[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]