 
you. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky, for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to talk about 
decommissioning. And I want to thank Chairman Pallone for 
raising the issue of how local communities need to participate, 
and Diana DeGette pointing out that--you know, Mr. McKinley, I 
know that you think there is some sort of a plot here to 
undermine nuclear, but we have all seen that there are, in 
fact, safety and security issues that are involved that have 
to, if we're responsible, address that.
    So there are currently 11 nuclear reactors in my home State 
and Bobby Rush's home State of Illinois. And I remain 
optimistic that Illinois will continue to grow its renewable 
energy production.
    But as other technologies have been decreasing in the cost 
of production and deployment, what we have seen is that nuclear 
power plants find it increasingly difficult to be cost 
competitive, while without any--without any subsidies. We see 
that Exelon has indicated that it will close two of its nuclear 
power plants earlier than anticipated and may close more if 
they don't get subsidies. The financial assurances required for 
decommissioning are based on expected shutdown dates.
    So here is my question, Chairman Hanson: How does the NRC 
intend to ensure that there is sufficient funding available for 
decommissioning shuttered, if--excuse me--if shutdown dates are 
accelerated for significant portions of the nuclear fleet?
    Mr. Hanson. Thank you for that question, Congresswoman. We 
get regular updates from our licensees on the status of their 
decommissioning trust funds. We are in frequent communication 
with them. But also, before they undertake activities as part 
of the post-shutdown decommissioning activities report, you 
know, we are able to look at projected expenditures with the 
current balance of the funds, and we are able to--for instance, 
if we think a licensee is getting out in front of the funding 
that is available, we are able to direct them to scale 
potentially back their activities so that there is sufficient 
funding.
    We have a number of mechanisms to do that, basically, on a 
biannual basis and then while decommissioning is ongoing on an 
annual basis so that we get updates of that funding.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. Some owners and operators of 
nuclear power plants that have or will soon be shut down are 
transferring licenses to companies that specialize in 
decommissioning of nuclear power plants. Usually, the only 
asset that these specialized companies have is the nuclear 
decommissioning trust funds.
    So, again, Chairman Hanson, how will the NRC ensure that 
these specialized companies are financially viable? And what 
will the NRC do if one of these--if one of these companies, 
which hold, as I said, only asset, their only asset is that 
decommissioned plant, what it if files for bankruptcy?
    Mr. Hanson. Thank you, Congresswoman, for that. And I will 
be happy to get back with you with kind of more details for the 
record on this.
    But let me say that as part of the license transfer 
process, we look at the assets and the ability of the parent 
company and the ability over the course of decommissioning for 
the site company, as it were, to have recourse back to the 
parent and kind of what those guarantees are. I don't have all 
the details on the regulations on that in front of me, but I 
would be happy to get back to you or your staff.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. I think it is very important to 
consider this because communities can get left holding the bag, 
and taxpayers can be left holding the bag. So I look forward to 
talking with you more about this. Thank you. And I yield back.
    Mr. Hanson. I would be happy to do it.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlewoman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 
very much for holding today's hearing. And I also want to thank 
our witnesses for appearing before us today. I know it has been 
a while since the NRC appeared before us in committee, and, 
again, I want to thank them for that.
    Chairman Hanson, I want to thank you for your service and 
for testifying today. And in your testimony, you state that one 
of the reasons that NRC is requesting an increase in the 
operating reactor business line for fiscal year 2022 is for 
digital instrumentation and control, or DINC, improving for 
cybersecurity threats and increase protection at the NRC-
licensed facilities. And as we all know, we all are talking so 
much more about cybersecurity.
    And I have been a long proponent of using DINC to enhance 
the safety, reliability, and efficiency of our current nuclear 
fleet in the next generation of the reactors. I believe DINC 
can offer a host of benefits to licensees, including a 
reduction of human error.
    In 2018, I questioned then-former NRC Chairman Svinicki on 
the Commission's efforts to reduce regulatory uncertainty when 
it came to replacing analogue system with advanced digital 
control.
    Now, Chairman, would you provide an update on the progress 
that has been made in making sure licenses have the certainty--
licensees, excuse me, have the certainty they need to make 
these digital modifications and improvements?
    Mr. Hanson. Congressman Latta, thank you very much for that 
question. Digital INC is a personal interest for me and one of 
the priorities for my tenure as Chairman. So I am very 
sensitive to this issue of, kind of, are we there yet on 
digital INC for the current fleet. And, in fact, just a couple 
of weeks ago, I went up to the Limerick Plant in Pennsylvania 
owned by Exelon, where they are implementing digital INC pilot 
projects in conjunction with the Department of Energy to 
understand the upgrades that they are planning to make to their 
control room. And I have emphasized with the staff on several 
occasions the need to have a clear and reliable regulatory line 
of sight for the implementation of digital INC.
    The NRC, like a lot of agencies and like a lot of us in the 
world, we learn by doing. And so this project in Pennsylvania 
is a key part of our efforts to be able to evaluate the 
technology, understand its safety, understand how it is going 
to interact with key safety systems within the plant, 
understand the redundancy as part of that so that we can make 
those safety determinations, understand in some cases the 
digital signals that are coming into the control room, how 
those are redundant and can be made safe.
    We also have other licensees--I think the Waterford Plant 
in Louisiana as well as Turkey Point in Florida have also 
expressed interest in coming to us on digital INC upgrades. I 
think as an agency we are absolutely committed to learning 
further about this and coming up with a safe and reliable and 
transparent process for licensing the technology.
    Mr. Latta. Chairman----
    Mr. Baran. Let me just add, Mr. Latta, just put a little 
bit of context to that, because I agree with everything the 
Chairman said. I arrived on the Commission in 2014, and this 
had been a challenging issues for years and years and years. 
And it is in the last couple of years that a lot of progress 
has been made on this. And I think now you are finally seeing 
enough issues resolved here that you have licensees wanting to 
submit applications to go digital on really key safety systems, 
which they were very reluctant to do previously because they 
just weren't sure if it would get approved or not, or how long 
it might take for you to happen and what the outcome might be.
    And in these last few years, a lot of progress has been 
made on that. And we are finally seeing folks coming forward 
saying, ``Yes, we want to upgrade this key system with 
digital.'' Which is very good because, I mean, if you think 
plants operate into 80 years, they need to have modern digital 
control rooms and other systems. We want to make sure that that 
is something that is doable.
    Mr. Latta. In my last 40 seconds, let me--this is kind of 
going, you know, on the timeline because, you know, you have 
been researching the safety and security of the INC since about 
1993. And I know that you want to make sure that, you know, you 
are getting everything, I will cross all the T's and dotting 
all our I's. But why is it taking so long in the rulemaking to 
get this technology out there when you said you want to make 
sure you have them right but you are talking since '93?
    Mr. Hanson. Well, I agree with Commissioner Baran. I think 
we have made a lot of progress in the last couple of years. As 
I said, I am very sensitive to the, you know, ``Are we there 
yet?'' kind of question on that.
    And I think the technical issues are being resolved at the 
staff level through key documents like branch technical 
positions and other documents that are going to allow us to 
move forward, I think, much more efficiently in the future.
    Mr. Wright. If I might. This is Commissioner Wright. If I 
could just maybe add a little bit here. I don't disagree with 
anything I heard from my colleagues here. And it comes down to, 
you know, regulatory certainty too. We have got to be sure that 
there is a way to get to done.
    And, you know, we have been doing it for a long time. If 
you look, the Navy's been doing it for a long time in their 
subs. They have got--but there is a big difference between what 
the Navy is doing and how they do it versus what we would have 
to do in the commercial sector in our industry, because the 
Navy is totally in control. You know, it is basically a single 
vendor. They have bigger budgets, obviously, but--and there is 
more uniformity in design. In our space, it probably would not 
be a single person. It would probably be multiple innovators 
out there trying to sell their wares.
    So you have got that pipeline that you have got to put in 
place as well. But the ability to do it is there, we just have 
to go ahead--and we are at the point where we are almost.
    Mr. Latta. My time has expired. And I thank you for your 
indulgence. Thank you.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman's time has expired. Ms. Matsui is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to 
also thank Chairman Tonko for convening this hearing. And I 
want to welcome Chairman Hanson and Commissioners Baran and 
Wright. It is pleasure to have you here with us today.
    Now, as you know, there are currently 26 decommissioned or 
soon-to-be-shut-down nuclear plants in States and districts all 
over the country. However, they still have custody and 
responsibility to care for the used nuclear fuel that once 
produced electricity at the sites. Now, this spent nuclear fuel 
continues to burden communities across the country, and 
including my own, the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 
which maintains the decommissioned Rancho Seco nuclear power 
plant.
    In 2012 President Obama's Blue Ribbon Commission on 
America's Nuclear Future recommended legislative changes to 
authorize consolidated interim storage facilities, also known 
as CISFs, to relieve communities for this fund by transferring 
the used field commercial nuclear power plants into temporary 
facilities until a permanent solution is reached.
    And so, for this reason, I have historically introduced the 
STORE Nuclear Fuel Act, which had established the legislative 
framework to develop a consolidated storage program at DOE. I 
also helped secure $20 million to start some of these efforts 
during fiscal year 2021.
    Now, my nuclear storage--my STORE nuclear storage act 
directs the Secretary of Energy to establish interim knowledge 
program for high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear 
fuel. It will allow DOE to contract with private storage 
facilities capable of storing such material. Now, my question 
is, how would the enactment of the STORE Nuclear Fuel Act 
affect NRC's interim storage efforts?
    Mr. Hanson. Congresswoman Matsui, thank you. We are in the 
position of licensing interim spent fuel storage facilities 
whether those are constructed or proposed to be constructed by 
private parties, for instance, like whole tech or interim 
storage partners in Texas or by the Federal Government under 
either your act or the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, for example. 
So we have, obviously, two ongoing applications before us for 
private spent storage facilities.
    We expect to reach licensing decisions on those relatively 
soon, I think: September for the facility in Texas and January 
of 2022 for the facility in New Mexico. And, you know, we have 
the capability to address additional facility applications as 
they might come in.
    Ms. Matsui. So you are continuing to address this, then? So 
you have dates certain that you expect to complete this 
process. Is that correct?
    Mr. Hanson. I am sorry, Congresswoman, could you repeat the 
question?
    Ms. Matsui. Yes, so you have dates set in which you want to 
complete this process. Is that correct? So we can look forward 
to having this issue addressed?
    Mr. Hanson. That is correct.
    Ms. Matsui. OK. Because we have been waiting for quite some 
time. So there is no--no feeling that there are other safety 
benefits served with storing nuclear fuel at CISFs close to 
storing them in decommissioned nuclear plants as is currently 
the case? You understand our concern is that we don't want 
these sitting in our--all over the country?
    Mr. Hanson. I understand the concern of local communities 
that are hosting spent fuel storage facilities at 
decommissioned or completely removed nuclear reactors like the 
Rancho Seco site. We have determined that both interim 
storage--those interim storage facilities as well as the 
centralized interim storage facility are safe.
    Ms. Matsui. OK. Fine. Thank you very much. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlewoman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Kinzinger, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to 
our witnesses for being here today. We appreciate having you, 
and these are very important issues.
    At the end of 2018 legislation, I sponsored the NUKE Act 
that was passed by Congress and signed into law as part of the 
Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act, known as 
NEIMA. This is the first year that the NRC has implemented the 
reforms for NEIMA, which changed how NRC recovers fees from 
licensees. Specifically, it directed the NRC to recover 
approximately 100 percent of the Commission's budget authority, 
excluding amounts appropriated for certain activities. NEIMA 
also imposed limits on the NRC's corporate support costs to 30 
percent of the Commission's overall budget, but the agency also 
exceeded this limit by 1 percent for fiscal year 2021.
    NEIMA was intended to provide greater transparency and 
clarity to the NRC's fee development and to ensure that 
licensees pay fees only for services that the NRC actually 
performed.
    So, Chairman Hanson, great to have you with us, by the way. 
Let me just ask you, do you believe that the intent of NEIMA is 
being fully met in the NRC's FY 2021 fee rule? Or does the NRC 
have more work to do in future fee rules to ensure that the 
statute's intent is fully satisfied?
    Mr. Hanson. Thank you, Congressman Kinzinger. We are 
absolutely committed to process improvement and transparency in 
the development of the fee rule. And we have implemented the 
requirements of NEIMA, particularly with regard, as you 
mentioned, to the fee relief adjustment in order to increase 
the predictability for licensees in forecasting, particularly, 
their annual reactor fees.
    So I do believe we are implementing both the letter and the 
spirit of NEIMA in that regard.
    Mr. Kinzinger. Do you think there is any more work to do, 
or do you feel like you are on the right path for this?
    Mr. Hanson. I think we are constantly looking at our 
processes to see how we can be more reliable and more 
transparent in our fee setting.
    Mr. Kinzinger. OK. So we have seen perfectly operating 
plants closed throughout the country solely for financial 
reasons. In my own district I have not one, but two plants that 
are scheduled to close this year for the same reason. At the 
same time, we have seen problems arise from the decrease of 
base load power on the grid, a problem that only worsens as 
more nuclear power plants shutter.
    Chairman Hanson, I will ask, I have two more questions too. 
What are the existing procedures for bringing recently closed 
plants back online? Should a different, more efficient 
licensing process be developed somewhere between a license 
renewal and a completely new license?
    Mr. Hanson. Yes, thank you for that question. We have--we 
believe our existing regulatory framework and our guidance 
documents actually provide for bringing a plant back online if 
a licensee so chooses. There are certainly requirements for 
maintaining certain safety systems. I don't know that occurs, 
but we do have the apparatus. We don't think that necessarily a 
major rulemaking is necessary for that. We believe we have got 
the guidance and the tools in-house to allow for that should a 
licensee so choose.
    Mr. Kinzinger. So it wouldn't be basically the length of a 
completely new license? Would it be somewhere in between, then, 
in that sense, renewal and new?
    Mr. Hanson. That is right. As long as the licensee 
maintained its relationship with the NRC and maintains certain 
safety systems and other kinds of things, there is a scenario 
under which they could kind of restart the plant, go back to 
operations if they chose to.
    Mr. Kinzinger. Yes, I am sure there's a lot of variables in 
there. In cases where reversing the decommissioning process is 
impossible, what about using these existing sites to host 
advanced reactors and small modular reactors that will be 
brought to market soon?
    Mr. Hanson. Well, there is certainly a possibility, 
Congressman, that the existing environmental impact statement 
for that site could encompass future nuclear uses. And so it 
might make that part of the process a little more streamlined. 
I think we would have to evaluate that on a case-by-case basis, 
but I certainly acknowledge the possibility.
    Mr. Kinzinger. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 
Thank you to the witnesses.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. Castor, for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Chairman Rush and Chairman 
Tonko, and thanks to Chairman Hanson and Commissioners Baran 
and Wright for testifying before us today.
    It is vitally important that we keep our existing nuclear 
power plants operating safely while we scale up additional 
sources of zero-emission electricity to meet our climate goals. 
At the same time, we must ensure that the nuclear power plants 
are resilient to the impacts of climate change and extreme 
weather so we avoid outages and serious consequences like we 
saw in Texas earlier this year.
    I trust that you all have seen the report from the 
Department of Energy that highlights how heat waves and 
droughts can threaten the availability of nuclear plant cooling 
water, leading power plants to have to reduce their electricity 
output.
    Heat-related power reductions happened in New Jersey and 
Pennsylvania in 2010, in Alabama in 2011, and then New England 
in 2012. And studies have identified that there are ongoing 
drought concerns for nuclear power plants in Illinois as well. 
And then we saw the--on the flip side, the extremely cold 
weather out of the blue caused the nuclear plant to freeze in 
Texas earlier this year. And then the add-on flooding in 
Missouri, wildfires in California also led to shutdowns and 
evacuations of nuclear power plants. This is very serious that 
these climate-amplified extreme weather disruptions at our 
nuclear power plants are reducing the reliability of the 
electric grid.
    So we have made some recommendations from the Select 
Committee on the Climate Crisis in our Climate Crisis Action 
Plan, and we recommended that the Congress direct the NRC to 
complete a fleetwide assessment of extreme weather and climate 
vulnerabilities to the U.S. nuclear plants and spent fuel based 
upon projected climate impacts. Two, we suggested the NRC use 
its existing authority under NEPA to conduct a rigorous climate 
assessments of reactors seeking license renewals, include a 
thorough review of vulnerabilities due to potential climate 
impacts. And then, third, we recommended directing the NRC to 
require nuclear power plants to take action to address known 
flood risks, seismic risks consistent with Federal flood risk 
management standards. And thank you, Mr. Baran, you mentioned 
this.
    So, Chairman Hanson, how is the NRC ensuring that the 
existing fleet is resilient to climate impacts? And would you 
consider performing that fleetwide assessment in cataloging the 
vulnerabilities so we know how to address it?
    Mr. Hanson. Thank you, Congresswoman Castor, for that.
    We do evaluate climate impacts and impact of greenhouse 
gases on our plants as part of the NEPA process. So, for 
example, we considered those issues as part of the Turkey Point 
license renewal, as well as the Vogtle license for the facility 
in Georgia.
    At this time, following the external hazards analysis 
following the Fukushima event, you know, all of--all measures 
necessary for adequate protection of the plant are required at 
those facilities. Certainly licensees have taken additional 
voluntary measures, and I acknowledge that, you know, one of 
the issues of the mitigation on beyond-design-basis events 
rules is this issue between what is required and what is 
voluntary.
    But at this time, you know, we are working with licensees 
and with the addition of our inspectors to evaluate all the 
external hazards facing each of our licensees, whether that is 
flooding or heat or tornados. Of course, we had the derecho 
event in 2020 at the Duane Arnold plant in Iowa, and other 
kinds of issues.
    So this is--this is an issue where we are constantly 
getting feedback and evaluating that feedback and evaluating 
the safety posture of our--of the facilities under our 
oversight.
    I don't know if Commissioner Baran or Commissioner Wright 
want to weigh in on that.
    Mr. Baran. I would just add that, you know, one of the 
things we learned from Fukushima and all the science that we 
looked at after that was that--and that we know from climate 
science--is flooding, hurricanes, snow and ice loads are 
expecting to pose greater challenges to nuclear power plants 
and the grid in the future than they have in the past.
    And I think, what does that mean for NRC? We need to stay 
up to date with the latest science and incorporate that 
knowledge into our standards and our oversight, and that is an 
important aspect. Part of it is the post-Fukushima you 
mentioned, but even more broadly than that, just understanding 
what is the very latest on the potential risks and hazards at 
these locations, and what does that mean for any changes that 
need to happen at the plants?
    Ms. Castor. Yes. We need to expect the unexpected.
    Thank you very much. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Griffith, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank the--I 
appreciate the Commissioners being here today, and it is good 
to be in the room with witnesses and actually able to look at 
folks in the eye, so thank you all very much.
    To provide protection against regulatory overreach, the 
backfit rule requires that the NRC must conduct a cost-benefit 
analysis to justify the imposition of a modification on an NRC 
license. The proposed modification can only be imposed if the 
cost-benefit analysis establishes that there is a substantial 
increase in safety.
    Chairman Hanson, for several years the NRC has been working 
on updating its guidance document on the backfit rule to 
provide greater clarity to both the NRC staff and licensees on 
implementation of the rule. The staff provided its proposed 
update to the guidance document to the Commission in March of 
this year.
    When will the Commission finalize its votes on the guidance 
document?
    Mr. Hanson. Thank you, Congressman Griffith.
    As you noted, it is before the Commission. We are each 
taking a look at it. Certainly the backfit issue, I can tell 
you personally, is new to me coming onto the Commission, and so 
it is something that I look forward to taking a close look at.
    I don't know if any of my colleagues have----
    Mr. Griffith. Well, the main thing is how long do you think 
it is going to take before you get it finalized? Is that going 
to be 2 months, 3 months, 6 months? I mean, I am not going to 
hold you to it. I am just trying to get an idea--or 5 years?
    Mr. Hanson. I am not aware of a particular deadline on 
that. Of course, each of us prioritizes our work. And, when 
there is a critical mass--and, in this case, a critical mass of 
three--then these issues are resolved.
    Mr. Griffith. All right. Well, let me move on. I have got 
some other questions on that.
    Commissioner Wright, it is my understanding that the 
proposed revisions to this guidance include a substantial 
discussion on the concept of forward fitting, which occurs when 
the NRC conditions its approval of a licensee-requested 
licensing action on the licensee's compliance with the new 
requirement that was not part of the request. In other words, 
they make a request to make a change that they think is good 
for safety and efficiency, and then forward fitting would say, 
``Well, we are going to add on some extra things.''
    That being said, do you agree that, without additional 
guidance on when the NRC may impose a forward fit, licensees 
may be disincentivized from pursuing licensing actions, 
including ones that may actually improve the plant performance, 
if they run the risk of being forced to comply with additional 
new requirements that was not within the scope of their 
request?
    Mr. Wright. So I absolutely agree with you. The--we have 
got to stay within our mission, OK? I am--I have umpired 
baseball for almost 50 years, OK, and I use the analogy that 
the--our mission is that strike zone right over home plate, 
right, and everything that we do has to go right to the--to our 
mission, which is--is reasonable assurance, right?
    So, in the forward-fit policy, you know, it is designed to 
add discipline to the process, imposing some new requirements 
or staff interpretation's requirements as a condition.
    So it is intended to ensure that these new requirements 
have a direct relationship to the proposed action, but, as you 
know, sometimes they can overstep bounds. And that has 
happened. You know that, I know that as well. So we are not 
going to hide behind that.
    But I think that--that the licensee, if he can maintain 
reasonable assurance that, you know--then he has met his 
mission, and we should approve it. You know, quite honestly, 
there is an example I will give you. It is, you know, when a 
licensee proposes the use of an older version of his--a design 
code that is currently approved by the NRC, but the staff wants 
to require a newer version of that code, right?
    The staff has got to be able to demonstrate that that is--
that there is something in that newer code that absolutely is 
essential, right? And, if they can't do that, then they have to 
let the licensee, you know, use the older code. That is the way 
to go.
    Mr. Griffith. And my concern in other arenas and other 
fields, we have seen where regulations of that set or that 
nature, where people are afraid, it creates a situation in 
industries where they just won't come in and ask to make any 
changes because they are afraid additional, more expensive 
changes will be added onto them that have nothing to do with 
the requested change. And so that is a real problem.
    So it sounds like to me you would be in support of 
clarifying the guidance document so that it fits that mold that 
you were just talking about. Am I correct in that?
    Mr. Wright. Correct. Yes. And, by the way, I did take the 
backfit training that was offered by the staff. So I did it 
very early. And I do think that the document--that what is 
before us that we are considering, I don't think it is too far 
away, you know. I won't say where we all are in it, but it is--
--
    Mr. Griffith. All right. I appreciate it, and I will 
continue to keep an eye on this. Thank you so much for your 
time, and I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair is now recognizing the gentleman from Maryland, 
Mr. Sarbanes, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Sarbanes, you are recognized.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 
McNerney, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the chairs for holding this 
hearing. And I thank the Commissioners and all the NRC staff 
for your service.
    Chair Hanson, you testified that the final rule for 10 CFR 
Part 53 is expected by the end of 2024, well ahead of the NEIMA 
deadline. Could you explain how the final rule will be ready so 
far ahead of the previous schedule?
    Mr. Hanson. Yes. Congressman, I think one of the key ways 
is by having frequent interactions with stakeholders upfront on 
key technical issues, on the critical issues with regard to--I 
think, as Commissioner Baran rightly noted, probabilistic risk 
assessment versus defense-in-depth, and resolving those issues, 
and conducting those interactions and, really, the development 
of rule language in iterative fashion, I think in this case, 
has the potential to greatly accelerate the schedule. And I 
think the staff is doing a very admirable job in that.
    I do also want to note, however, that it is really 
important for us to get this rule right, and so, you know, 
should there be a need for additional time on the 2024 
timeline, you know, I have certainly made it--tried to make it 
clear to staff for my part that, you know, having a framework 
that--in which we can make safety determinations and security 
determinations for these advanced technologies is critically 
important.
    Mr. McNerney. OK. Thank you. Well, Chairman, the NRC--is 
the NRC prepared from a staffing and technical expertise 
perspectives to meet a growing demand for advanced nuclear?
    Mr. Hanson. I think we are getting more prepared every day. 
We are having frequent interactions with potential licensees. 
We are encouraging those interactions through the submission of 
topical reports that address key technical issues on the 
technologies that could come before us. We are educating our 
staff by--our staffs by working with the Department of Energy 
through the memorandum of understanding under the Nuclear 
Energy Innovations Capabilities Act with the Department of 
Energy, so that we are more familiar with those technologies. 
And we are working with the national labs on some of that as 
well. So we will be ready when they submit.
    Mr. McNerney. So, I take it that the NRC is keeping up with 
the changes in the industry by your answer there.
    Moving on, currently, there are over 80,000 tons of nuclear 
waste in the United States and inventory in insufficiently 
secure facilities across 35 States. Moreover, it is unlikely 
that the State of Nevada will ever allow Yucca Mountain to be 
used as a nuclear waste repository. This is irresponsible and 
dangerous to have that quantity of nuclear waste with no 
realistic plan.
    What are any alternative nuclear waste storage methods that 
would be considered or that have been approved?
    Mr. Hanson. Congressman, we have before us a couple of 
interim storage applications for private, spent-fuel storage 
facilities, one in Texas and one in New Mexico. We are moving 
ahead with reviewing those applications, and will make final 
decisions here in the next few months on both of them, one in 
September and one in January.
    We are open for other applicants who are interested in--
whether Federal or private, who might choose to submit an 
application for one of these facilities going forward.
    Mr. McNerney. Are there any other alternatives, such as 
reprocessing, or horizontal and vertical drilling? You know, it 
seems like we need more than what you are proposing there.
    Mr. Hanson. Well, Congressman, it is really--it is not for 
the NRC to propose these things. We have strictly a regulatory 
and safety role under both the Nuclear Waste Policy Act----
    Mr. McNerney. OK. I get it. I get that. We have heard that. 
But what does it take, then, to get a permit for alternative 
storage methods once they have been approved? What is it going 
to take to, say, for someone to want to deposit waste in Texas 
or New Mexico?
    Mr. Hanson. Yes. I would have to get back to you on the 
specific details on what would be required, but I think, in 
brief, there would have to be a safety case made with regard to 
isolation from people in the environment of that waste over a 
certain period of time, whether it is the 40-year initial 
license period for the facilities in Texas or New Mexico, or if 
you are talking about horizontal or vertical drillings, perhaps 
deep geological disposal, under longer timeframes.
    Mr. McNerney. All right. Well, thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. 
Johnson, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Johnson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 
to the NRC Commissioners for joining us today.
    You know, nuclear power generation along with coal and 
natural gas are indispensable in providing the American people 
with reliable, large-scale baseload electricity, and that will 
remain a fact far into the future.
    According to the best estimates, replacing the generation 
from an average nuclear plant--carbon-free generation, I might 
add--you would need to cover some 300 to 400 times that amount 
of land in renewables with wind and solar. Replacing nuclear 
energy--or coal and natural gas, for that matter--with large-
scale wind and solar, as my Democratic colleagues suggest, is 
not only impossible, it is just simply counterproductive.
    Keeping America's nuclear fleet operating is crucial to our 
energy security and our environment. By nature, the nuclear 
sector is uniquely complex and highly specialized with supply 
chains and lead times that cannot simply be turned on and off.
    This is why it is imperative that we safeguard the next 
generation of nuclear technology, our domestic nuclear 
industrial base, and America's ability to remain a world leader 
in exporting innovative nuclear technology.
    Also, it bears mentioning that tens of billions of public 
and private dollars have been invested in American nuclear 
innovation in recent decades, with many promising technologies 
around the corner. American taxpayers, consumers, and 
innovators deserve to get a return on this investment, and the 
NRC's mission is critical to realizing that goal.
    So, Chairman Hanson, today, with about 151 new reactors in 
the planning phase around the world and over 300 totally around 
the world being proposed, the U.S. industry faced stiff 
competition from nation state programs in Russia and China who 
threaten to dominate emerging markets. America has to take 
practical steps to maintain our competitive edge.
    Part of this involves R&D, and part of it involves updates 
for licensing so that we can do a better job of deploying new 
technologies. With the recent awards under DOE's Advanced 
Reactor Demonstration Program, the NRC will receive multiple 
license applications for commercial and research reactors in 
the near future.
    So, while the NRC will need to ensure safety and 
efficiencies in reviews, it will needlessly cause increased 
costs and cause delays. So my question to you is this, 
Commissioner Hanson: Is the NRC prepared to review these 
applications within the next few years, and how will the NRC 
avoid unnecessary delays?
    Mr. Hanson. Congressman, thank you for that question.
    I believe we are prepared in the next few years to review 
these applications.
    With regard to the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program 
applications that you mentioned, we have had ongoing 
discussions. In the case of X-energy, we had ongoing 
interactions with them, even before the ARDP award was made 
about their technologies.
    And, through the submission of technical reports with--in 
the case of TerraPower, it has been more recent, but we expect 
to have substantive and ongoing interactions with them as well. 
This is going to help prepare the agency for when those 
applications come in to efficiently review them.
    I think, as I may have mentioned earlier, the goal with 
these new technologies is to review and make licensing 
determinations in about a 42-month timeframe, which is 
significantly shorter than historically available. And, as I 
said, we are committed to not being an impediment to these 
new--to the deployment of these new technologies, you know, 
consistent with our overall safety mission.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. And can any of you comment on how the 
development of Part 53 fits within the Advanced Reactor 
Demonstration Program's timeline? And what does a successful 
outcome to licensing the ARDP reactors look like to the 
Commission?
    Mr. Hanson. Thank you, Congressman. That is a great 
question.
    I admit that there is a little bit of a--I don't want to 
call it a disconnect, but maybe a gap between the development 
of Part 53 and the ARDP timeline. I would say, I think, 
TerraPower is still evaluating how they intend to come to the 
Commission for a license, but X-energy has certainly already 
seems to have appeared to make that decision within our 
existing framework and is communicating with us about which 
parts of our existing framework may apply to them or not.
    So, with regard to Part 53, then, you know, we look forward 
to having, even before we finish, an understanding from 
potential applicants about how they intend to engage with that 
licensing so that, when we are done and when they are ready to 
submit, we have a clear framework and a clear path forward for 
addressing those applications.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. Well, thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Vermont, Mr. 
Welch, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Welch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank all 
the chairmen for holding this hearing, and also, I want to 
thank the three Commissioners for being here.
    As you know, Vernon, Vermont, is the home to Vermont 
Yankee, and that was the first commercial plant in the country 
to be sold for decommissioning, and it is likely the plant will 
be fully decommissioned within the decade and within budget. 
That is the way it is looking right now.
    But, from the beginning, there has been a real lack of 
coordination and support from the NRC with the local 
communities that are profoundly affected by the 
decommissioning. And I know that you are working on rulemaking 
to address the decommissioning process.
    And I recently sent you a letter, and I just want to 
outline some of the priorities that I and some of my colleagues 
mentioned and get your response to them.
    We want increase in community involvement. You know, once 
that plant closes, all those jobs are gone, and it really has 
an impact on the community. Formal NRC approval of 
decommissioning plans, licensee financial support for citizen 
advisory boards, preference for prop decommissioning, DECON 
over deferred decommissioning, SAFSTOR, and regulations to 
ensure that the nuclear decommissioning trust is used strictly 
for statutorily authorized purposes.
    How--I am going to ask the Chairman: How would you evaluate 
the NRC's level of engagement with host communities relative to 
the engagement with other parties, such as the Nuclear Energy 
Institute and license holders and matters related to the 
development of a decommissioning policy?
    Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Hanson. Well, certainly, Congressman Welch, we 
appreciated getting--we appreciated getting your letter on this 
subject, and the letter signed by the Senators and other 
parties and as kind of representatives of the local 
communities. We did also, as part of NEIMA, conduct a series of 
public meetings around the country about and documented best 
practices for community advisory boards and were able to, I 
think, get some useful feedback on our decommissioning 
processes----
    Mr. Welch. Can you be specific?
    Mr. Hanson [continuing]. In that way.
    Mr. Welch. Can you be specific?
    Mr. Hanson. I am sorry. Unfortunately, I don't have the 
details of the community advisory board report in front of me. 
I would be very happy to get back to you for the record on 
that.
    Mr. Welch. All right. Let me ask Commissioner Baran. 
Currently, postshutdown decommissioning activity reports are 
submitted to the NRC, but the NRC does not offer formal 
approval of these important outlines for decommissioning.
    What is the purpose of not requiring the NRC to formally 
approve these?
    Mr. Baran. Yes, I share your question, Congressman. I think 
collecting a post-shutdown decommission activity report without 
NRC's substantively assessing its content or making a decision 
to approve or disapprove it doesn't really do much to protect 
health and safety. And I think taking public comment on that 
document and then not taking any kind of action about the 
adequacy of the report, I do think it kind of is a hollow 
gesture.
    I think there are really a few problems, I think, with the 
way it is done now with the--with the activity--the 
decommission activity reports. It leaves NRC no real 
decisionmaking role on the process of decommissioning, and it 
has two big effects. You don't have an environmental review 
upfront. It could wait decades, to the very end of the process, 
and you don't have an opportunity for communities or others to 
make any--raise any concerns in the adjudicatory process. That 
also follows at the very end of the process when all the work 
is done, all the money is expended, and it has been decades, 
potentially.
    And so I also--you know, I agree with the point you made 
that we, as part of this decommissioning rulemaking, need to 
take a real look at that. I think a model where NRC is deciding 
on a document, a decommissioning plan, a detailed plan, making 
a regulatory judgment about it also gives us the opportunity to 
do the environmental review upfront when it makes sense, and 
engage State and locals.
    We could have a requirement, for example, that says, before 
you submit a decommissioning report to the NRC, you have got to 
share it with the State government and give them an opportunity 
to take--make comments on that. I think that would be a great 
way to really give States a seat at the table.
    And then moving up the environmental process, moving up 
potentially the adjudicatory process gives all the State and 
local stakeholders an opportunity to engage much, much earlier 
than they do now.
    Mr. Welch. Thank you, Commissioner.
    Mr. Chairman, I am wondering if you could follow up on 
that, because, again, let me just elaborate a little bit on 
what is happening in Vernon. It is a huge impact on the 
community, as you know, when a plant closes down, and there is 
an effort on the part of the local people to revitalize the 
economy in the face of those lost jobs, and the citizen 
engagement is really essential to that.
    Can you comment on how you see that fitting into your 
plans? Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Hanson. Oh, I am sorry. I thought that was a question 
for Commissioner Baran. I apologize, Congressman Welch.
    Mr. Welch. Yes.
    Mr. Hanson. We are going to be--well, let me say, first of 
all, that the ultimate standard for decommissioning is a free 
release of the site. That is, an unrestricted use of the site. 
And, throughout the decommissioning process, that is the 
standard to which we hold the decommissioning owners, the--our 
licensees.
    And so, I think that is one of the key ways potentially 
that could benefit local communities, because it makes that 
site available for reuse. It is not a brownfield at that point. 
It is actually a greenfield, assuming, right--addressing, of 
course--I understand there are issues potentially with the 
spent fuel. But, overall, it does make that site available for 
a whole variety of uses.
    Mr. Welch. Well, thank you very much.
    My request is that, not just with the Vernon facility, but 
all these others that are coming offline, that the NRC be very 
responsive to the input from citizen advisory boards that have 
the best interests of the--our community at stake, and I look 
forward to working with you and the NRC on that.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. 
Bucshon, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bucshon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Commissioner Baran, I just--since you mentioned it a bunch 
of times, what is your definition of environmental justice, and 
how is that applicable to the NRC and what you are doing at the 
NRC?
    Mr. Baran. Sure. I mean, you know, when we are doing--when 
we are looking at environmental justice, we are looking at 
potentially disproportionate impacts on disadvantaged 
communities, on minority communities.
    Mr. Bucshon. OK. Can I interject there?
    Mr. Baran. Yes.
    Mr. Bucshon. I would suggest you look--I represent 
southwest Indiana, and we have all kinds of ozone alerts and 
other things. I would suggest you look at that area of the 
country and look at our demographics----
    Mr. Baran. Uh-huh.
    Mr. Bucshon [continuing]. And make sure that whatever 
definition you have in--you know, may include areas of the 
country that may not fit your political narrative, but may also 
have--be disadvantaged as it relates to air quality and the 
issues related to that.
    So I--again--so that is--you know, I just don't see where 
the NRC is--has a substantial role to play in this.
    Mr. Baran. Well, can I--if you just----
    Mr. Bucshon. Yes. Go ahead. Sure.
    Mr. Baran. One of the things I think we need to look at is 
just some of our processes and procedures. If you have got a 
community that wants to raise a concern, we have got processes 
for that. Are they set up to be accessible in a way that really 
works for folks, or is it really tough to engage or requires a 
lot of----
    Mr. Bucshon. Sure
    Mr. Baran [continuing]. Expertise and lawyers----
    Mr. Bucshon. Fair enough.
    Mr. Baran [continuing]. And stuff. And those are the kinds 
of things that, you know, Mr. McKinley talked earlier about, is 
it all about a licensing decision? I think there is a lot of 
other things that we could look at and make sure that we are 
responsive to folks who care about these facilities.
    Mr. Bucshon. Yes. I mean, I just--I just think we need to 
be careful when--that every hearing we have, that we have to 
some have political talking points as part of our testimony, 
and I think, without really good definitions, facts, statistics 
to back that up--and this is one of those--not saying that you 
are wrong, I am just saying that I am not sure why this is 
applicable at an NRC hearing.
    Mr. Baran. Well, and the NRC staff is going to take 9 
months to look at this. We are not jumping to any conclusions 
and making any decisions----
    Mr. Bucshon. Understood. Fair enough.
    Chairman Hanson, Congress enacted free reform--fee reforms 
and put a cap on the corporate support in the Nuclear Energy 
Innovation and Modernization Act. This requires budget 
discipline. Last year's defense bill required a similar 
discipline to limit overhead costs on all congressional program 
increases. The result was the Department of Defense developed 
better systems to track overhead costs.
    What is the NRC doing to better track costs?
    Mr. Hanson. Thank you, Congressman, for that.
    Yes, we have--we have developed some budget execution tools 
to better track costs. In addition--from our CFO's office 
across the enterprise, but also within the programs themselves, 
we are better tracking actual costs.
    So, for specific licensing actions now, we have developed 
data tools, visualization tools that put--put those tools in 
the hands of program managers so that they can see the level of 
effort, so they can see the hours that are being billed against 
specific licensing actions.
    Mr. Bucshon. Yes.
    Mr. Hanson. Not only so that they can track those, but so 
that our applicants can track those as well, and they can see 
there is some transparency around that.
    Mr. Bucshon. Great. Thank you very much for that answer.
    As the Commission works to develop a new regulatory 
framework for advanced reactors--and some of this you may have 
already discussed--what is it doing to ensure the appropriate 
staff capacity and expertise will be available to address the 
incoming license applications for 5 years down the line? And, 
Chairman, I will let you start with that.
    Mr. Hanson. Sure.
    Mr. Bucshon. Because that is going to be important, right?
    Mr. Hanson. Absolutely, Congressman.
    You know, I talked a little bit about free application 
interactions with licensees. Let me highlight some of the work 
we are doing in strategic workforce planning, where we are 
trying to look 2 and 3 and 4 years down the road, and 
identifying those key skill sets and identifying whether we can 
take people within the agency that may have adjacent skill sets 
and retrain them for those new capabilities down the road or 
whether we need to go hire or recruit them.
    And, whether that is new employee--you know, fresh out of 
college, master's degree students, which we have--which we are 
implementing programs for now, or whether that is midcareer 
people that we need to come and be project managers and leaders 
and within the agency. So we are really attacking this problem 
on multiple fronts.
    Mr. Bucshon. Great. Maybe I will go to Commissioner Wright 
since he hasn't gotten--had a chance to talk yet.
    Mr. Wright. And that is perfectly OK, Congressman. Thank 
you so much.
    So I agree--I agree with Chairman Hanson about the--you 
know, our efforts and strategic workforce planning. And, in the 
last couple of years--and I have been kind of following this 
personally, because I actually had some of the summer interns 
and the NRAN students that we had--they actually came up to my 
office and sat with me and told me where they thought some of 
the weaknesses were with the NRC going out and recruiting new 
talent, because that we were behind the curve, and the other 
agencies were getting the cream of the crop.
    So we have really modified our--the way we are going about 
recruitment at the college level. We have got high schools 
involved. And we are--we are utilizing their input, right? And 
they actually are--and they are coming to work for us.
    Mr. Bucshon. Right.
    Mr. Wright. We are identifying people who really can add 
value to us specifically going into the areas that you are 
talking about, which is the future.
    Mr. Bucshon. Thank you.
    My time has expired. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you 
all for the hearing.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from New York, Ms. 
Clarke, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you, Chairman Rush, Chairman Tonko, 
Ranking Member Upton, and Ranking Member McKinley, for holding 
today's important hearing on the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission's fiscal year 2022 budget request.
    Let me thank you as well to Chairman Hanson, Commissioner 
Baran, and Commissioner Wright for joining us to offer your 
testimony.
    The Biden administration has signaled a renewed commitment 
to nuclear energy as critical to achieving their ambitious 
climate goals, a commitment that includes the development of 
new forms of advanced nuclear energy technologies. The 
administration's fiscal year 2022 budget request would direct 
$700 million to the Department of Energy to spur the 
development of advanced nuclear technology, including $245 
million to build two new advanced nuclear reactors that would 
be operational within 7 years.
    As the agency in charge of protecting public health and the 
environment from the use of nuclear material, NRC will 
undoubtedly have a significant role to play in the licensing 
and regulation of these advanced facilities.
    Commissioner Baran, it is encouraging to hear from your 
testimony that NRC plans to establish an updated regulatory 
framework to ensure the safe operation of next-generation 
facilities. Can you elaborate on how NRC standards and 
regulations will adapt to these technological advances in 
nuclear reactor technology?
    Mr. Baran. Sure. Yes. This is--this is the so-called Part 
53 rulemaking. I hate throwing around regulatory parts at 
people, but, you know, it is the idea of having basically a 
third new pathway for licensing advanced reactors. We have got 
the two existing ones. This will be a third option.
    And the idea here is to have something that is risk-and-
performance based, technology neutral, so that any of these 
different types of reactors that might come along or on the 
scene now in conversations with us would be able to use this 
same framework. It is not going to be a prescriptive base on a 
very particular type of technology. It is going to be broader, 
more performance-based.
    And, you know--and we have talked a little bit about some 
of the key issues there. One is how much are we going to rely 
or how much is the rule going to rely on quantitative models 
versus other ways of improving safety, and another thing that 
we have all alluded to is really striking this balance between 
how do we take into account potential safety enhancements and 
new technologies, and how do we balance that with having 
defense-in-depth, multiple layers of defense against 
radiological releases.
    And those, I think, are a couple of the big elements that 
are going to be kind of focuses for a lot of the work in that 
area.
    Ms. Clarke. Well, thank you. I firmly believe that any 
advancements in nuclear energy should coincide with more 
stringent environmental and public health standards.
    My next question. As you all know, our Nation is facing an 
onslaught of high-profile malware and ransomware attacks 
targeting government agencies, critical infrastructure, and 
private businesses. In addition to the recent high-profile 
attacks on the Colonial Pipeline and JBS Foods last week, 
hundreds of American businesses were hit by ransomware attacks 
that seized troves of security data and forced businesses to 
shut down their internet servers.
    A successful malware attack on a nuclear facility conducted 
in cyberspace could potentially have devastating and fatal 
consequences to the physical world.
    Chairman Hanson, what steps is NRC currently taking to 
ensure that cybersecurity requirements for licensees properly 
address the growing and ever-changing threat landscape of cyber 
attacks?
    Mr. Hanson. Thank you, Congresswoman, for that.
    The NRC's regulatory framework with regard to cybersecurity 
for nuclear power plants focuses on the--what we call critical 
digital assets, those computer components within the facility 
that address either safety, security, or emergency 
preparedness.
    Now, in many cases, the--those critical digital assets in a 
nuclear facility are often air gapped from the rest of the 
internet. They are--we often see unidirectional technology 
where information can only flow in one direction. But we also--
and we require either those kinds of measures to be in place or 
equally protective mechanisms on a plant-by-plant basis.
    Ms. Clarke. So I would like to talk to you a little bit 
more about that. My time is running out, but I am really 
interested in understanding what your protocols are with 
respect to OT versus IT and the convergence of both.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I have many more questions, but my 
time has elapsed. I am going to yield back the balance of my 
time.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back.
    It is the Chair's understanding that the next four 
Members--Mr. Mullin, Mr. Walberg, Mr. Carter, and Mr. Duncan--
are waiving their time, or they pass so that Mr. Palmer, the 
gentleman from Alabama, will be the next Member to ask 
questions.
    With that, Mr. Chair--the Chair now recognizes Mr. Palmer 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Palmer. I thank my colleagues for allowing me to move 
ahead of them in line, and I thank the chairman for allowing 
that as well.
    Chairman Hanson, under the Nuclear Energy Innovation and 
Modernization Act, NRC's required to develop new licensing 
framework for the development of advanced nuclear reactors. 
However, groups such as Breakthrough Institute have raised 
concerns about the proposed licensing framework known as 10 CFR 
Part 53 is overly burdensome and out of step with current 
technology and climate demands.
    They note it is expected that many advanced reactors will 
provide much larger safety margins relative to existing large 
light-water reactors, but they should not be required to do so 
for licensing which would result in substantial ratcheting of 
regulatory burdens upon licensees for technologies that offer 
the United States substantial environmental and energy security 
benefits.
    So my question is: Can you ensure that the new licensing 
framework does not unfairly increase the regulatory burden on 
these new facilities, which in effect would deny us access to 
safer and more environmental-friendly facilities?
    Mr. Hanson. Congressman, I can commit that the NRC does not 
intend to be an impediment to the deployment of these new 
technologies and that we are looking at new ways to make our 
safety determinations through the enhanced use of data and 
computer modeling and other kinds of information that the--you 
know, the kinds of information that a lot of these reactor 
vendors are equipped with.
    Mr. Palmer. Well, I raise that question in the context of a 
couple things. One--and I will address this later about 
environmental justice, but the other in the context of losing 
our advantages in nuclear technology for--to Russia and China. 
And by that I mean Russia has, a few years ago, entered into an 
agreement with Saudi Arabia. And I think our technology, and 
particularly on the safety side--and this is where the NRCC, I 
think--I mean, the NRC--excuse me--the NRC would be 
particularly interested in helping it streamline the regulatory 
requirements for our advanced nuclear to build those in the 
United States but also to offer those to the rest of the world, 
because they are the safest.
    Mr. Hanson. Congressman, the NRC--we have the privilege and 
I might say the burden of being the gold standard of nuclear 
regulation throughout the world. As I have come into this job 
and started to interact with my international counterparts, I 
see that more and more.
    It is my feeling that I think that the NRC should be part 
of the value proposition for nuclear exports. That is, we can 
help countries also regulate these technologies as we export 
them, and I am----
    Mr. Palmer. You----
    Mr. Hanson. Go ahead, I am sorry.
    Mr. Palmer. But you understand that, if you impose 
unnecessary regulatory burdens on the advanced nuclear 
reactors, that it not only hurts us here in the U.S. and our 
ability to provide CO2--reduced CO2 
emissions, to provide environmentally friendly power, and 
particularly in areas that--where we talk about environmental 
justice. To deny people access to this power, particularly in 
lower-income areas, is an energy injustice. It is an economic 
injustice, and that leads me into this next point about, as 
part of the effort of your staff review, whether environmental 
justice is appropriately considered in the agency's 
adjudicatory procedures, environmental reviews, and whether the 
NRC should consider implementing environmental justice outside 
of the NEPA policy.
    Have you considered the impact on lower-income communities 
by forcing them--having them to wait longer for affordable, 
clean, and safe energy?
    And I know there's areas around the country that don't even 
have access to natural gas. And I brought this up in several 
hearings. I think that is an important consideration here, with 
all due respect to each of you, that we make sure that this 
regulatory process works in the favor of American consumers, 
and, particularly, people who don't have access to reliable 
energy. And I will--any one of you, or all three of you can 
respond to that.
    Mr. Wright. Do you want me to take it?
    Mr. Hanson. Go ahead, Commissioner Wright.
    Mr. Wright. So I agree with you. And I think that we as an 
agency, because we are safety experts, right--we are not 
promoters. We need to be sure things are done safely. Our staff 
is the NEPA expert, right, and everything that we do, we need 
to stay within our swim lane. We need to stay consistent with 
our mission, and that includes the staff review on 
environmental justice as well.
    You know, we can't be a barrier to innovators and 
innovation. We have got to be able to allow there to be 
regulatory certainty to get these things to market. You know, 
our--we have principles of good regulation that we have to 
operate by, but that does not preclude us or prohibit us from 
being part of the value chain that the Chairman referred to.
    So we have got to--you know, if there is opportunities 
through existing laws like NICA and other ways for us to do 
work with DOE better, to work with other agencies, work with 
you, then we need to be open to doing that. But we have got to 
stay within our swim line as an agency, which is the reasonable 
assurance standard.
    Mr. Palmer. My time has expired again.
    I thank the chairman and my colleagues who allowed me to go 
ahead of them. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. 
Schrader, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Schrader, you are recognized.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Ruiz from California for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Ruiz, you are recognized.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Peters from California for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Peters. I gotcha, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. I 
appreciate that.
    Thanks to the witnesses for being here. I want to talk a 
little bit about spent nuclear fuel and the storage of spent 
nuclear fuel. It is a top priority for my constituents and for 
me. There are several decommissioned or decommissioning nuclear 
reactors that have spent fuel stored on site. It needs to be 
moved from sensitive locations either to interim or permanent 
storage.
    San Diego County, as in some of the other places that have 
been mentioned already, the San Onofre Nuclear Generation 
Station, or SONGS, is within 100 feet of the ocean. It is near 
a dense population center. It is near multiple fault lines, 
which poses an earthquake risk. And climate change, including 
sea level rise, could also pose a threat to SONGS and other 
sites across the Nation.
    Simultaneously, next-generation nuclear energy could be a 
key component of our clean energy future. In 2020, nuclear 
energy provided over 50 percent of the country's zero-emission 
electricity. And, in the future, advanced reactors could help 
us produce less nuclear waste and provide cheaper electricity. 
Hundreds of my constituents are working today on these advanced 
technologies in San Diego.
    So, today, I wanted to ask a couple questions about exactly 
where we are, and I will focus maybe to Chairman Hanson. Can 
you tell us what the risks are that are associated basically 
with the storage of spent nuclear fuel at decommissioned or 
decommissioning facilities, like the San Onofre facility in San 
Diego? What are the risks associated with that storage?
    Mr. Hanson. Congressman, you know, let me first, by saying 
that I think that the--we have determined that the spent fuel 
stored at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station and other 
sites around the country is safe, that it is being stored 
safely.
    That doesn't mean that there is zero risk, as you pointed 
out, but those risks are being monitored and managed, both by 
the NRC through requirements that we impose on our licensees.
    Mr. Peters. Great. I am happy to hear that.
    I want to know a little bit, though, about what is it that 
you are watching to make sure that something doesn't go wrong? 
What are the things that you have your eyes on in particular 
that, if you weren't watching, could cause a health risk or 
environmental risk?
    Mr. Hanson. So, for example, part of our oversight process 
really looks at the integrity of the facility over time, both 
the external structure, such as the overpacks for the spent 
fuel canisters, as well as the canisters themselves. We require 
our licensees to have robust monitoring programs, and we 
oversee those problems as well as conduct inspections on those 
facilities ourselves.
    Mr. Peters. If the containers were deemed, or if the--were 
ultimately--did not have integrity, what would be the result? 
What could happen?
    Mr. Hanson. You know, we would have to evaluate that, but 
it is certainly possible that that container would have to be 
repackaged or--or inserted in another canister potentially.
    Mr. Peters. I understand that.
    Mr. Hanson. We evaluate that on a case-by-case basis.
    Mr. Peters. Sure. Sure, but obviously your--the thing we 
are worried about is a leak of contamination, right? That is 
what we are trying to avoid----
    Mr. Hanson. Yes, that is right.
    Mr. Peters [continuing]. In these containers. Isn't that 
right?
    Mr. Hanson. That is right. OK.
    Mr. Peters. OK. And, also, that is presumably true with 
respect to the outside containment. And I guess what I am 
interested in knowing is, we have got a lot of fuel there. If 
we weren't taking these precautions, I assume that could 
present a Fukushima-type risk to people in the district, right?
    Mr. Hanson. I would have to get back to you on what the 
specific accident scenarios would be.
    Mr. Peters. Well, obviously, we are--OK. Well, I mean, I am 
not suggesting that that is happening, sir. I am just saying 
that those are the kinds of things that we have to look at. And 
I understand that part of your purview is not locating 
ultimate--ultimate disposal, or long-term disposal like Yucca 
or interim disposal, but I would also be curious if we are 
stuck with this because, on--you know, the Biden and Trump 
administrations have both withdrawn support for Yucca, or are 
against it. We are supposedly going to go down the line of 
asking people to please take it, based on some sort of consent.
    Are there ways that we can improve the oversight of these 
decommissioned or decommissioning facilities so that we are 
sure that they are safe?
    Mr. Hanson. You know, we have determined that our oversight 
processes for these spent fuel facilities and for the ongoing 
decommissioning activities are safe----
    Mr. Peters. All right.
    Mr. Hanson [continuing]. Congressman.
    Mr. Peters. Is this an ideal place for long-term storage, 
in your opinion?
    Mr. Hanson. I would--I am not sure that on site at these 
reactor facilities were originally envisioned as long-term 
storage facilities, no.
    Mr. Peters. All right. Well, my time has expired, and thank 
you for being here.
    Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 
Oklahoma, Mr. Mullin, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And, Mr. Peters, I was actually kind of intrigued with your 
line of questioning there. I am not sure we ever got the 
answers you were looking for, but I was definitely intrigued by 
what you were saying.
    We might be coming from two separate ends, but I definitely 
appreciate your line of questioning.
    Chairman Hanson, I just--I want to add to that just a 
little bit. You had made mention it wasn't ideal. How much--how 
much is the United States Government, through NRC, right now, 
paying in fines for storing these in--on site?
    Mr. Hanson. Congressman, I appreciate the question.
    The way the arrangement works in the United States actually 
is that the power plant licensees actually have contracts with 
the Department of Energy, and they are--and the Department of 
Energy, I think, is obligated to perform against that contract.
    For the NRC, for our part, it is our job to ensure the 
safety of ongoing operations, including spent-fuel storage at 
those facilities, so----
    Mr. Mullin. So I probably asked that question wrong.
    Mr. Hanson [continuing]. I honestly--I honestly couldn't 
tell you what the U.S. is paying.
    Mr. Mullin. Yes, but I probably asked that question wrong.
    Do you know how much we are spending in fines or 
settlements with these--with these sites, storing it on site?
    Mr. Hanson. Honestly, Congressman, I don't, because that is 
not really in the purview of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
    Mr. Mullin. OK. Well, let me ask another line of questions, 
then.
    Russia and China are rapidly exporting their nuclear 
technology around the world, and, as you know, this creates a 
very lasting partnership when this kind of technology is shared 
and the facilities are built.
    How is the NRC working to improve this technology quicker 
so we can export our own technology around the globe?
    Mr. Hanson. The safety reviews that the NRC conducts are--
on all of these technologies, both existing and new 
technologies, are watched around the world. We--and I and my 
colleagues regularly communicate and collaborate with our 
colleagues around the world on the status of those reviews and 
what we are finding and what we are learning.
    Mr. Mullin. Do you have concern with Russia and China's 
growing, I guess, influence in the nuclear technology right 
now, especially with countries that are an interest to both of 
us?
    Mr. Hanson. I think the NRC's approach to--you won't be 
surprised to hear--approach to nuclear regulation is the right 
one, and I think it is worth sharing around the world for our 
partners, whether we are expert in technology or not.
    Mr. Mullin. Well, what is the right one, because--well, but 
what is the right one, because what we are doing is we are 
shutting down nuclear plants all over the country right now, 
where I think seven more are slated to be shut down. So what is 
our approach?
    Mr. Hanson. We are continuing to risk-inform our approach 
to nuclear reactor regulation.
    Mr. Mullin. Well, no. But you said was that is the right 
one.
    Mr. Hanson. We have--that is a lifelong experience.
    Mr. Mullin. Chairman, I am not trying to be difficult here. 
I am just saying that you said you take the right approach. 
What is that right approach?
    Is that right approach no nuclear power, because nuclear is 
clean, and it is reliable if it is done right. And if the NRC 
is convinced that they can do it right, then why are we 
shutting down plants and why other countries are building them? 
Why aren't we bringing new ones online?
    Mr. Hanson. I am sorry, Congressman. I guess I would argue 
that the decisions to shut down nuclear plants in the United 
States aren't related to the NRC, that these are largely due to 
economic factors outside of the NRC's purview.
    Mr. Mullin. I am--I am almost shocked that you said that. I 
am--honestly, I am--because of the heavy regulations and the 
cost of meeting requirements that the NRC has put in place has 
literally made it worse, not economically feasible for these 
plants to be built, much less maintained, and NRC doesn't have 
any role in that?
    Mr. Hanson. I won't say that we don't have any role, but I 
don't think we are the decisive factor in that, no, 
Congressman.
    Mr. Mullin. That might be a big problem why we are losing 
nuclear power around here. If you are the Chairman and you 
don't--and NRC doesn't see a role that they play in this, or a 
way to figure out how to make this work, be viable, because 
energy is increasing as we are bringing down fossil fuel plants 
and generators where there is more reliability on nuclear. I 
spent just--I spent the last 15 months in California. And it is 
funny, when I left, we started having rolling blackouts at 7 
o'clock because solar went offline.
    Nuclear could easily fill that gap, and for your response 
that, I am just taken--I am taken aback. The NRC has a role to 
play in this. As the Chairman--as the Chair of it, you should 
see that. I mean, that is part of your role.
    But, with that, Mr. Chairman, I know I am out of--I am out 
of time, and I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from New Hampshire, 
Ms. Kuster, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Kuster. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 
for being here, Chairman Hanson, Commissioner Baran, and Mr. 
Wright.
    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission plays an important role 
regulating nuclear power plants and the civilian use of nuclear 
material, and I appreciate the dedication of NRC staff to 
keeping Americans safe.
    One of the plants your agency is responsible for overseeing 
is here in New Hampshire, the Seabrook Nuclear Power Station.
    Now, I will start with the good news. Seabrook is an 
important source of baseload power in New England and generates 
enough electricity to power more than 1 million homes. The 
power station provides tax revenue for New Hampshire and is a 
good job creator for our seacoast region. More than 4 million 
people, including many of my constituents, live within a 50-
mile radius of this power station.
    But nuclear--Seabrook Nuclear Power Station also has the 
unfortunate distinction of being the first nuclear power 
station in the United States to experience an alkalized silica 
reaction, or ASR, in the concrete structure that houses the 
power station. ASR causes tiny cracks in concrete which over 
time can weaken the structural integrity of buildings.
    The NRC and Seabrook's owner have known about this issue 
for more than 12 years, and before recently granting a 20-year 
license renewal to extend Seabrook Power Station's operations 
from 2030 to 2050, the NRC conducted an extensive review of ASR 
cracking at Seabrook.
    As a result of this review, it exposed a number of safety 
conditions related to ASR cracking at the facility, including 
6-month evaluations, rebar analysis to screen for additional 
stress placed on the facility, and analysis of the concrete.
    Dr. Victor Saouma, a leading expert on ASR work, on behalf 
of the public safety group C-10, recommended the NRC impose 
additional safety conditions on Seabrook's license renewal to 
ensure ASR cracking at the nuclear power plant is properly 
monitored. But, in a frustrating November 2020 opinion, the 
Atomic Safety Licensing Board dismissed these safety provisions 
largely on procedural grounds.
    Commissioner Baran, in your testimony, you outlined that in 
recent years there has been a counterproductive emphasis on 
reducing inspections and cutting costs at the NRC, but you 
state that you believe the NRC should, quote, ``improve 
oversight, not weaken it.''
    What steps can be taken by the NRC to improve ASR cracking 
monitoring at Seabrook Station here in New Hampshire?
    Mr. Baran. Well, I am glad you asked the question. I am 
actually going to be visiting Seabrook in about 3 weeks. And I 
am looking forward as part of that tour to see, you know, the 
manifestations of ASR, ask all the right questions. We are 
reaching out to a number of the groups in the area before we go 
to see what questions they have, what do they want me to ask 
the residents, what do they want me to ask the licensee there? 
We are going to be looking around and asking those kinds of 
tough questions.
    Our Atomic Safety and Licensing Board has some terrific 
experts, and I know they took a very hard look at this, but I 
want to ask those kinds of follow-up questions when I am 
visiting there in August.
    Ms. Kuster. Good. Well, we welcome your visit. Commissioner 
Baran, given that Seabrook is the first nuclear power plant to 
experience issues with ASR cracking, has the NRC worked with 
independent experts to determine the best oversight regime to 
ensure the safety of Seabrook Nuclear Power Station and my 
constituents here in New Hampshire?
    Mr. Baran. If I may, we will check with our staff and get 
back to you on the record for the record for that. I want to 
make sure I don't--I will give you kind of a comprehensive 
listing of all the work the staff has done on that. I know they 
have done extensive safety analysis. But you asked a very good 
question, which is to what extent have they gone outside the 
building and talked to others about that. To be honest, I don't 
know the answer to that, but I am happy to get back to you with 
that answer.
    Ms. Kuster. Thank you. And please provide that list of 
experts to the committee.
    And, finally, has the NRC consulted with the operators of 
other major facilities that are experiencing ASR cracking like 
Hydro-Quebec to determine the best practices for monitoring?
    Mr. Baran. I believe the answer is yes. But when we get 
back to you on the specifics of the outreach of the staff, we 
will make sure we include that as well.
    Ms. Kuster. Thank you. Thank you so much, and I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlewoman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Walberg, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Walberg, you are recognized.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia for 5 
minutes. Mr. Carter, you are recognized.
    Mr. Carter, you are recognized.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, 
Mr. Duncan. Mr. Duncan, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank 
Scott Peters for recognizing the nuclear waste issue. Nuclear 
waste sits at 121 sites in 39 States, and we need a long-term 
repository. And ratepayers have paid tens of billions of 
dollars into a fund to construct and maintain a long-term 
repository. That is ratepayer money, not taxpayer money that 
Members need to realize.
    Also, let me also mention that we need to not cede the 
development of advanced nuclear technologies to China. Nuclear 
technologies like molten salt reactors, which they continue to 
construct, and we continue to down-blend the seed material 
known as U-233 that we have in this country that would need to 
be seed stock for future thorium reactors should the United 
States decide to go that route. So that needs to be on the 
Members' radar screen.
    Commissioner Wright, you know as well as I do the State of 
South Carolina is a leader in nuclear energy. We produced 
nearly 56 percent of South Carolina's electricity, 95 percent 
of the State's carbon-free electricity. And I am a big 
supporter of nuclear energy as a critical part of the energy 
matrix both from a reliability and environmental perspective. 
If we are serious about reducing emissions, nuclear has to be 
part of the equation. I think we have heard that over and over 
today from other Members on both sides of the aisle. So I look 
forward to working with them as we move forward on modernizing 
and advancing our nuclear technology across the country.
    But I want to address modernization efforts at NRC. As we 
strive for more reliable clean power across the United States, 
we must make the NRC a more modern and efficient regulator. One 
area I believe we can modernize is the burdensome environmental 
review process for nuclear reactor licensing. The cost of 
environmental review processes have tripled over the last 10 
years, and its completion takes an average of 4 years. I think 
this plays into something that Markwayne Mullin was talking 
about: the rising costs, the economic factor that the chairman 
mentioned, it relates to the length of time and the costly 
environmental review process.
    I have a bill currently that would change some of that 
interstate--directs interstate examine and promulgate a final 
rule that would allow for categorical exclusion of 
environmental assessments and environmental impact statements 
in lieu of the IS's to be used in permitting actions when 
appropriate. It is to help lower costs, expedite permitting 
processes for nuclear power.
    So, Commissioner Wright, why is the current environmental 
review process so duplicative?
    Mr. Wright. Thank you for the question. And, Go Tigers, by 
the way. It is good to see you again, Congressman. So I agree 
with you that there is a lot that can be done in this arena 
here. And the staff has already--maybe you are aware, maybe you 
are not--but the staff has already developed several proposals 
to do just that. The Commission is currently considering the 
staff's recommendation to transform its environmental review 
process, which is the first wholesale relook at our regulations 
since they were promulgated back in the 1980s, I think.
    So just so you know, the NRC is also at work developing a 
notice of proposed rulemaking on the expanded use of 
categorical exclusions. They are considering the use of 
environmental assessments for additional types of licensing 
actions. They are developing a generic environmental impact 
statement for advanced reactors. They are updating a GEIS as 
well for license renewals to include additional items that can 
be resolved generically. And they are performing internal 
processes as well to focus on improvements to, as you have 
indicated, to modernize our review processes. So those are some 
of the things that we are doing right now. And, you know, we 
look forward to working with you. And if your bill does pass 
and become law, we will absolutely follow the law.
    Mr. Duncan. Hopefully, we can get some Democrats to sign 
onto to that and get moved to a hearing.
    Mr. Chairman, as this committee looks to address climate 
change, we need to look make sure that any legislation that 
alters our energy markets doesn't threaten existing nuclear 
plants, like we have seen in Illinois, across the Midwest. The 
actors continue to go offline, as we have heard. And those 
markets--I don't want that to happen in South Carolina--they 
are put into perspective. Newberry station in my district 
houses three nuclear reactors, produced more than 2,500 
megawatts of carbon-free electricity. Nuclear generation 
capacity is at 92\1/2\ percent. Other carbon-free sources don't 
even come close to what nuclear does.
    So it has got to be a part of our clean energy future. We 
need to ensure our licensing regulations are modernized, as 
Commissioner Wright says, and we need to keep our reactors 
online. And with that, I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Barragan for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Chairmen Rush and Tonko, for 
holding this important oversight hearing on the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission. It is critical that we regulate our 
nuclear power industry to ensure it is safe, secure, responsive 
to the public, and well-prepared for the future.
    It was good to see the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's 
announcement last week that you will conduct a review of how 
the agency's programs, policies, and activities address 
environmental justice.
    Earlier, there was an exchange with one of my colleagues 
across the aisle about the need or why, asking why 
environmental justice was being considered by the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission. We know there are community impacts from 
nuclear power plants, including potential exposure in the case 
of an accident. The mining industries that produce uranium, and 
communities in the past have transported nuclear waste.
    It is important the Commission take these factors into 
consideration when deciding--when making decisions about siting 
and license renewals, particularly, when the impacted community 
is an environmental justice community already facing 
environmental impacts. Now, these impacted communities far too 
often have been low-income communities or communities of color.
    Commissioner Baran, did you need additional time to respond 
to my colleague Representative Bucshon's question about the 
purpose of conducting an environmental justice review?
    Mr. Baran. Well, I am happy to talk more about it. I do 
think it is very important, and I emphasize it was--all the 
Commissioners agreed, there were four at the time, we all 
agreed it made sense to do this review. And no one is 
prejudging the outcome of what we think makes sense. But I 
think there is a lot to look at.
    You know, right now, in NRC's licensing decisions, 
environmental justice is basically just a small part of an 
environmental impact statement. And that is pretty minimal 
treatment, and I am not sure that that is inspiring a lot of 
confidence among stakeholders in disadvantaged communities that 
those factors are really playing a meaningful role in our 
decisions.
    Our adjudicatory process, you know, the mechanism for 
raising concerns, whether they be safety concerns, health 
concerns, environmental concerns, you know, it has been 
characterized over the years as strict by design, really hard, 
a lot of hurdles, a lot of procedural, it is very complex. Is 
that just another way of saying that the agencies made it hard 
for interested stakeholders to engage with us and express their 
concerns? I worry that that is exactly what it is.
    And, you know, the environmental justice policy statement 
we have right now is from 2004. I think it definitely needs to 
be updated. It is a pretty negative document, if you read it. 
And it basically reads like a legal brief of all the things we 
are not going to do on environmental justice. Many stakeholders 
criticized that document at the time, including the Bush EPA 
thought it was too narrow.
    So I think that is a lot to look at. I understand some of 
the concerns folks are raising. Is this going to be the 
decisive fact that determines whether a license gets granted or 
not? I don't know the answer to that. We need to look at the 
review. But I do think that there are a lot of our more 
procedural aspects of the way in which people can raise 
concerns that are pretty tough right now for people to engage. 
And I think we----
    Ms. Barragan. Thank you.
    Mr. Baran [continuing]. Need to take a look at that.
    Ms. Barragan. Thank you for that.
    Chairman Hanson, as part of the Commission's environmental 
justice review, the announcement said the Commission will be 
holding two public meetings on July 15--that is tomorrow--and 
taking public comments. Can you tell me--yes or no because I am 
running low on time--has the agency reached out directly to the 
environmental justice community to inform them about these 
opportunities for public comment?
    Mr. Hanson. I certainly hope so. And I will get back to you 
for the record, yes or no, on that, Congresswoman.
    Ms. Barragan. Well, given that this is tomorrow, this is a 
little concerning to hear. Because, you know, the outreach is a 
critical part of getting public input from the communities most 
impacted by the review of the Commission and what they are 
undertaking.
    So, you know, depending on the attendance on the public 
meetings and those of tomorrow, I do encourage you to offer 
additional opportunities for the public to weigh in, 
particularly environmental justice communities who live near 
power plants, uranium mining, or transportation routes, spent 
nuclear fuel.
    Chairman Hanson and Commissioners Baran and Wright, a 2019 
United States War College Report found that 60 percent of the 
country's nuclear reactors are at high risk of permanent or 
temporary closure due to climate threats or sea level rise and 
severe storms.
    In an earlier response to Representative Castor, you said 
that flooding concerns are looking to license renewals. 
However, the renewals only happen every 20 years. We need to 
react faster to changing climate. Could maybe you respond in 
writing or in future on how the regulatory--the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission is taking action to ensure that all of 
our existing nuclear power plants are prepared for climate 
impacts in between license renewals?
    I know my time has expired, so I am go to yield back, but I 
do hope to get a response later on those questions. Thank you. 
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlewoman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Curtis, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know that we have 
talked about this a lot, but I need to emphasize it again that 
nuclear is a very important base load in energy, and it can 
generate incredible amounts of carbon-free power. I find it 
just so ironic that the exact time our President has asked us 
to cut our carbon emissions in half, we will have also cut our 
nuclear energy in half from 20 percent down to 10 percent of 
the power that we use. It gets even more crazy when you read 
the Environmental Justice Report issued by the White House. The 
report says that the communities will not benefit from nuclear 
carbon capture research and development or highway expansion.
    Back toward nuclear plants, I know many of my colleagues 
have--I know that the places that I have seen, the 
communities--as a matter of fact, those communities who do not 
want nuclear in their backyard--I will invite those facilities 
to come to my district where they would be welcomed. And I 
think that is an important consideration.
    Mr. Chairman, how do you expect the declining nuclear 
reactor fleet will impact the NRC's budget and therefore impact 
your ability to permit future nuclear?
    Mr. Hanson. Congressman, thank you for that question. Since 
the height of the reactor fleet and what we thought was the 
nuclear renaissance back in 2013 or 2014, the reactor fleet has 
declined by about 10 or 11 reactors in this country, 10 or 11 
percent from 104 down to 93. The NRC's budget and staffing, we 
have reduced staff by 25 percent, and we have reduced our 
budget by 22 percent. So we have adjusted already to the 
declining fleet. And we think that we still have the resources 
we need to ensure the safety of that fleet and stay focused on 
our mission.
    Mr. Curtis. So, let me clarify the question. It is like, 
how does that impact your ability to deal with future 
applications?
    Mr. Hanson. Yes, sorry, very good question. Obviously, we 
have gotten some additional funds from Congress to help us 
prepare for those new applications. And we are looking at 
staff. We are--as people come in, they will pay us fees, and we 
will use those fees to pay a staff to review those 
applications.
    Mr. Curtis. And I hate to cut you off, but you know we are 
all so short on time. Would you consider options for adjusting 
your licensing fee model to incentivize and account for the 
public benefit that comes from nuclear? And is that something 
that you would consider?
    Mr. Hanson. We are happy to work with you and other Members 
of Congress on any changes you would like to consider to our 
fee structure.
    Mr. Curtis. There is an organization in Utah called UAPS. 
It is an acronym. It represent 49 cities, municipal power 
cities. Over 5 years ago, they had the forward-thinking idea 
and acknowledged the importance of advanced nuclear. They 
submitted a 12,000-page document. Forty-two months later, the 
NRC issued its final safety evaluation. In total, their DCA 
cost over $500 million. And you can see how--why some of my 
colleagues are concerned about barriers out there. Ultimately, 
they created the first-ever NRC license project in the country. 
We are pretty proud of that for Utah. Do you agree that 
licensing new advanced reactors provides an important public 
benefit?
    Mr. Hanson. I am sorry? Provides what kind of benefit, 
Congressman? I didn't quite catch that.
    Mr. Curtis. An important public benefit.
    Mr. Hanson. I think we have a role in determining the 
safety of these technologies. And I think that the safety 
determination provides a public benefit.
    Mr. Curtis. Well, no, the question is, licensing new 
plants, is that an important public benefit?
    Mr. Hanson. We are not in the--unfortunately, Congressman, 
we are not in the policymaking benefit or area of this for----
    Mr. Curtis. I am not asking you to make----
    Mr. Hanson [continuing]. The reactors we want to be as 
efficient as possible in our review.
    Mr. Curtis [continuing]. I am not asking you to make 
policy. Listen, let me cut to the chase. I hope that you will 
evaluate the fee structure and the barriers to innovative 
technologies that are keeping this nuclear from coming into 
real reality. You can see with a 12,000-page document and $500 
million, how many people can actually really do that? And, I am 
sorry, I am out of time. Mr. Chairman, I yield.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlewoman from President Biden's home State, 
Ms. Blunt Rochester of Delaware, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 
thank you also to Chairman Tonko for calling this very 
important hearing. And I also want to thank the witnesses.
    As we have heard throughout hearing, climate change has 
made extreme weather events more frequent and more intense. And 
as the country continues to witness an unprecedented heat wave 
and battle a record-breaking wildfire season, it is clear that 
we need to be better prepared and that our nuclear 
infrastructure needs to be prepared against future climate 
change vulnerabilities.
    Climate change considerations need to be incorporated into 
the design, planning, and ongoing maintenance of nuclear 
facilities to ensure the resiliency of these facilities and the 
safety of the surrounding communities.
    I want to follow up on questions from Ms. Castor as well as 
Ms. Barragan.
    Commissioner Baran, we know that nuclear power plants, many 
use large quantities of water for cooling, and they are 
especially vulnerable to extreme climate events. Increasing 
temperatures like we have seen this summer have forced reactors 
to go offline and reduce capacity in the past. How is the NRC 
helping to support the nuclear power industry in preparing and 
retrofitting their facilities for rising air and water 
temperatures?
    Mr. Baran. Well, it is a good question, and I would just 
kind of distinguish between two types of extreme weather we 
would be focused on and concerned about with climate change. 
One, our extreme weather events, like, say, hurricanes or 
flooding that could threaten in a very immediate way the safety 
of a plant. And there, there has been so much post-Fukushima 
done to better improve the safety of the plants to deal with 
those kinds of situations.
    As I mentioned earlier, I think there is still something to 
do there to better protect that additional equipment that we 
have onsite to make sure that it is protected against the 
latest science about flooding hazards, in particular, but also 
seismic hazards.
    There is a separate question you raised--not to say it is 
not important, but it is a little different--which is what 
about rising temperatures of the water that is used for cooling 
water, or what about the level of the water if you have 
drought? And there it is a little different. Because you don't 
have that acute safety threat. It could affect, though, whether 
the plant can operate or not, right? If you don't have enough 
cooling water, or if your cooling water is warmer than the 
plant needs it to be or is established in our technical 
specifications, the plant may have to reduce power or shut down 
for a period.
    So those are both things that we look at. Me, I work--I am 
focused, in particular, on that first piece to make sure we 
have the right protections and resilience for equipment onsite 
to ensure safety, even if you have an event that, you know, 
maybe what used to be a once-in-a-century event and now we are 
seeing much more common.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Right, right. You actually preempted 
my next question which was going to be about floods and 
hurricanes. But I want to dig a little bit deeper. First of 
all, I want to ask about site planning for future nuclear waste 
repositories and what kinds of things are you incorporating. 
And maybe even a larger question I have is sort of like the 
connectivity between what you do and those who are looking at 
the trends in our weather and how it has been exacerbated and 
moving much rapidly.
    Can you talk a little bit about both the future and what 
kind of things the NRC is doing to incorporate these concerns 
into site planning? But also could you talk about who you 
partner with? And is there data available that shows, you know, 
these trends that are coming?
    Mr. Baran. Sure. This is really one of the lessons we had 
learned from Fukushima is that on the latest science of natural 
hazards, we were, as an agency, just too reactive. We would 
wait for folks to submit additional information to us and then 
evaluate it and see did something need to be done. One of the 
things we have done post-Fukushima is to be much more 
proactive, to go out there and make sure our folks are really 
aware of the latest science. So if it is a flooding, we are 
interacting with other Federal agencies that are the experts in 
flooding. We are going out and getting the data. We are 
interacting with academia. We are interacting with 
international organizations to make sure we are getting all the 
latest information, cataloging that, and then proactively 
figuring out, OK, based on what we now know, do we need to look 
at whether anything needs to be adjusted at any of the nuclear 
power plants to make sure they are adequately protected? And 
that kind of information is much more proactive and continuous 
than it used to be. And I think it is a really positive 
development. It is an important part of being ready for climate 
change impact.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you so much for sharing that. I 
will follow up with you afterwards. But I just want to share, I 
was actually in Shanghai when Fukushima happened and understand 
how--what a threat this can be and why it is so important for 
proactive planning. So I look forward to working with you all 
in the future. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Baran. Thank you.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from my birth State, the great State 
of Georgia, Mr. Carter, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Carter. I didn't realize that, Mr. Ranking Member. 
Thank you. I'm glad to know that.
    Mr. Rush. Albany.
    Mr. Carter. Albany. Great, great. Great area. Well, thank 
you for this hearing, and I am glad that we are finally having 
this hearing on--with the NRC today. It is really a great 
opportunity for us to show how important nuclear energy is and 
really because we know that it is the only energy source that 
delivers reliable 24-hour carbon-free energy, and that is 
extremely important. And solar, wind, and power and all the 
other renewables are certainly important, and we don't deny 
that, but in all-of-the-above energy strategies for us to 
reduce our emissions, nothing beats the reliability that 
nuclear energy gives us.
    I want to thank you also, all of you for mentioning Vogtle 
and the construction of the only two nuclear reactors right now 
in the United States, the construction of them here in the 
State of Georgia, and I am very proud of that. Because not only 
are they going to be able to provide baseload power, but they 
also are providing good-paying jobs and reliable rates for 
customers in Georgia for many years to come.
    I want to start, first of all, with--I guess, I will ask 
Commissioner Wright this one. Commissioner Wright, we all know 
that large light-water reactors such as this and at Vogtle 3 
and 4 are expensive and time-consuming to build. But isn't it 
also true that when they are completed that Vogtle 3 and 4 will 
be a significant source of energy that is for electricity that 
is carbon-free?
    Mr. Wright. Thank you very much. In a previous life, I was 
an economic regulator in South Carolina too, so I have some 
knowledge of how--what happens to plants when they get older 
and the--how the costs goes--gets lower and gets, you know, 
actually provides a huge benefit. So I am agreeing with you 
that, you know, once it goes online and as it goes into the 
life of the plant, it will become much more valuable, let's put 
it that way.
    Mr. Carter. Well, that is my next question, and thank for 
acknowledging that, because don't we need both our existing 
fleet and new reactors like Vogtle 3 and 4 to meet our national 
carbon monoxide goals?
    Mr. Wright. So, and I am going to answer your question. I 
am not going to dodge it. But I do want to preface it by--
again, this is my opinion--we are safety regulators. So we have 
got to make sure that whatever is there is operating safely 
within our mission.
    But, yes, I do agree with you there. You know, I do think 
that we have got to have everything available. And we need to 
be sure that with them doing what we need to do as regulators 
at the NRC, that we provide, you know, the pathway, the 
regulatory certainty and performing our mission that we are not 
a barrier to innovators or innovation. And be it advanced 
reactors, microreactors, you name it, we don't know what else 
other technologies that are out there that are going to be 
coming. But, you know, our goal and our--we have to endeavor to 
be ready for whatever comes.
    Mr. Carter. Well, very quickly, don't you agree that the 
successful completion of units 3 and 4 at Vogtle will mean that 
we reestablish our Nation's international leadership and 
credibility on nuclear safety and nonproliferation?
    Mr. Wright. Yes, and it has come up a couple of times today 
too that the reference to the importance of national security. 
So, you know, if we do our job--and, you know, we have to be 
able to work with Congress, with DOE and others to be sure that 
we are, again, not a barrier, that if we can license and allow 
these technologies to get to market where they can do what they 
have to do, you know, what we are involved in can be exported 
along with it. And that is our expertise to make sure that they 
are operating safely around the world.
    Mr. Carter. Good. Good. Thank you, Commissioner.
    And, Chairman Hanson, I want to ask you very quickly. I 
have just got a little time here left. You mentioned in your 
testimony that the NRC's budget request includes an increase 
partially for an increase in licensing actions related to 
accident-tolerant fuel. Accident-tolerant fuel is--as you know, 
Southern Company in Georgia has done significant work with this 
in testing. Could you provide--can you just give us very 
quickly the status on the accident-tolerant fuel?
    Mr. Hanson. Congressman, that will be hard. I could talk 
about accident-tolerant fuel all day, but I won't. We are 
proceeding at pace with a lot of interactions with potential 
licensees on this subject. There are probably nine different 
technologies out there. We are working with both the Department 
of Energy and our licensees on the results tests of those 
technologies. We have got a project plan that I think prepares 
us to license these accident-tolerant fuel technologies in a 
2023 timeframe. This is a personal interest and a personal 
priority of mine. So I think we are moving ahead, and I am 
paying close attention to this effort.
    Mr. Carter. And we appreciate you paying close attention, 
because it is extremely important. So I thank all of you, and 
thank you for this hearing again today, Mr. Chairman. Thank 
you.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Soto, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you, Chairman. Nuclear power is key to help 
us achieve net carbon neutral by 2050. That is why President 
Biden included it in the American Jobs Plan, specifically 
included funding for development of advanced and small modular 
nuclear reactors and for clean electricity standard, the same 
type of clean electricity standard we are working on in this 
committee--not saying that there is any type of energy that is 
prohibited, but making sure that the results lead to us getting 
further reduced in carbon.
    There was a little bit of bickering back and forth from the 
committee. You think that we are not as close as we are. But it 
is really important to recognize this is a bipartisan 
opportunity. Because speaking for the Democrats on the 
committee, I know we support continuing nuclear into the 
future, and I know we have heard from our Republican colleagues 
in a passionate way today.
    According to the Department of Energy, these advanced 
reactors envision to varying size from tens of megawatts to 
larger can be used for power generation to process heat, 
desalinization for power generation, for other industrial uses. 
So when you think about everything from resolving water issues 
in the West and desalinization, to helping with smaller units 
that may be specifically for specific factories into helping 
with their industrial base, that is real exciting.
    The American Jobs Plan calls for $15 billion for research 
and development priorities, including advanced nuclear and rare 
earth element recovery technologies. The recycling that we have 
all been talking of nuclear materials.
    So my question for all three of our NRC Commissioners, 
starting with Chairman Hanson: Would this $15 billion that is 
called for in the American Jobs Plan help us expedite 
development of modular nuclear power?
    Mr. Hanson. Congressman, thank you for that. I am not 
familiar explicitly with the terms of the American Jobs Plan.
    Mr. Soto. Would a $15 billion investment help jump-start 
this still, generally, even if you weren't familiar?
    Mr. Hanson. Standing outside even as the safety regulator, 
it seems like it would, yes.
    Mr. Soto. Thanks. And Commissioner Baran, your thoughts on 
the investment.
    Mr. Baran. Yes, I agree. I mean, obviously, one of the key 
challenges to deploying the new technologies is just the 
financial side of things. So, you know, a significant 
investment like that, I would imagine, would have a significant 
effect.
    Mr. Soto. Commissioner Wright, do you believe that a $15 
billion investment would help us move along on modular nuclear?
    Mr. Wright. Well, intuitively, you would say yes, it would. 
I think it matters to exactly how it is invested and where it 
comes from. And, you know, you have got to also have vendors, 
you know, who are willing to, that want to go down that road. 
So, intuitively, yes, you probably think it might, but I think 
the devil is in the detail on that.
    Mr. Soto. Certainly, and I agree. It has got to be crafted 
correctly.
    Also, I see a compromise that could form from this 
committee. You know, we have existing nuclear power plants that 
are decommissioning, and ones that are recently decommissioned 
that could be utilized in helping us achieve net carbon 
neutral, combat climate change. But the reason they are 
shutting down isn't a great mystery. It is because right now it 
is costing about 25 cents per kilowatt hour with nuclear, while 
natural gas is about 6.5 cents per kilowatt hour.
    So I believe, Chairman, there could be a compromise in 
providing for subsidies on nuclear power to make sure that we 
are keeping these online, keeping them safe, as part of our 
overall efforts to combat climate change. And I think that is 
something we may be able to get other committee members on.
    The road I don't want us to go down is trying to do a major 
deregulation of protections of nuclear power. That is something 
that will put Americans in danger. So I think the key is is 
make sure we are putting our money where our mouth is by 
passing the American Jobs Plan, investing in research and 
development from nuclear advanced power, such as modular, and 
for the recycling that we have talked about so much today. We 
can do it together. I know there is a bipartisan proposal that 
we will get to vote on soon, and I hope all of you will be able 
to support that. And with that, I yield back, Chairman.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlewoman from Arizona, Mrs. Lesko, for 5 
minutes.
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the 
Commissioners for not only being here today but for all the 
work that you do. Palo Verde Nuclear Plant is located really 
close to my congressional district, right outside my 
congressional district here in Arizona. And it produces the 
most power of any kind in the Nation for the last 25 years. I 
think it is 32 million megawatt hours annually that can power 
more than 4 million people--energy for more than 4 million 
people.
    One of my questions--and I guess I will direct it to 
Commissioner Hanson--is, as the number of nuclear operating 
plants goes down, there is a fee that is assessed to all the 
operating nuclear plants. And so as the number goes down, are 
you planning on reducing your overhead budget so that the fees 
of the ones that are left operating are not going to go up and 
skyrocket?
    Mr. Hanson. Congresswoman, that is a question, that is a 
very good question, and we are very sensitive to the issue of 
shutdown plants and those costs being spread to raise a fewer 
number of reactors out there in the world. And so we are paying 
close attention to our overhead costs and trying to be very 
prudent about where we are spending money and also trying to 
make investments for the future in things like IT and the 
development of our people so that we can focus on advanced 
reactors. We really are trying to kind of do--kind of pulled in 
multiple directions, I think, budgetwise here, and we are 
trying to balance those and not impose undue costs on any 
particular party.
    So I would say that we are sensitive to that issue and 
recognize also that, you know, there is a certain level of 
fixed costs for the work that we do. So, you know, we recognize 
potentially the need to bring down some of those overhead costs 
as plants go offline, but also there is going to be a limit to 
which we can reduce those overhead costs as well.
    Mrs. Lesko. Well, I am glad you are looking at it because 
to me it just doesn't seem fair if you have less operating 
plants but you don't reduce your budget, because to me it seems 
like you would have less people inspecting and that type of 
thing. And I understand how you want to increase your budget in 
the new technologies, but I don't necessarily know if it is 
fair to charge the others more. So I am glad you are looking at 
it, and I am glad you think it is important.
    My next question is, as the U.S. works to achieve clean 
energy commitments, it is clear that the development of 
intermittent renewable energy is part of it, but it can't be 
all of the plan. I believe nuclear energy has to be part of a 
clean future, and that is what most of my Democrat colleagues 
seem to be agreeing with us. So that is fantastic. I do agree 
with Mr. Soto, this is something that we can work on in a 
bipartisan basis.
    So what is the Commission doing to ensure regulatory 
reviews are timely, and there is regulatory certainty regarding 
new nuclear design, construction, and operation? And I will ask 
it to you, again, Mr. Hanson.
    Mr. Hanson. Thank you, Congresswoman, for that. We have 
talked off and on today about the development of a new 
regulatory framework for advanced reactors. As part of that 
development, we really are building on the long wealth of 
history that we have in the NRC of regulating nuclear 
technology and focusing on the most safety significant aspects 
so that we can provide for our applicants and licensees timely, 
efficient, and transparent reviews.
    As I have said multiple times today--and I have said it 
because I really do believe that we are independent of other 
policy functions--but we don't want to be an impediment to any 
decisions that administrations or the private sector wants to 
make. We want to be able to make our safety determinations----
    Mrs. Lesko. And thank you.
    Mr. Hanson [continuing]. In that context. I will let my 
colleagues comment.
    Mrs. Lesko. And, Mr. Hanson, one last question. We have 14 
seconds left. Nuclear waste remains a hurdle, a concern for 
increasing nuclear power. And so there was a blue-ribbon 
commission under both, I think, President Obama and Bush that 
recommended a separate Federal commission deal with the 
research and development and those type of things on nuclear 
waste. And I think one of the ideas was moving it over to your 
Commission, the NRC. What are your thoughts on that?
    Mr. Hanson. Thank you for that, Congresswoman. I wasn't 
aware of that recommendation, and I am happy to discuss that 
with you or other Members of Congress should it arrive. 
Commissioner Baran might have some thoughts on this.
    Mr. Baran. Yes, I think the blue-ribbon commission is a 
separate entity they were contemplating, was going to be like a 
government corporation, not NRC, which would still be the 
safety regulator, but a separate government corporation that 
would be focused exclusively on, like, siting issues.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady's time has expired. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Schrader, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Schrader. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. 
Great hearing here today.
    I have just one question really for Mr. Hanson. I 
understand the administration's requested a 5 percent increase 
in the NRC budget. I am just curious how the NRC is going to 
use that funding to streamline and maybe improve the 
application process along the lines of some of the previous 
questions we have had. And is there a way we can reduce the 
need for applicants to resubmit redundant information on new 
designs that use a lot of their previously reviewed technical 
parameters?
    For example, last August, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
completed a safety review of NuScale's design, power reactor 
design. And I understand NuScale is going to come in with a new 
design application that uses a lot of the technical design 
parameters you have already approved. How does the NRC plan to 
work with NuScale to reduce the time and make this more 
efficient, yet a very safe process?
    Mr. Hanson. Thank you, Congressman, for that. My 
understanding of NuScale's kind of what you called their new 
application is really kind of a power increase for their 
existing technology going from, I think, 50 megawatts per unit 
to up to 77. And because we have already done, as you noted, an 
extensive review of the 50 megawatt technology, my 
understanding from the NRC staff is that the review of kind of 
the change in operations and whatever other technical aspects 
of the technology might need to be implemented would be really 
pretty efficient and streamlined.
    Mr. Schrader. OK. Very good. Very good. No, I appreciate 
the tenor of the hearing and the fact you are trying to get 
things done in a timely manner--a safe manner, but also a very 
timely manner, because this process seems to take almost 
forever. So I appreciate the Commission's attention. And I 
yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Crenshaw, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to 
everybody for being here, and thank you to our witnesses. It is 
a great topic. I do see a lot of surface consensus on the issue 
of nuclear and the need to build more advanced nuclear in the 
United States I think is the answer to lowering carbon 
emissions globally.
    So I just want to lay out a few facts and why nuclear is so 
important. It is safe. It is reliable. It is carbon-free 
energy. More energy can be produced per square foot than other 
carbon-free energies. In fact, solar requires 450 times more 
land than nuclear and wind--oh, sorry. And wind requires 400 
times more land than nuclear when producing the same amount of 
energy. It is also worth noting that as far as subsidies go, 
solar receives 250 times more subsidies than nuclear does. And 
nuclear energy is reliable as its capacity factors into the 
90th percentile.
    So really a lot of the--where there is some disagreement is 
I think over the misunderstandings of how safe nuclear is. 
Commissioner Wright, could you speak to that for a minute, 
please? Do you believe nuclear energy is safe? Why do you 
believe nuclear energy is so safe? Do you believe that under 
the current safety framework that an incident like Chernobyl 
could ever occur in the United States?
    Mr. Wright. Well, personally, yes, I do believe that it is 
extremely safe or I wouldn't be in the business of what I am 
doing right now. And, you know, I believe that what we have 
heard today from the other colleagues here and from some of the 
Congressmen that have spoken is we were the gold standard, 
right? We are it. And we have to do everything we can to 
maintain that.
    And to that end, you have to be passionate about what you 
do, and that is what our staff does every day when they come to 
work. And that is what the licensees and their workers at the 
plants do every day. And that is what the resident inspectors 
do at the plant every day. They are doing everything they can 
to ensure the safe operation of those plants.
    And you and I both know that a plant that is run safe stays 
out of, you know, white findings or any other findings that add 
to the cost and add to the oversight. And, again, they are peer 
reviewed by their own people. So that is an additional layer 
of, I guess, regulatory oversight. And you don't want to--from 
what I understand, you don't want to be the plant that is on 
the bottom of the list when you go to those INPO meetings.
    So we need to share information. We need to learn from each 
other, not just from the licensees but also from the people 
like INPO, people that are involved in other aspects of this 
sector. So yes, you know, I do believe it is safe.
    Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Baran, 
I want to ask about--well, first, I want to get your 
philosophy. I think we would all agree from a policy 
perspective, from a general national interest perspective, that 
we should be licensing a lot more reactors and really trying to 
get more advanced reactors online. Would we agree on that?
    Mr. Baran. Well, I agree that NRC's role is to be ready for 
that.
    Mr. Crenshaw. Right.
    Mr. Baran. As the Chairman has mentioned several times, we 
don't promote nuclear energy, but we have got to be ready for 
the applications that could come before us.
    Mr. Crenshaw. Right--and OK. And that is good. That is good 
to hear. I want us to be on the same page on that because I do 
think that sometimes we say we approve of it, but sometimes 
regulations get in the way.
    And I want to refer to your comments on energy planning 
zones and then the regulations regarding such emergency 
planning zones. You mentioned small modular reactors need 10 
miles of EPZs just like their whitewater counterparts. And I 
understand the need to mitigate risks, but if we are going to 
be building more reactors, why would we use more potentially 
unnecessary land, which means more expenses and we are not 
going to end up with more reactors? Can you comment on that?
    Mr. Baran. Sure. Yes. I hope I didn't leave you with the 
impression that I thought it all had to be exactly the same for 
with new reactors, because I don't believe that. I think new 
designs could potentially be safer than current large water 
reactor designs. And it makes sense to have a graded approach 
that accounts for potential safety improvements, whether it be 
in small modular reactors or advanced reactors.
    My point is just I think with the possible exception of, 
like, microreactors with very small amounts of radioactive 
material, I don't see completely eliminating offsite emergency 
planning or siting constraints. I think you may have a graded, 
but going all the way to zero is a different story. I think it 
is a balance to strike there.
    Mr. Crenshaw. OK. That is different from your comments 
before, so I do appreciate that. You know, I come from the 
Navy. You know, the nuclear Navy has logged 5,400 reactor years 
of accident-free operations, traveled over 130 million miles on 
nuclear energy without accident. And so I am glad to hear you 
change some of your past comments a little bit on that. I am 
already out of time. That goes quick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from Washington State, Ms. Schrier, 
for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our 
witnesses. My first question is about international 
collaboration. This is for Chairman Hanson. In 2019, NRC and 
the Canadian Nuclear Regulator, CNSC, signed a memorandum of 
cooperation to increase collaboration on a technical review of 
the advanced reactors including small modular and 
microreactors. And Canada has an aggressive advanced reactor 
licensing deployment program and is moving forward with a 
demonstration of a number of advanced small modular reactions--
reactors, excuse me--including Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation's 
gas cool reaction at the Chalk River site.
    So my question for Chairman Hanson is, does the NRC plan to 
leverage this cooperative agreement with CNSC and lessons 
learned from our key international partners like the U.K., for 
example, to share information related to the licensing review 
process to accelerate deployment of small modular reactors and 
maximize opportunities for greater efficiencies and 
streamlining here at home?
    Mr. Hanson. Congresswoman, thank you for that question. I 
am really excited about our cooperation with the Canadian 
Nuclear Safety Commission. As part of that cooperative 
agreement, I think we have eight or nine areas on different 
technologies that we are evaluating together, recognizing that 
each country will make its own safety determination, but we 
have also really seen the value of some shared reviews and some 
shared understanding of technical tools and other kinds of 
methodologies.
    I have developed, I think, a close relationship with 
President Rumina Velshi of the CNSC, and this is the progress 
on the memorandum of cooperation is a regular topic of 
conversation between us. As you note, I agree, I think we can 
go farther together than we can separately when it comes to 
some of these new technologies.
    Ms. Schrier. I agree. It has been really helpful, for 
example, under COVID, with COVID to see vaccine development in 
multiple countries and how we have collaborated in a lot of 
ways there, even though each country has its own approval 
process. Are there any other ways that you are collaborating 
with other countries, for example?
    Mr. Hanson. Thank you for that. I mean, as part of our 
cooperation with the Canadians, we are starting to bring in our 
colleagues in the United Kingdom. They have a strong interest 
in this. Of course, as you may have heard, they are looking at 
SMRs as well, and so they are interested in the reviews that we 
are conducting together. Right now, the U.K. are our observers 
in the process that is going on between the United States and 
the Canadians, but I would expect greater participation in the 
future as we move forward on that.
    Ms. Schrier. Great. Thank you. My next question is going to 
be for Commissioner Baran, which is about timing and whether we 
can meet of some deadlines. Because, again, in contrast to what 
a lot of my colleagues are saying, we understand that we need a 
vast portfolio, that nuclear is part of that portfolio, 
particularly for industry, and it has got to be part of the 
solution if we are going to hit our goals.
    And so what we are seeing is a lot of development across 
the country. The Department of Energy's Advanced Reactor 
Demonstration Program has driven the speed of these new 
reactors. Like just this year, New Skilled Power and Grant 
County Public Utility District here in Washington signed a 
memorandum of understanding to explore nuclear energy 
deployment here in Washington. In addition, Energy Northwest, 
Grant County PUD and X Energy LLC also signed a memorandum of 
understanding establishing a partnership. And these agreements 
can be affirmed. The increase in demand and the fact that we 
are headed that way.
    Now, we know that the research part is progressing quickly, 
but then there is this element where, as soon as one gets 
approval, they have to start operating within 7 years. What are 
the chances we are going to meet those kinds of deadlines? Can 
we do it?
    Mr. Baran. Well, you are right. I think that part, the big 
question there I think, what are the plans of the specific 
companies, right? So, you know, if a utility wants to build a 
new reactor, they are going to come to us for licensing. If it 
is a vendor, they may ask us to certify a design. If it is a 
utility, they may seek a license to build at a specific 
location. We are going to our licensing review, the safety 
environmental piece. If they get a license, then, really it is 
up to them to decide whether they want to actually build it, 
and that will depend on a variety of factors, business factors, 
economics of it. We don't make that decision. That is a 
decision they make. And then, of course, they are the ones who 
really build it, right? I mean, they have got to actually do 
the construction, and that would be on the time frame they 
would set up. Our job would be to oversee that construction as 
we are doing it right now for the two reactors being built at 
Vogtle.
    Ms. Schrier. And you will have the personnel do that. I am 
out of time. Thank you very much. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from North Dakota, Mr. Armstrong, for 
5 minutes.
    Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Chairman Rush. And I think one of 
the things that we often get into in these instances, just rest 
assured, we don't want deregulation of the nuclear--I think 
when we talk about the regulatory environment, we don't talk 
enough about--it is not that we want answer--or don't want the 
answers to be known, but oftentimes is how long it takes to say 
yes. So I want to follow up a little bit on what Congresswoman 
Lesko said and what Congressman Schrader were talking about.
    Listen, we don't have nuclear reactors or fuel cycle 
facilities in North Dakota. But as a matter of policy, it is 
important to make sure that there is a clear, predictable set 
of rules for nuclear innovators. The NRC should be a reliable 
and predictable regulator, which will help foster innovation. 
We have heard multiple times today about what the NRC is doing 
to prepare for advanced reactors. And the advanced reactor that 
is the furthest along is the NuScale small modular reactor, 
which is in the final steps of receiving design approval from 
the NRCC, or NRC.
    The certification will have taken 5 years so far and $70 
million in upfront licensing. This is equivalent to 10 to 15 
years of fees charged by operating facilities. Going forward, 
it makes no sense to have reviews as time-consuming and costly 
to incremental new technologies like NuScale.
    Chairman Hanson, applicants must have a good understanding 
of how long and how much money it will cost to get a license at 
the beginning of the licensing process. And you talked earlier 
about having a more timely, efficient, and streamlined review, 
and that we don't want the NRC to be an impediment to these 
progresses. But, specifically, how is the NRC putting together 
workable and predictable project schedules for advanced reactor 
reviews? And 5 years is a long time.
    I can't hear. Can anybody hear?
    Mr. Rush. I can't hear either.
    Mr. Armstrong. I am sure this is really smart, and I want 
to hear it.
    Mr. Hanson. Sorry. My light is on.
    Mr. Rush. Now we hear you. We hear you now.
    Mr. Baran. I will have the Chairman take my spot, and he 
can answer the question.
    Mr. Hanson. I am sorry, Congressman. I am going to sit in 
Commissioner's Baran seat here for just a second. I will have 
to get back to you on the specific--for the record, on the 
specific mechanisms we used to help licensees. But we do break 
down each application that we get into the component parts and 
develop detailed schedules and cost estimates for each of those 
so that we have transparency for our licensees. And I 
apologize, I don't have the details on that in front of me. But 
I would be happy to get back to you for the record on exactly 
how we do that.
    Mr. Armstrong. No, and I appreciate that because really one 
of things is we want a reasonable regulatory environment, but 
it has to have--I mean, we talk about 25 cents a kilowatt hour 
versus 6 cents, but--and even in reading in the majority memo 
for this, the economic situations facing nuclear is gas, 
renewable, and flat energy demand. But we don't factor in other 
things like how much of that 25 cents is regulatory, competing 
against production tax credits, repower provisions, primacy on 
the grid. So, I mean, there are more factors into a lot of 
this.
    Chairman Hanson, I am going to just ask this question of 
everybody quick. The NRC has also provided principles of good 
regulation, which include requirements for reliable and clear 
regulatory activity. Do you commit to upholding these 
requirements, and can the committee hold you to them moving 
forward?
    Mr. Hanson. Absolutely, Congressman. They are posted in my 
office. I look at them and read them every day.
    Mr. Armstrong. Thank you.
    Chair--or Commissioner Baran, you have got to get--hop skip 
mikes. I am sorry about that.
    Mr. Baran. I was going to have to give the Chairman my 
proxy on that. Yes, we--you know, there is not a day that goes 
by that we don't hear about the principles of good regulation 
and think about them. It is definitely part of the conversation 
and always has been at NRC.
    Mr. Armstrong. Thank you. I hope to end timely.
    Commissioner Wright?
    Mr. Wright. Yep. I brought a copy with me. I keep them with 
me, so yes.
    Mr. Armstrong. Thank you all very much.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
    Now the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 
Mr. Joyce, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Joyce. First, I want to thank you, Chairman Rush, for 
allowing me to waive onto this joint subcommittee hearing, and 
I want to thank the Commissioners for appearing.
    It is impossible to understate how important nuclear power 
is to the future of American energy production. It is the 
cleanest source that we can produce significant quantities of 
power around the clock, rain or shine, 365 days a year.
    In 2019, nuclear power was responsible for 36 percent of 
total electricity produced in my home State of Pennsylvania. It 
supported 4,500 jobs and accounted for 92 percent of carbon-
free electricity in our Commonwealth.
    If my colleagues are serious about trying to cut down on 
carbon emissions, nuclear power is clearly a safe and effective 
solution, and yet nuclear power plants across the country are 
in danger of closing.
    In my State, Three Mile Island has already begun the 
decommissioning process, and others are close to following 
suit. It is imperative that the NRC provides a stable 
regulatory environment so that our existing fleet of plants can 
continue to produce safe and clean energy for Americans.
    My first question is for Chairman Hanson. As you witnessed 
and mentioned that you recently visited Limerick, Exelon is 
undertaking a significant digital modification project at this 
generation station that will set industry precedent for 
modernizing the existing fleet of plants. By itself, Limerick, 
the generating station there, has two nuclear reactors that 
produce more than 2,300 megawatts of zero-emission energy, 
enough carbon-free electricity to power 2 million homes here in 
Pennsylvania.
    How does digital modernization contribute to plant safety? 
And that is a question for you, please, Chairman Hanson.
    Mr. Hanson. Thank you, Congressman, for that.
    I think it contributes in a number of ways.
    First of all, it can increase the reliability of plant 
components. It reduces the size and the number of components 
that need to be maintained within the plant, particularly on 
the auxiliary system side, so a lot of the pumps and motors and 
other kinds of things. It can help provide information on 
maintenance schedules and conditions remotely for plant staff, 
so that that information can augment then onsite inspections 
and other kinds of maintenance activities that plant staff 
undertake.
    I think there is a wide range of the kinds of information, 
and I think we are going to learn a lot over the next few years 
about the kinds of information that you can get from these 
systems that could potentially enhance system safety and 
overall operational efficiency of these facilities.
    Mr. Joyce. Chairman Hanson, recognizing that important 
information, are DOE or you at NRC doing anything to 
incentivize nuclear power plants to make the transition to 
digital?
    Mr. Hanson. Congressman, I will note, I think as my 
colleagues have, it is not our role necessarily to incentivize, 
but I can tell you it is a priority for me to create and for 
the NRC to refine and have a clear regulatory line of sight for 
the licensing of these technologies. That may--having that 
regulatory line of sight may create an incentive in and of 
itself.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you for recognizing that.
    My next question is for Commissioner Wright. And, as the 
relief pitcher and on the heels of last night's All-Star Game, 
Commissioner Wright, you mentioned that you are an umpire 
outside of the office, and in a lot of ways your role at the 
NRC is to be an umpire for the nuclear power industry.
    As you know from your time on the diamond, there is nothing 
worse than an unpredictable strike zone. What lessons are being 
implemented to make sure that the licensing renewal process is 
even more predictable and straightforward while still ensuring 
safety and thus allow nuclear power to play its best game for 
all of the American people?
    Mr. Wright. I like the analogy. I think that is really 
good. Very good job.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you.
    Mr. Wright. The--so, I mean, our job is to--really to call 
the balls and strikes, but we have to do it within what our 
mission is, and that is the reasonable assurance. It is no 
more, and it is no less.
    And, you know, although it is not defined, you know, just 
like everybody's strike zone is different, it is still over the 
plate, in that same general area. So we have got to be sure 
that we are doing everything that we can at every level. I 
mean, from the----
    Mr. Joyce. And just allow me to interrupt. So is that 
meaning that the licensing renewal process can be even more 
predictable and more straightforward?
    Mr. Wright. I believe so, yes. We have to provide, you 
know, regulatory certainty for whoever comes before us and a 
pathway to do what they need to do if it is in the advanced 
reactor space. We are not going--and each of my colleagues have 
said it as well--it is not our desire to be an impediment to 
innovation or innovators.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you. My time has expired, and I yield.
    I think, Chairman Rush, you are still muted.
    Mr. Rush. That concludes the witness questioning, and I 
certainly want to thank Chairman Hanson, Commissioner Baran, 
and Commissioner Wright for your excellent testimony. This has 
been a great, informative, and necessary hearing, and I want to 
thank you all for joining us today, Mr. Chairman and the 
Commissioners.
    I remind Members that, pursuant to committee rules, they 
have 10 business days to submit additional questions for the 
record to be answered by the witnesses who have appeared before 
us today.
    And I also ask each witness to respond promptly to any such 
questions that you may receive.
    Without objection, the subcommittee is hereby adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., the subcommittees were 
adjourned.]
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

                                 [all]