[Senate Hearing 117-149]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                        S. Hrg. 117-149
 
                              OVERSIGHT OF
                   THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

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

                                HEARING

                               before the

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                            DECEMBER 1, 2021

                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
  
  
  
  
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]  
 
  


        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
        
        
        
                       ______                       


             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 46-715 PDF        WASHINGTON : 2022 
 
        
        
        
        
               COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                  THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West 
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont                 Virginia, 
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island         Ranking Member
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois            CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama
MARK KELLY, Arizona                  JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
ALEX PADILLA, California             ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
                                     DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
                                     JONI ERNST, Iowa
                                     LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina

             Mary Frances Repko, Democratic Staff Director
               Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director
               
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                            DECEMBER 1, 2021
                           OPENING STATEMENTS

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware..     1
Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore, U.S. Senator from the State of West 
  Virginia.......................................................     3

                               WITNESSES

Hanson, Hon. Christopher T., Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory 
  Commission.....................................................     4
    Prepared statement...........................................     7
    Response to an additional question from Senator Kelly........    20
    Responses to additional questions from Senator Capito........    21
    Response to an additional question from:
        Senator Inhofe...........................................    68
        Senator Graham...........................................    70
Baran, Hon. Jeff, Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission....    72
    Response to an additional question from Senator Kelly........    73
Wright, David A., Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission....    76

                          ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

Letter to President Joseph R. Biden, Jr., from Senators Carper 
  and Capito, March 26, 2021.....................................    99
Letter to President Biden from the American Nuclear Society and 
  the United States Nuclear Industry Council, November 22, 2021..   100


                              OVERSIGHT OF

                   THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

                              ----------                              


                      WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2021

                                       U.S. Senate,
                 Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee, met, pursuant to notice, at 10:09 a.m. in 
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper 
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
    Present: Senators Carper, Capito, Cardin, Whitehouse, 
Markey, Stabenow, Padilla, Lummis, and Sullivan.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 
            U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

    Senator Carper. I would like to invite the Chairman and the 
Commissioners to please come to the witness table.
    Colleagues and witnesses, guests, I think we have everybody 
in their respective seats. Nice to see you all; thanks for 
joining us.
    Today we are going to hear from three members currently 
serving on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I want to start 
by welcoming each of them back to this Committee.
    Chairman Hanson, Commissioner Baran, and Commissioner 
Wright, we want to thank you all first of all for being here. I 
want to thank you for your service. It is great to see each of 
you.
    This hearing is an opportunity for our Committee to examine 
the work of the NRC, important work of the NRC, understand what 
is working and to learn what we can do together to address any 
challenges that this important agency is facing. We appreciate 
the Commissioners' joining us today, because it is important 
for us to hear directly from you.
    We want to ensure that the NRC has the resources it needs 
to maintain the safety of existing nuclear facilities and also 
to prepare for the future. This includes the work required to 
develop and deploy the next generation of reactors as well as 
new, advanced nuclear technology and materials.
    As many of you know, I believe that safe nuclear power 
plays an important role in our efforts to address the greatest 
challenge that we face on Earth at this time, and that is the 
climate crisis. America's nuclear reactors provide, if I am not 
mistaken, one-fifth of our Nation's electricity and just about 
half of all emission free energy in this country of ours. Think 
about that. Just about half.
    Nuclear energy is key to reaching net zero emissions 
economy-wide. And the NRC is critical to ensuring that our 
nuclear energy is safe and that it is reliable.
    In August, I had the opportunity to visit the Salem Hope 
Creek Nuclear Power Plant, just across the Delaware River in 
our neighboring State of New Jersey, along with Chairman 
Hanson.
    Thank you for being there with us.
    I describe that as my favorite part of Delaware, but it is 
really in New Jersey. Actually part of the high water mark on 
the Delaware River on the New Jersey side actually does belong 
to Delaware. We never got control of the nuclear plants.
    Anyway, I was quite impressed with what we saw during our 
visit. I suspect the Chairman was as well. Those two plants 
employ more than 1,600 people, a bunch of them from New Jersey, 
but a surprising number from Delaware, too, and some from 
Pennsylvania. They keep electricity rates affordable and help 
make the electric grid more reliable. More importantly, they do 
all these things safely. Let me say that again. More 
importantly, they do all these things safely.
    The NRC remains the gold model for nuclear safety agencies. 
And the Commission's work to maintain safe and secure nuclear 
power is an essential tool in our efforts to reduce greenhouse 
gas emissions.
    Unfortunately, our existing aging and inefficient nuclear 
fleet is struggling to keep up with our growing needs for safe, 
climate friendly power. Several nuclear plants have closed 
prematurely in recent years. Several more are expected to close 
this decade.
    From this adversity comes opportunity. Now, American 
innovators can rise to the challenges and work to develop the 
next generation of reactors and technologies. Doing so will 
place our Nation at the forefront of the revolution to clean 
energy, all while creating jobs and economic opportunity for 
the American people. That is something we all should be proud 
of and we should all support.
    As we work to meet this moment, we open the door to another 
critical opportunity, that is the chance to right the wrongs of 
the past and address the historic impact of pollution on 
disadvantaged and underserved communities across our country. 
As a founder and co-chair along with the Senator from Illinois, 
I and also Senator Cory Booker, I think it is essential for the 
NRC to bring that focus on equity to their work as we pave the 
way for a new era of non-polluting and safe nuclear power.
    So I am pleased that the NRC is currently undergoing a 
review of its environmental justice policies and programs. I 
hope and expect that these efforts will empower those 
communities historically left behind by our energy policies and 
will give them a seat at the table in the NRC's decisionmaking 
processes, and hopefully within the nuclear industry more 
broadly.
    These are good efforts underway at the Commission. So in 
closing, I would just add that I look forward to hearing from 
each of you about how this Committee can better support your 
efforts. Together, I think we can. Actually, I think we must 
ensure that a revitalized nuclear industry is a significant 
part of our national strategy to combat climate change by 
providing safe, secure, clean, and affordable energy to all 
Americans.
    Before we hear from our witnesses, I would like for us to 
hear from Senator Capito for any comments that she wants to 
make.
    Senator Capito, welcome, and thank you.

        OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, 
          U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

    Senator Capito. Thank you, Chairman Carper, and thank the 
witnesses for coming before us today and for your service.
    This comes at a very critical time. Energy prices continue 
to rise, as the weather is turning colder and families need to 
heat their homes. My constituents are paying more at the pump 
to take their kids to school or to go to their jobs. Higher 
energy prices are driving inflation, and make no mistake, this 
is a hidden tax on our working families.
    Despite this, the game plan is to continue to push 
policies, I think, that will make the situation worse. 
Unaccountable White House staff, led by climate czar Gina 
McCarthy, are developing and implementing an extreme 
environmental agenda. President Biden's administration is 
taking drastic steps that will hurt energy affordability and 
electric reliability. The EPA is pushing regulations to limit 
production of American energy. EPA Administrator Michael Regan 
has stated that he is going to push the envelope in exercising 
the agency's regulatory authority.
    It seems this reckless tax and spending spree would 
increase energy costs on all American families and businesses 
and will harm our competitiveness, will reduce the reliability 
of our energy systems; it is just a bad deal. It would raise 
energy prices through a natural gas tax. These policies will 
raise energy costs and undermine baseload electric generation, 
threatening families and businesses with more frequent and 
wholly preventable blackouts.
    Instead of pursuing policies that will accelerate inflation 
and undermine our grid, we should advance the solutions we are 
going to hear about today that reduce costs and increase 
reliability, all while improving the environment. This means 
pursuing all clean energy sources, including carbon capture, 
natural gas, and nuclear.
    The NRC enables the safe use of nuclear energy in the 
United States. It is instrumental to ensure our public 
confidence. The public confidence is strengthened when the 
Commission operates as it was intended.
    The Congress established the Commission as a five member 
body. It functions most effectively with a full slate of 
members. The Commission is currently operating with just three 
members, who we have here with us today.
    In March, Chairman Carper and I wrote to President Biden 
asking that he promptly put forth a bipartisan pairing of 
qualified nominees, one Democrat and one Republican. But the 
President has yet to do so. A full slate of Commissioners 
should be in place to make critical decisions for how new 
nuclear technologies are licensed, regulated, and operated.
    In 2018, Congress passed the Nuclear Energy Innovation and 
Modernization Act, which I cosponsored, with overwhelming 
bipartisan support. That law, which was a product of this 
Committee, requires that the NRC develop safety rules for the 
next generation of advanced nuclear technologies. This past May 
I wrote to the NRC Chairman Hanson to applaud the Commission 
and its staff for their diligent work so far on those rules. 
Our innovators need safety rules that are both predictable and 
flexible. Nuclear engineers and entrepreneurs who are investing 
time and money to develop new reactor designs need to use the 
rules, and they need to know the rules of the road.
    I look forward to receiving an update on the rulemaking as 
well as other related advanced nuclear initiatives.
    The Commission is looking to update existing policies for 
new and emerging technologies to guide review of applications 
submitted before the rulemaking is complete. In addition to 
setting the stage for new nuclear technologies, the Commission 
should modernize its policies to allow for today's reactors to 
focus on the most important safety issues.
    In 2019, the NRC staff proposed recommendations to the 
Commission for common sense changes to what is known as the 
reactor oversight process, the regulations that guide the 
oversight and inspection rules for operating nuclear power 
plants. I joined seven of my colleagues in asking the 
Commission to support these proposals, which were based on 
thorough analysis and review of historical data. I am 
disappointed that the Commission did not act. The staff is now, 
to my understanding, reworking its proposals.
    While the Commission reviews its policies to ensure the 
safe operation of nuclear power plants, Congress can build on 
previous bipartisan efforts like the Nuclear Energy Innovation 
and Modernization Act to secure the future of our country's 
nuclear energy sector.
    In July, I introduced the American Nuclear Infrastructure 
Act to preserve and expand our use of nuclear energy. Joining 
me on the bipartisan legislation are six cosponsors, including 
Senator Whitehouse and Senator Graham on this Committee. Last 
year the EPW Committee, this Committee, passed that bill by 16 
to 5. Chairman Carper and Senator Cardin voted in favor of that 
bill.
    I look forward to working with Chairman Carper to advance 
this legislation again this Congress to ensure Americans have 
access to clean, reliable, affordable energy.
    With that, I yield back.
    Senator Cardin [presiding]. Let me thank the Ranking 
Member.
    We will now hear from the Commissioners of the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, starting with its Chair, Hon. 
Christopher Hanson.

           STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER T. HANSON, 
            CHAIRMAN, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

    Mr. Hanson. Thank you, Senator Cardin.
    Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Capito, and distinguished 
members of the Committee, my colleagues and I appreciate the 
opportunity to update you on the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission's licensing and oversight activities this morning.
    The NRC is an independent Federal agency established to 
protect the public health and safety through the regulation of 
commercial nuclear plants, research tests and training 
reactors, nuclear fuel cycle facilities, and civilian use of 
nuclear materials. Additionally, the agency regulates 
transportation, storage, disposal, export and import of nuclear 
materials and waste, the export and import of nuclear reactors 
and production facilities, and the export of nuclear facility 
components.
    The Commission last appeared before this Committee in March 
2020. Since that time, the NRC has had to respond to the 
challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic while protecting the safety 
of our work force and continuing to perform our important 
safety and security mission. To ensure that the agency could 
maintain its regulatory oversight role during the pandemic, the 
NRC implemented a number of interim procedures. These 
procedures enabled the NRC to continue inspections and other 
key oversight activities during the pandemic. It also allowed 
the agency to stay engaged with the public despite limitations 
on in person meetings.
    The NRC's incredible work force has remained committed to 
the agency's mission despite all the challenges and uncertainty 
associated with the pandemic. The NRC began its transition to a 
hybrid work environment on November 7th, just last month. We 
have taken care to ensure our buildings are safe for employees, 
contractors, and visitors.
    In this regard, we have been fully implementing the 
Administration's executive orders requiring COVID-19 
vaccination for Federal employees as well as Federal 
contractors and subcontractors.
    The NRC has made significant progress in implementing the 
provisions of the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization 
Act since its enactment in January 2019. The NRC submitted 12 
reports to Congress and has made progress implementing other 
provisions, including the requirement to complete a rulemaking 
for a technology inclusive regulatory framework for advanced 
nuclear reactors, also known as Part 53. The NRC remains on a 
schedule that would allow for publication of the final rule 
significantly ahead of the NEIMA deadline of December 2027.
    The NRC continues to provide licensing and oversight for 93 
operating commercial nuclear power plants and 31 research and 
test reactors around the country. Currently, 92 of 93 reactors 
are in NRC's highest performance category and have fully met 
our safety and security performance objectives. Only one 
reactor is in the second performance category, needing to 
resolve items of low safety significance.
    Since December 2019, the NRC has approved subsequent 
license renewals for six reactors, extending each reactor's 
period of operation from 60 to 80 years. The NRC is currently 
reviewing several other applications for subsequent license 
renewal.
    The NRC is also actively preparing for the completion of 
construction and anticipated transition to operation of the 
Vogtle Reactor units in Georgia. NRC inspections are proceeding 
in accordance with the licensee's continued work at the site.
    Regarding small modular reactors, or SMRs, the NRC has 
completed its technical review of NuScale's application for 
certification of its SMR design. The NRC is also engaged in 
pre-application discussions with vendors for three other SMR 
designs as well as a possible combined license application that 
might reference one of these designs.
    In the nuclear materials and safety program, the NRC 
completed its safety and environmental reviews for a 
consolidated interim storage facility in Andrews, Texas. And 
the agency issued a license to Interim Storage Partners in 
September 2021.
    In addition, the NRC approved a license amendment in June 
that authorizes a 16 centrifuge cascade for uranium enrichment 
at the American Centrifuge Plant in Piketon, Ohio, to 
demonstrate the production of high assay low enriched uranium 
for the Department of Energy.
    Twenty-six NRC licensed reactors are currently in 
decommissioning. Three additional power reactors publicly 
indicated or submitted formal notifications to the NRC that 
they will be permanently shut down before the end of 2025.
    The Commission recently approved a proposed rule to address 
decommissioning reactors. Decommissioning reactors are 
currently subject to the same requirements as operating 
reactors, despite significant differences. This rulemaking 
removes inapplicable requirements but does not reduce safety. 
It will provide for a safe and more efficient decommissioning 
process ending with unrestricted release of the reactor sites. 
It should reduce the need for license amendment requests and 
requests for regulatory exemptions.
    In closing, the NRC and its dedicated employees are hard at 
work and remain deeply committed to the agency's safety 
mission.
    Chairman Carper, Senator Cardin, Ranking Member Capito, and 
distinguished members of the Committee, this concludes my 
formal testimony. On behalf of the Commission, I thank you for 
the opportunity to appear before you this morning and for your 
support for the vital mission of the NRC. We would be pleased 
to respond to any questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hanson follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
    
        
    Senator Cardin. Chairman Hanson, as you first pointed out, 
Senator Carper is in another committee where his time is up for 
questioning. He will be back shortly. Senator Capito had a 
similar commitment. Don't take it personally.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Hanson. Not at all.
    Senator Cardin. You are left with Senator Whitehouse and 
myself.
    We will now hear from Commissioner Jeff Baran.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BARAN, 
          COMMISSIONER, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

    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 briefly focus on three pressing challenges 
affecting NRC: The fight against climate change, the response 
to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the pursuit of environmental 
justice.
    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. 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 it. Of course, NRC needs to 
be open to and ready for new technologies that could improve 
safety, such as digital instrumentation and accident tolerant 
fuels.
    The other main climate related role for NRC is the 
licensing and oversight of new reactors. New reactor designs 
have the potential to be safer than existing designs. The 
challenge is striking a reasonable balance between the value of 
new safety attributes and maintaining a prudent degree of 
defense in depth.
    Responding to the COVID-19 pandemic has been another major 
priority for the agency. Resident inspectors are now back 
onsite, and the regions have returned to in person safety and 
security inspections. In fact, 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.
    Going forward, there is broad agreement on the value of and 
need for in person safety and security inspections. There is 
just no substitute for having independent NRC inspectors 
onsite.
    NRC must also pursue environmental justice. The staff is 
performing a systematic review of the agency's programs, 
policies, and activities. They are consulting with a broad 
range of stakeholders and developing options for improving how 
the agency pursues environmental justice.
    In my view, we must meet the moment and not settle for 
doing things the way they have always been done.
    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
    [The response of Mr. Baran to a question for the record 
follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

    Senator Cardin. Thank you very much, Commissioner.
    We will now hear from Commissioner David Wright.

              STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID A. WRIGHT, 
          COMMISSIONER, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

    Mr. Wright. Thank you, Senator Cardin.
    Good morning to Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Capito, and 
the other members of the Committee as well. I appreciate the 
opportunity to appear.
    First, I would like to thank my colleagues for their 
insights into the matters that are before the Commission and to 
the Chairman for his leadership during these challenging times. 
I hope that the next time we appear before you, we will be a 
full complement, because we work best with five Commissioners.
    Thanks to the efforts of our COVID task force, we did begin 
re-entry on November 7th. This gives us the opportunity to 
collaborate in person again, as well as meet employees who 
onboarded while we were on full time telework. That in person 
interaction helps us meet our mission in the most effective way 
possible.
    There are many exciting things happening at the NRC, 
including advanced reactor applications under review, the Part 
53 rulemaking efforts, subsequent license renewal applications, 
digital I&C, accident tolerant fuel application reviews, and 
the decommissioning rulemaking. In these and in all matters, my 
focus and the staff's focus is safety.
    There have been recent media statements and social media 
posts regarding NRC decisions and rulemakings suggesting that 
the staff's recommendations are not safe or simply reflect the 
industry viewpoint, including on the proposed decommissioning 
rule. For the record, I do not agree with those statements. Our 
staff members are committed professionals dedicated to meeting 
the NRC's safety mission.
    As you know, our safety mission is apolitical, as are the 
NRC's Principles of Good Regulation. The staff's findings in 
the matters before the NRC are based on data, expertise, and 
experience, and are informed by input from external 
stakeholders.
    At times, the staff is not unanimous in its 
recommendations, but processes are in place to ensure that all 
staff perspectives, including differing views, are considered 
before making recommendations to the Commission. While there 
may be different policy views on those recommendations, each 
recommendation staff provides the Commission meets the NRC's 
safety mission. I make sure I understand each of these points 
of view, as well as my colleagues' perspectives, before 
reaching a decision.
    I would like to thank the staff for its unwavering focus 
and dedication to the shared goal of the Commission, the staff, 
and our licensees, which is the safe and secure civilian use of 
radioactive materials.
    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
    Senator Cardin. Again, I thank all three of you for your 
service and for your testimony here today.
    You obviously have tremendous challenges. I think we all 
hope that we can get a full complement of Commissioners 
nominated and approved as quickly as possible.
    I want to start this round of questioning dealing with the 
work force issues, if I might. You have tremendous 
responsibility. We are very proud of the work force, I am very 
proud of your location in Rockville, Maryland, where your 
headquarters are located. I have been there many times and 
talked to many of your work force about the challenges that you 
face. You clearly have to deal with the safety of our current 
reactor inventory as well as dealing with decommissioning and 
dealing with the new reactors that are being put online, and 
new technologies legislation passed by Congress that you have 
to implement. We recognize all that.
    In addition, you have Project AIM 2020, which dealt with 
downsizing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Put on top of 
that COVID-19, which changed your methods of dealing with 
challenges to a remote work environment. As I look at the 
demographics of your work force, I see an aging work force. I 
see a concern as to whether we are attracting the type of 
talent that is needed at NRC moving forward.
    So I would like you to share with us your strategies for 
making sure that we have the work force we need to carry out 
this incredibly important responsibility.
    Chairman Carper and Ranking Member Capito pointed out the 
importance of nuclear energy. I strongly agree with that. Half 
of our carbon free energy production is through nuclear. So it 
is a critical part of our current energy portfolio, and an 
important source moving forward with dealing with both energy 
and climate.
    What are we doing to make sure that we have the talented 
work force that we need, most of which are technical 
individuals, as we move forward under this environment?
    Mr. Hanson. Senator Cardin, thank you for that. This issue 
of what we call strategic work force planning is a very high 
priority for me. I know my colleagues have spoken on it in 
public and in other venues as well, in making sure that we have 
the work force of the future.
    Let me highlight a couple of things. We have aggressively 
implemented a number of computer based tools and other tools to 
identify the skill sets that we are going to need going into 
the future. So that may be materials engineers for advanced 
reactors, or health physicists or other kinds of skill sets. We 
are actively recruiting for those people. We need experienced 
and mid-career people to step into senior technical roles and 
leadership positions within the agency, certainly.
    One of the other big areas that we really need to focus on 
is attracting younger talent as well. In my visits to nuclear 
plants this summer, I was always asking, what is the percentage 
of the work force at a plant under the age of 30. On average, 
plants were coming in in the 10 percent to 15 percent range. At 
the NRC, it is actually 3 percent. So this is a big area.
    We reinstituted our apprenticeship program, what we are 
calling the Nuclear Regulator Apprenticeship Network, to take 
people that are right out of school and bring them in and cycle 
them through the various offices within the agency over a 2 
year period, so that when they come out, they have seen a lot 
of the agency, and they are ready to hit the ground running, 
having experience in a number of areas.
    We had our first class of that 2 years ago, with 22 folks. 
We are about to recruit another class. With additional 
resources in our human capital organization, we are hoping to 
be able to make that an annual program as well, to get more 
talent in the agency, so that we can have that culture and 
knowledge transfer from the folks that are going to be retiring 
out over time.
    Senator Cardin. I would add that your budget is primarily 
financed through the industry itself. We recognize that 
nationwide, we have a real challenge in regard to work force 
issues. This is not unique to one agency. We have a national 
shortage, particularly of trained individuals. If you need some 
additional help from us, please let us know. Because I will 
tell you, we are deeply concerned by that percentage of those 
under 30 being 3 percent. We want you to have the brightest 
minds coming out of our universities that are going to help us 
deal with the new technologies in nuclear power, as well as 
dealing with the challenges of how we deal with waste and 
material, in addition to your current responsibility of safety.
    So you have a pretty heavy portfolio. We would welcome any 
thought you might have as to how we can help you in order to 
retain the best possible work force.
    Let me ask one additional question as our leadership is 
settling into their seats here. That is the economic issue of 
nuclear power. Nuclear power has not enjoyed the same type of 
tax incentives as other energy sources, particularly those that 
are friendly toward our environment on carbon emissions. I have 
introduced legislation dealing with the production tax credit. 
It is bipartisan; it is included in the Build Back Better 
budget on the House side. We have had many members of this 
Committee that have been interested in this on both sides of 
the aisle, same thing on the Senate Finance Committee, where 
Senator Carper and I both serve as well.
    Could you talk for a moment as to the need, moving forward 
with maintaining our nuclear reactors safely, as well as going 
to the next generation of nuclear reactors, to have a level 
playing field in regard to the tax code to make it economically 
feasible for the investments to be made to make sure we have 
nuclear power moving forward?
    Mr. Hanson. Senator, thank you for that. As you know, our 
focus is really going to be on the safety and maintaining the 
safety of each of these plants. As many people in the industry 
have acknowledged to me, there is no future for nuclear power 
without the safe operation of the current fleet. So that is 
just the opening stakes, if you will, into the larger energy 
conversation.
    There is a nexus, of course, with the economics. Because of 
the economic pressures on some of these plants, there tends to 
be a focus to streamline and highly optimize the operations in 
a way that is not currently impacting safety. We don't want to 
impact safety into the future. So we are cognizant of the 
economics. But our focus is really on making sure that all of 
our licensees, whether long existing or new or prospective, 
understand our standards.
    Senator Cardin. I appreciate that answer. The reality is, 
if it is not economically feasible because of the competitive 
disadvantage that it does put additional challenges on 
operating safely. So it does affect your mission. And I think 
the economics of energy is an important part of our overall 
policies here. I would welcome your thoughts as to making sure 
that we stay competitive so that safety is not compromised. I 
think your point is very well taken; we cannot compromise 
safety. But we also need to make sure that it is a level 
playing field for nuclear power.
    With that, I will turn the gavel back over to Senator 
Carper, and ask if I got any additional staff as a result of 
taking over.
    Senator Carper [presiding]. I am just glad you didn't annex 
part of Delaware on the DelMarVa Peninsula and take it into 
Maryland while I was away.
    Senator Capito, please.
    Senator Capito. Thank you, Chairman.
    Thank you, I am sorry we had to slip out. As you can tell, 
there is a lot going on right now with simultaneous committee 
meetings.
    As you all know, Congress created the DOE's Advanced 
Reactor Demonstration program to establish public-private 
partnerships. Then the BIF put in $2.5 billion in funding to 
support these programs. That is a major investment and much 
welcomed in a bipartisan effort.
    To successfully build and operate these reactors, the NRC 
must efficiently review and approve these designs.
    Chairman Hanson, my understanding is that there are already 
two applications that were accepted last year and that will be 
going into this program. How is the Commission preparing to 
review those in light of the new funding opportunities?
    Mr. Hanson. Senator Capito, thank you for that. One of the 
key ways that we are preparing is by reviewing what we call 
topical reports from both X-Energy and TerraPower, the two ARDP 
awardees. What those really are, they are technical reports 
that they submit to us for early review.
    What that does is it allows us to resolve any technical 
questions that we might have about their design. It also gets 
them into the regulatory process early before there is a formal 
application. So we can have a very interactive process with 
them. We can learn about their design. They have an opportunity 
to go back and refine their design as needed. We can do that.
    So that when, for instance, TerraPower is supposed to come 
in with their application in 2023, we are fully prepared to 
review that efficiently and effectively.
    Senator Capito. So I guess the basic question there is, the 
protocols are already firmly established; the rules of the road 
are already established in this particular case for these two 
projects. In other words, they know what they are going to be, 
they know how to formulate their applications. The rules of the 
road are explicit for them right now to be able to--as you are 
moving toward the process.
    Mr. Hanson. Yes, that is right. Because our advanced 
reactor rulemaking is still ongoing, they are going to, I 
think, choose alternative pathways for licensing for their 
reactors in the near term.
    Senator Capito. OK, thank you.
    Commissioner Wright, in 2018 the NRC stood up what is 
called the Vogtle Readiness Group, which was tasked 
specifically to oversee activities associated with the 
completion of the only two new nuclear reactors currently under 
development, and that is Southern Company's Vogtle site in 
Georgia. This organizational approach may be useful to 
replicate for the Commission's review of the ARDP reactors.
    Is there a structure that NRC would consider for these 
first reactors that mirrors these principles that are embodied 
in the Vogtle Readiness Group?
    Mr. Wright. Thank you for the question. Yes, ma'am, I think 
that the NRC is going to take lessons learned from everything 
that we are doing right now. And the Vogtle Readiness Group is 
one of those things that has performed very well.
    Because the different technologies that are coming before 
us, be it the TerraPower thing, be it NuScale, be it Oklo, or 
be it Kairos, or whatever, they have different needs, 
requirements. So we look at tiger teams, we will loosely call 
it that, to try to, once we get a team working on something, 
they stay with that, so they are not bouncing back and forth to 
different people. I think that will add some consistency to it. 
What we learn from one we can apply to others as well.
    Senator Capito. So would you anticipate creating some sort 
of group that is exclusively focused on reviewing these two 
demonstration projects? Is that what you are saying?
    Mr. Wright. I would think that we are going to do something 
very similar. It may not be exactly.
    Senator Capito. Mr. Chairman, did you want to weigh in on 
that?
    Mr. Hanson. That is right, Senator. We are looking at kind 
of what we are calling a core team approach where we have a 
dedicated group of people that will follow that application all 
the way through, and then can kind of bring in extra expertise 
as we go along. We think that has been kind of a proven method 
for improving the efficiency of these reviews and decreasing 
the need to kind of educate multiple groups of staff within the 
agency.
    Senator Capito. I alluded in my opening comments to the 
fact that the Commission did not act on the reactor oversight 
process that was formulated. What are the next steps for the 
staff and for the Commission to improve and modernize that?
    Mr. Hanson. Senator, as you noted, they withdrew the paper, 
I think.
    Senator Capito. Right.
    Mr. Hanson. Because they had updated information. They are 
looking at that, those papers again, and incorporating that 
updated information. I expect that we will see that paper 
again. That was certainly the basis of my approval of the 
withdrawal, was that we would see these issues again in some 
revised form. I am looking forward to that.
    I don't have an update on the specifics. I would be happy 
to follow up.
    Senator Capito. Let me just ask a real generalized question 
here. From the view of the American public, who I believe 
believes in an all of the above energy plan for the country, 
and you heard from my opening statement some frustrations that 
I have felt with the direction that we are going. Nuclear is 
the least talked about, but in some ways could be the most 
powerful dual tool in terms of generating the power, but also 
in an environmental way that doesn't add the emission 
challenges that things like coal and natural gas that my State 
produces very well for the country, I will say.
    How do you tell the American public, and if I could take 
the time to ask all three of you, how do you, very quickly, 
tell the country that nuclear needs to have a future, and has a 
future, and any concerns from the past, how they are being 
allayed? If you can do that in a minute or so, I think it would 
be important for the American public to hear that. We will 
start with Mr. Baran.
    Mr. Baran. We always walk a careful line here because it is 
important for all of us, I think the Chairman will say this, 
too, we don't promote nuclear power. It is important for us to 
be neutral on it. We all have our individual opinions. But we 
as an agency don't promote it. Our focus is on safety and 
security.
    What I want the American people to know is that is what we 
are focused on every day, to make sure we have the right 
standards in place, and rigorous, strong oversight, and we have 
good processes for new reactor applications. As I talk to 
licensees, when the conversation turns to climate and how are 
we going to get to net zero, the focus turns to nuclear in a 
lot of cases.
    So that could mean we get a lot of additional applications 
in the future. We need to be ready for that. We need to have a 
framework in place. We need to be using these strategies that 
my colleagues talked about to make sure we have a good process 
for reviewing new reactor applications.
    Senator Capito. Chairman Hanson.
    Mr. Hanson. I would like the American people to know that 
nuclear power has a long history of safe operation in this 
country, overseen by a rigorous, independent regulator here at 
the NRC and the NRC staff. As Commission Baran said, we are 
well poised with our technical staff to license new nuclear 
technologies into the future. And we are modernizing our 
approaches. We are building on what we have learned over that 
long history of safe operation to make our oversight of the 
current fleet more efficient and more effective.
    Senator, as you have noted, a lot of utilities, the 
cornerstone of their carbon free electricity plans are the 
continued operation of existing reactors today. NRC will 
continue to be an efficient and effective regulator of those 
sites.
    Senator Capito. Mr. Wright.
    Mr. Wright. Thank you. External awareness is really part of 
our mission as well, to be externally aware of what is going on 
around us. When I go visit plants specifically, where a plant 
is located, that is probably the biggest support area around 
that plant. The farther away you get from a plant, it becomes 
less and less talked about, so to speak.
    So the support for the plants are closest to where they 
are. You hear that talked about. But one thing, I agree with my 
colleagues, we just need to be sure that when we are engaged 
with the public that they know that we are going to make sure 
they are operated safely.
    Senator Capito. Thank you.
    Thank you for the time.
    Senator Carper. Senator Lummis, I am going to yield to you, 
so you can go next. Once you have asked your questions, Senator 
Whitehouse, you will be next.
    Senator Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hanson, in July 2020, the NRC and EPA signed a 
memorandum of understanding regarding the understanding of 
uranium in situ recovery facilities. The MOU provided 
clarification of the respective roles and responsibilities of 
the two agencies. And it was needed.
    Will you commit that the NRC will uphold this MOU, 
particularly as the agency proceeds with its consideration of a 
draft proposed rule regarding uranium in situ recovery 
facilities?
    Mr. Hanson. Senator, thank you for that. The approval of 
the MOU with EPA was a full Commission decision. It would take 
a decision by the Commission to change that MOU, and that is 
not a matter before us at this time. I don't foresee any 
changes in the immediate future.
    Senator Lummis. So if there were to be a change, the entire 
Commission would have to abrogate the MOU in order to make the 
rulemaking conform to their new ideas?
    Mr. Hanson. I believe that the proposed rule on the in situ 
recovery that is before us conforms to the MOU.
    Senator Lummis. OK, perfect. Thank you.
    The NRC and the States that have implemented NRC regulation 
requirements, the agreement States, of which my State of 
Wyoming is one, have a really good track record on in situ 
recovery. We make sure that uranium recovery is safe, that it 
is carried out through regulation, guidance, site specific 
licensing considerations, and the expertise of regulatory 
staff. The regime is comprehensive, and it is working very well 
to protect the environment.
    I understand that the NRC is seeking to formalize aspects 
of the licensing process in the draft proposed rule. In doing 
so, would you agree that the NRC should reinforce existing 
management practices that are working well, and not duplicate 
or supplant them?
    Mr. Hanson. As a general matter, I think if agreement 
States are executing the programs that they have in front of 
them, that there is not a need for the NRC to, as you say, 
duplicate that effort. We don't do that in other areas, for 
example.
    We do inspect State programs on a triennial basis, I 
believe, for their effectiveness. We would do the same thing 
with Wyoming, I think, coming up. There are new agreement 
States so I think their review is some ways off.
    But those reviews tend to be generally constructive. We 
want to help States implement their programs effectively.
    Senator Lummis. I think that is a worthwhile give and take 
that occurs during those discussions. It is important that you 
understand what they are doing, and they understand what you 
expect of them. That is reassuring.
    My next question is for all of you. As you know, 
TerraPower's Natrium Power Plant is going to be built near 
Kemmerer, Wyoming. We are very, very pleased with that choice. 
It is a timeline that will allow workers from the coal plant 
that is slated to be closed to transition to the Natrium plant. 
Both DOE and the developers have said they can meet the 7 year 
deadline imposed by Congress.
    But this will require the NRC to review and approve 
applications in a streamlined and efficient manner, because it 
is a pretty tight timeline. Congress also passed the Nuclear 
Energy Innovation and Modernization Act to push the NRC to move 
faster on licensing advanced reactors. NRC has been working 
hard to meet the bill's timelines. It is clear that meeting 
these timelines and moving faster is a key priority for 
Congress.
    So for all the Commissioners, does the NRC have what it 
needs to ensure that these reactors, funded through a public-
private partnership, will achieve the 2028 goal? If not, what 
more do you need from Congress?
    Mr. Hanson. Senator, thank you for that. At this point, I 
would say we do have what we need. We have gotten money outside 
of our regular fee structure for the development of the 
advanced reactor rulemaking. The Department of Energy, of 
course, has granted money to the ARDP awardees like TerraPower, 
and they are using some of that money to consult with us for 
early licensing engagement. So I think we are on a good track 
now.
    To the extent that we need additional resources, if I 
could, I will put in a plug for some of our corporate support 
functions in the IT area, to make sure we have the information 
technology tools, and in our human capital area, so we have the 
people on board that we need, to hire the people that we are 
going to need to review these applications.
    So it is kind of one step removed. I think we are doing 
well in the technical areas. Again, the conversation we had 
with Senator Cardin about the need to backfill a lot of the 
technical expertise that is going to retire over time, we are 
actively engaged in that. But at the moment, I think we are in 
a good situation.
    Senator Lummis. Mr. Baran.
    Mr. Baran. I agree with the Chairman. I think we are well 
positioned to do this work.
    Senator Lummis. Great.
    Mr. Wright.
    Mr. Wright. He did a very good job. There is not much to 
add to it, except to say we are going to do everything we can 
no to be a barrier to anything there.
    Mr. Hanson. Well said.
    Senator Lummis. I thank the witnesses, and I yield back.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Carper. Thanks so much for joining us today.
    Senator Whitehouse.
    Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman.
    I am going to ask questions very aligned with Senator 
Lummis's. I was an original author and sponsor of the 
Innovation and Modernization Act. So I am keenly interested in 
seeing you implement it effectively. Senators Barrasso, Crapo, 
Booker, and I wrote to you all recently to give you a well done 
on moving up the schedule.
    But recently, you extended by 9 months the date in the Part 
53 rulemaking for receipt of the proposed rule package. I am 
wondering what that portends by way of timeline.
    Mr. Hanson. Senator, thank you. The Commission did just 
approve an extension of the timeline, and we didn't do it 
lightly. Because we do feel the urgency in getting this 
rulemaking out.
    Senator Whitehouse. But as I understand it, you have moved 
ahead of the anticipated schedule to begin with. So this is 
slowing down an accelerated schedule.
    Mr. Hanson. That is right. The original schedule was 
December 2027. The Commission had given direction to the staff 
to move that up to I think some time in 2024. We have now 
pushed that back a little bit so that we could really focus on 
how best to use our risk information in some of the designs 
that we are going to get and how to credit design maturity 
appropriately in the application process.
    Senator Whitehouse. So does the 9 month extension likely 
flow through and tack onto the anticipated end date?
    Mr. Hanson. I am hoping it is not a day for day slip, to 
tell you the truth. I am hoping that the extra time that we are 
taking up at this stage in the process that we can recover at 
least some of that in the final rule stage, because we will 
have a more fully developed product.
    Senator Whitehouse. OK. We wish you well. This is a strong 
bipartisan area in a Congress in which strong bipartisan areas 
can be scarce.
    One of the reasons that I have been supportive of this 
innovation is the constant news that we are hearing out of the 
innovative community that these technologies will put them in a 
position to take the spent nuclear fuel, nuclear waste, for 
which America currently has no plan, and which is sitting 
onsite near nuclear facilities, because we don't even like to 
have it travel, and piling up. And it seems to me that the 
ability to take that resource and use it to power carbon free 
generation is a pretty positive thing. We have no better plan 
for the nuclear waste right now.
    I am concerned that the economics are going to be a 
problem. If we were United States of America, Incorporated, we 
would have a balance sheet; we would have accountants; there 
would be a report each year on the financial picture of the 
company. And in that financial picture would be the liability 
of cleaning up the nuclear waste mess. Whatever that number 
was, that number less $1 would be the incentive to get that 
problem solved, because it would be identified as an economic 
burden on the enterprise.
    The United States of America as a country doesn't operate 
that way. My worry is that a small savings from using new fuel 
as opposed to trying to address the spent fuel problem will 
push the spent fuel technologies to the side, simply because 
the importance of dealing with the spent fuel won't be 
recognized in the equation in any way.
    First, are you aware of that problem, and is there any way 
in which the NRC is focused on trying to make sure that spent 
fuel innovation, spent fuel based innovations don't become 
orphaned by your process?
    Mr. Hanson. Thank you for that, Senator. I think we are 
focused to make sure that there aren't any parts of the fuel 
cycle that are orphaned. In our advanced reactor preparations, 
I have personally tried to emphasize with the staff the need to 
look at all parts of the fuel cycle and ensure that we have 
what I would call a regulatory line of sight for all of these 
parts of the fuel cycle. If all we are doing is focusing on 
regulating reactors, for instance, Senator, but we are 
forgetting fuel enrichment on the front end or fuel 
fabrication, or spent fuel management handling, reprocessing, I 
think as you are suggesting on the back end, then we are 
potentially hampering the entire enterprise.
    So that has been a focus for me, and certainly the spent 
fuel management piece of that, whether it is storage or 
transportation or disposal or as you say, reprocessing.
    Senator Whitehouse. So you think you are going to be to 
provide a level playing field for reprocessing innovation, as 
well as new fuels innovation?
    Mr. Hanson. I believe we can.
    Senator Whitehouse. OK.
    Thanks, Chairman.
    Senator Carper. Thank you for your continued interest and 
leadership on these issues, Sheldon. Thank you very much.
    Senator Markey has joined us.
    Senator, welcome.
    Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is responsible for 
ensuring a safe, effective, and efficient decommissioning 
process for nuclear power plants whose life expectancy has now 
been completed. That includes the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station 
in Plymouth, Massachusetts.
    However, with its recent approval of the proposed 
decommissioning rule, I fear the NRC now stands for Not 
Recognizing Concerns. The NRC has decided that the best way to 
shield itself from criticism around the decommissioning process 
is to take itself out of the process. In the latest version of 
the proposed decommissioning rule, the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission would have no ability to approve, no ability to 
change, no ability to deny plants decommissioning proposals. 
Known as post-shutdown decommissioning activity reports; its 
only job would be to acknowledge receipt of the report.
    Our independent nuclear safety regulator would serve as a 
glorified filing cabinet, ceding the job of regulator to the 
nuclear industry itself. It is not a win for safety, for 
communities, or for the energy sector.
    Chairman Hanson, if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
doesn't need to formally approve nuclear plants' 
decommissioning plans, will anyone, the NRC or stakeholders, be 
able to meaningfully assess or address any issues in the 
accuracy, timeline, cost estimates, environmental impacts, or 
overall legitimacy of the plants' decommissioning proposals?
    Mr. Hanson. Senator, thank you. Our decommissioning 
processes are oriented around one primary goal, and that is the 
ultimate greenfield release of the site. And the post-shutdown 
decommissioning activities report that you mentioned is 
supposed to outline the activities that our licensees are going 
to undertake to reach that goal over time.
    We establish in regulation what is required in that report. 
If that report comes to us and is lacking in any way, we can 
direct our licensees to address those deficiencies and prohibit 
undertaking any decommissioning activities until those 
deficiencies are addressed.
    We also publish that report for review by the communities. 
We hold two public meetings and solicit public comments, so 
that not only can we rely on our own review with regard to 
whether or not that report meets our regulations, but we can 
solicit input from the community about whether or not they 
think it meets our regulations.
    Senator Markey. So you are saying that you can, and are 
authorized to require NRC approval of decommissioning plans? 
You are saying that is in your jurisdiction, you will have to 
approve the decommissioning plan? Is that what you are saying 
you are going to do?
    Mr. Hanson. It is not a formal approval, as you note. It is 
a review for consistency with our regulations.
    Senator Markey. Well, then, from my perspective, check the 
box exercises aren't enough. This needs to be a process that 
takes into account the accuracy of those plans, not just the 
completion of those plans. And the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission has to sign off on it as part of the process. 
Otherwise, we wind up closing the barn door after the horse is 
out, gone, and died of old age. We don't have the NRC playing a 
meaningful role in this process.
    Do you believe that anything in this proposed rule does 
anything to strengthen stakeholder involvement in the 
decommissioning process?
    Mr. Hanson. Senator, one of the areas that we added to this 
rule was, we are making licensees conduct an analysis to ensure 
that their activities are going to be bounded by previous 
environmental assessments. If they are proposing any activities 
that are not bounded, they have to--the NRC is going to provide 
a meaningful opportunity for public participation to review 
those activities and their relationship to these prior 
environmental analyses.
    Senator Markey. Is there a requirement to consider and 
respond to public comments? Is there a requirement to have 
public hearings on this decommissioning process?
    Mr. Hanson. We do have public meetings on the post-shutdown 
decommissioning activities report, and we solicit public 
comments on that report.
    Senator Markey. This would be after the utility, the 
industry, had completed this process, so that there would be 
public input as to the adequacy of the work which was 
completed?
    Mr. Hanson. Well, the activities report happens at the 
beginning of the process. They are required to submit that to 
us 2 years prior to shutdown. The license termination plan 
would be, there is an environmental assessment conducted at 
that, and that is within 2 years of completion of all the 
activities. Then the NRC oversees the activities in the 
interim.
    Senator Markey. The problem is the comments that don't have 
to be responded to are considered not meaningful if they are 
not going to be actually considered. It is like shouting into 
the wind, if you are a community that is concerned about what 
is taking place with this nuclear power plant and its 
decommissioning process.
    So I am very concerned about this process, as it is 
unfolding. I would just absolutely urge you to ensure that 
there is full NRC and public participation. Because the 
industry historically, I am not telling you anything you don't 
know, has been known to cut corners, and ultimately we cannot 
allow the public safety to be put in jeopardy at all.
    Thank you.
    Senator Capito [presiding]. Senator Stabenow.
    Senator Stabenow. Thank you very much.
    Good morning, thank you to all of you for your testimony 
and your work.
    Chairman Hanson, as a Michigan native yourself, I know you 
understand the importance of the Great Lakes to all of us. It 
is not only about our economy, it is really our way of life in 
Michigan. Protecting the Great Lakes is really in our DNA, as 
you know. So it is vital that we do everything that we can to 
protect 95 percent of the country's fresh water, which 
surrounds us in Michigan.
    That is why for years I have led bipartisan efforts to 
oppose Canadian proposals to very low level nuclear waste just 
off the shore of Lake Huron. Thankfully, they decided not to do 
that, and I appreciate the fact that they have not done that.
    But they are still considering a proposal to store highly 
radioactive waste at a site within the Great Lakes Basin that 
is only 30 miles from Lake Huron. So Michiganders are 
extremely, extremely concerned. I am extremely concerned about 
this. Stopping the storage proposal is the right thing to do 
for the people of Michigan; it is the right thing to do for the 
people of Canada, because the risk is just too great. They have 
a lot of other possibilities of where they could create this 
storage facility.
    Chairman Hanson, will you commit to work alongside our 
other Federal partners, including the State Department, to 
engage with our Canadian allies with the shared goal of 
protecting the Great Lakes from the risk of a nuclear accident?
    Mr. Hanson. Senator, thank you. As you said, as a native 
Michigander, I am keenly interested and concerned with the long 
term health and viability of the Great Lakes. The NRC would be 
happy to support the State Department and other inter-agency 
partners in that.
    We also have a very strong relationship with our Canadian 
nuclear regulators. We believe they have a very mature and 
technically competent staff. We haven't interacted with them 
much on this issue, but if they wanted our consultation, we 
would be happy to provide it.
    Senator Stabenow. I think it is really important that you 
do have that dialogue. I have very much appreciated having 
multiple conversations with our Canadian friends. There is no 
question that there is competency and sophistication and a lot 
of land in Canada. It does not have to be right next to the 
Great Lakes. I think that is the point for all of us.
    Also, we have about 10,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel from 
15 current or former U.S. power plants stored along the shores 
of the Great Lakes. And as the Biden administration has made 
clear, it is going to be hard to meet our near term carbon 
reduction goals without nuclear power. But we have to make sure 
that these smaller nuclear storage facilities are sound.
    So it is critical that we work together on the most 
effective means of dealing with the waste, again, alongside our 
precious Great Lakes. I would appreciate your comments, and can 
we count on you to work with us on this?
    Mr. Hanson. Yes, Senator. I think you can count on the NRC 
to make sure that the existing operating reactors continue to 
operate safely and that the spent fuel stored on the Great 
Lakes is also stored safely. I was at D.C. Cook this last 
summer and had an opportunity to see the storage pad as they 
were preparing to move some of their spent fuel out of the pool 
and onto the pad this fall. I think Attorney General Nessel may 
have been there for that spent fuel loading campaign and was 
very interested to kind of learn about the stability and how 
they manage those facilities and came away very reassured.
    Senator Stabenow. Good. I appreciate it very much. Again, 
we have a really, what we view as a sacred trust in Michigan in 
protecting the Great Lakes, not only for us but for the entire 
country. It is very important that we look at these issues 
through the eyes of protecting those waters. Thank you.
    Mr. Hanson. Thank you. I appreciated your comment about 
sacred trust. I think my colleagues and I feel that acutely 
every day in the mission that we set out to achieve.
    Senator Stabenow. Thank you.
    Mr. Hanson. Thank you.
    Senator Capito. Thank you.
    While we are waiting for the Chairman to return, he had to 
go over to Finance, I am going to exercise my discretion and 
ask another question.
    I have been in these hearings now with NRC probably for my 
entire 6 years as a Senator. The management issues seem to 
always be the same. In response to Senator Lummis's question 
about what do you need, it was more resources for IT. Yet at 
the same time, if you look at some of the financial management 
practices, for instance, the NRC pays the GSA rent for space 
that is currently occupied by FDA. Apparently a decade ago, I 
understand this is before any of you all were there, the NRC 
signed a long term lease for space that has never been fully 
utilized by the agency. And I missed your opening part when you 
talked about the blended work force and flexible times.
    Chairman Hanson, how much does the agency pay GSA in rent 
for office space that the agency does not use? If you are 
looking for more resources, in my view this would be a place 
that if you took that out of your overhead calculations you 
might be able to pick up some of the additional IT requirements 
that you think you are going to need in the future.
    Nobody wants to take that.
    Mr. Hanson. Oh, I do, except I think Commission Wright has 
actually spoken, within the agency, has spoken very eloquently 
on this issue. I wanted to give him an opportunity to respond.
    Senator Capito. All right, good.
    Mr. Wright.
    Mr. Wright. Senator, thank you so much. I couldn't agree 
with you more. The fact that that counts against us, we get no 
benefit from it at all. And in the end, our licensees end up 
paying part of this stuff, too. So that is something we don't 
get any benefit for.
    I do think that if we can adjust that, and I think it 
totals $6 million and change that we are talking about, which 
is about 1 percent, when you are looking at that.
    Senator Capito. Right. So how do we solve this problem? Can 
you get out from under the lease? Does the lease have to 
expire? What are your options here? How aggressively have you 
pursued this?
    Mr. Wright. Again, I think, and I would just go back in my 
confirmation hearing, the last time I did tell Senator Inhofe 
that if there was anything that we had issues or concerns about 
where the budget was concerned, we were going to come to you to 
ask for help. We are searching for answers as well. I think we 
are reaching out to you and to the others, and our CFO and 
everybody would be more than willing to discuss the best way.
    As I sit here right now, I can't tell you exactly.
    Do you know?
    Mr. Hanson. Senator, that subsidy to FDA as you call it I 
think was put in place by the House Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee. So we are looking at it, and we want 
to engage your staff on specific ways that we might be able to 
address that going forward. It could be just as simple as a 
recategorization or maybe some other method.
    Senator Capito. It would seem to me, I am on the 
Appropriations Committee as well. The truth in budgeting, it is 
not there. Certain agencies, and I wouldn't necessarily 
categorically put you in this category, but certain agencies 
and commissions ask for money in certain areas knowing full 
well that they want to come back in and reprogram this money 
into other areas that may be less politically viable, or for 
other reasons. I don't know that this is necessarily in this 
case, but I would say--now that I see Senator Padilla is here, 
I will yield to him and get off my soapbox.
    But I will say as we look at these blended work forces, as 
we look at more of our Federal work force that is not coming in 
full time, there is no reason that you all and others 
throughout the entire Federal Government should not be able to 
skinny down your physical space, your requirements for physical 
space. And if it is just as easy as a recategorization, it 
should be done.
    So we will be supportive of that. I think the taxpayers 
would be supportive of that, and it is smart.
    Senator Padilla, I will open it up to you for questions.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Good morning to all of you. I have a couple of questions 
specifically for Chairman Hanson. But let me set the stage. As 
I know you are familiar, California has one nuclear facility 
still in operation, but three that are in various stages of 
decommissioning. Those would be San Onofre, Rancho Seco, and 
Humboldt Bay, with the most recent action being the NRC's 
announcement that it has terminated a license for Humboldt 
Bay's Unit 3, and released the unit site for unrestricted use 
on November 18th.
    A transparent decommissioning process I think we can all 
agree, and a clear understanding of its timeline, is critical 
to not just operators and stakeholders, but to community 
members at large, and local governments around these sites. 
Concerns about environmental health impacts, future use of 
these sites, et cetera.
    So with that as a lead in, the first question is this, Mr. 
Chairman. Given that the NRC's historic role has been in 
regulating the operations of nuclear power plants, rather than 
overseeing their decommissioning, how do you see the NRC 
meeting this expanded role of oversight regarding 
decommissioning activities, and what is being done internally 
to ensure that the NRC is ready to conduct a transparent and 
timely process?
    Mr. Hanson. Thank you, Senator, for that. We really have 
had the opportunity, because as you have said, we have had an 
increasing number of decommissionings or plants entering 
decommissioning over the last several years. Because all 26 
didn't hit all at once, we have been able to shift staff 
gradually to focus on decommissioning.
    I call it kind of the three challenges that the agency 
currently has. Historically, we focus mostly on the safe 
operation of the current fleet. With regard to reactors, we had 
kind of that single mission.
    Well, now we are doing three things. We are getting ready 
for new technology, of course we are focused on the existing 
fleet, like Diablo Canyon, while it is still operating. And we 
are shifting our focus as well, we are pivoting, if you will, 
to decommissioning. I think overall, the agency has been quite 
successful in that regard, in being able to review those shifts 
by our licensees to that new status.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you. Just two comments before my 
next question. One, looking at not just shifting personnel to 
getting ready for new technology, as you said, current 
operations and decommissioning, sort of a new growing priority, 
but if there is capacity concerns, need for additional staffing 
and other resources to accommodate this shift, please let this 
Committee know how we can be supportive of that.
    Second, just in thinking ahead on the decommissioning, my 
start was in local government, before moving to State 
government, before coming to the U.S. Senate. So I know my 
colleagues in local government are anxious in many ways, even 
if it is thinking 10, 20, 30 years ahead, what future use of 
these sites can and should be. Residential, maybe not quite the 
case. But for example, clean energy technologies, renewable 
energy sources, et cetera, to take advantage of existing tie 
ins to transmission and distribution infrastructure, which is 
key for wind, when appropriate, to solar, when appropriate, 
depending on the natural resource that is site specific. So I 
want to plan that seed.
    The second question is this. Specifically on the issue of 
community interest and engagement, the NRC states that it 
``considers public involvement and information about the NRC's 
activities to be a cornerstone of strong, fair regulation of 
the nuclear industry.'' So the question is, how do you see the 
NRC's role in facilitating local community stakeholders with 
the decommissioning process, specifically from the beginning, 
but not just the beginning, through until the end?
    Mr. Hanson. Thank you, Senator. As part of the 
implementation of the Nuclear Energy Innovation and 
Modernization Act, we completed a study, if you will, or a 
report, on best practices for community advisory boards. We 
would be happy to provide your office with that.
    As part of the proposed decommissioning rule, my 
understanding is that we will be putting those best practices 
for community engagement into guidance for our licensees.
    We also participate regularly in community advisory board 
meetings, so that people have an understanding of what it is 
the agency is doing, how we are overseeing our licensees. I 
know the performance of spent fuel storage system at San Onofre 
is of significant concern to the community. We have 
participated a great deal in the community advisory board there 
to talk about how our oversight, how we are overseeing the 
licensee and the licensee's monitoring program, how we are 
ground truthing the data that we are getting from the licensee 
about the performance of those systems.
    That is one example. I don't know if, Commissioner Baran, 
you want to jump in.
    Mr. Baran. Sure. The only thing I would add there is, one 
of the things we have been interested in doing is making sure 
we provide flexibility for how all that is structured. So at 
some sites in the country, the company has set up an advisory 
panel and involved the local community. In other places, it is 
the State, the State legislature passed legislation 
establishing, I think that is what they did in Massachusetts 
and Vermont.
    So one of the things we have been careful to do is allow 
that flexibility, different communities, different States are 
going to want to do it different ways. We don't want to push 
them to do it any one particular way.
    Senator Padilla. Just in closing, I would imagine it is 
done collaboratively with, in California, the legislature or 
the Public Utilities Commission and its counterparts in other 
States, their regulatory and oversight bodies, not just to 
arrive at the stakeholder process, but formalize any 
commitments that are made as a result.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome back.
    Senator Carper [presiding]. Thanks, Senator Padilla. Thanks 
for joining us.
    Senator Sullivan, good morning.
    Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Good morning, and thank you to the Commissioners.
    I have a question I want to begin with about the U.S. Air 
Force's announcement in October that it picked Eielson Air 
Force Base in interior Alaska to host a first of its kind small 
nuclear reactor. The design known as a microreactor would 
reliably generate enough electricity to support round the clock 
operations at this remote but very strategic military base. It 
is going to be hosting over two and a half squadrons of F-35s 
here in a couple of months.
    I would like to get, Mr. Chairman, your views on this 
first. A, on safety, everybody wants to know about safety. But 
B, in remote communities, in my State and other States that 
rely currently on fuel delivery, diesel generation, a lot of us 
see that this kind of microreactor has potential to provide 
clean, reliable energy for decades to come.
    So what is the thinking on these microreactors? Not just 
the Eielson one, which I am sure you are involved with, but the 
potential, and again, safety, but also energy costs. We are all 
experiencing very high energy costs right now in our country. A 
lot of it is self-inflicted wounds by the Administration. Some 
of their senior advisors are telling the American people, hey, 
we are driving up energy costs on your back to ``accelerate the 
transition to renewables.'' This is Gina McCarthy, not very 
smart, in my view, really hurting American working families.
    But can you talk about the Eielson microreactor, and the 
potential for remote communities to benefit? One idea that we 
have thought about in Alaska is you would have the microreactor 
at Eielson, is there a possibility to actually have that not 
just power the base but the surrounding communities? Fairbanks, 
for example, is nearby. And I would love to hear from all the 
Commissioners.
    The safety issue is a big one, obviously. People have 
concerns about that.
    Mr. Hanson. Yes. Thank you, Senator. I will speak to the 
Air Force part if I could first, then I will talk more 
generally, we can all talk more generally about microreactors.
    I wanted to point out, we have a longstanding relationship 
with the Office of Naval Reactors actually to review some of 
their designs and their fuel formulations and so forth.
    Senator Sullivan. By the way, that is an incredible office 
and legacy that we have in America. Not a lot of people know 
about it, starting with Admiral Rickover. Just really 
remarkable.
    Mr. Hanson. And now led by Admiral Caldwell of course. So 
the NRC has been very pleased to provide peer review and 
technical support and so forth.
    We haven't heard from the Air Force, to my knowledge. But 
we would be happy to do the same for them, and we'll make the 
appropriate staff available.
    Senator Sullivan. Do you think they should be giving you a 
call about the Eielson?
    Mr. Hanson. We will leave that up to them.
    Senator Sullivan. We can help with that.
    Mr. Hanson. We will answer the call if the phone rings, 
certainly.
    Senator Sullivan. OK.
    Mr. Hanson. Microreactors themselves are very intriguing, 
because of their small size and in many cases, their passive 
safety features. We have one application in from Oklo for a 
microreactor, and we are actively engaged with them in 
reviewing that. Understanding the safety features that they 
have with those, in many cases kind of passive safety features, 
it doesn't have as many moving parts so there aren't as many 
things to break or pay attention to.
    I think the other thing that is interesting across the 
advanced reactor spectrum is this focus on fuels. Part of what 
makes microreactors so interesting and viable for remote 
communities, not that remote, obviously, Fairbanks, is the long 
term core. So every day, the reactors in Senator Carper's, 
across the bay there in New Jersey, they will refuel every 18 
months to 2 years, say. Some of these microreactors don't have 
to be refueled for 10 or even 20 years, depending on the fuel 
formulation.
    So that has the potential, as you point out, to bring down 
the delivered cost of energy, which of course I know is of 
great concern to Alaskans.
    Senator Sullivan. And safety. Just safety in general on 
these microreactors. What is your assessment?
    Mr. Hanson. We still have a number of these concepts under 
review. So I don't know that we are ready to make a formal 
declaration. But I think the passive safety features are 
intriguing and I think hold a lot of promise.
    Senator Sullivan. Any other Commissioners want to comment?
    Mr. Baran. Yes, the only thing I would add there, and maybe 
Commissioner Wright has a point, too, this is a big area as we 
establish the framework for advanced reactors. This is one of 
the tricky pieces that we need to get right. The existing 
fleet, these are really large reactors. They are 1,000 megawatt 
reactors. Now we are talking about designs that are maybe a 
megawatt. You are not going to have the same requirements for a 
1 megawatt reactor that is advanced as you would for a 1,000 
megawatt light water reactor.
    Having a rule that can cover the big ones but also 
something as small as a microreactor is what the staff is 
really focused on. It is tricky, because we want to make sure 
it is open to all the different technologies and the different 
sizes. It is different than we have in the existing fleet.
    Senator Sullivan. Great.
    Commissioner Wright, do you have any thoughts on this?
    Mr. Wright. Personally, I am a real fan of this, the idea. 
Intuitively you would think they are safer. The jury is still 
out; we are still, as the Chairman said. There are national 
security implications with this for sure, and benefits for us 
as well as if we own it, and we send it out from us, then we 
control that.
    So there is grid security potential advantages to it, there 
is reliability, stability, and resilience that you can work to 
or independence, just like they are trying to do in some of 
these areas. I am looking forward to getting one of these 
things through the process and letting it get to market. I 
really can't wait for it.
    Senator Sullivan. Good. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Carper. You are quite welcome, thank you. Thanks 
for joining us.
    Senator Duckworth I think may be joining us on Webex.
    Senator Duckworth, are you there?
    Senator Duckworth. I am, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I am 
sorry I couldn't come back to the hearing. I am back and forth 
between hearings.
    Senator Carper. I know that feeling. Welcome.
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you. And thank you to the 
Commissioners for being here today.
    There may be few other States that better understand the 
NRC's critical importance to nuclear safety than Illinois. 
After all, Illinois possesses more nuclear generating capacity 
than any other State. Last year, nuclear power plants accounted 
for 58 percent of my State's in State electricity generation.
    On the positive side, nuclear power has played an important 
role in expanding production of zero emission, clean energy 
sources. However, the inability to implement a permanent 
storage solution for our Nation's nuclear waste hinders our 
ability to effectively decommission nuclear power reactors, and 
worse, harms local communities located near such stranded sites 
that no longer generate power or revenue but still store 
nuclear waste.
    Shortly after joining the Senate in 2017, I traveled to the 
city of Zion, Illinois, and witnessed the adverse financial and 
social impacts resulting from Zion's proximity to a stranded 
site. Congress should better serve communities that suffer a 
devastating one-two punch at first, losing a significant 
economic driving force, and then being forced to service a de 
facto interim storage site.
    That is why I wrote the Sensible Timing Relief for 
America's Nuclear Districts Economic Development Act of 2021, 
which is also known as the STRANDED Act. My bipartisan bill 
would provide the city of Zion and other similarly situated 
communities across the country with financial assistance to 
offset the harmful impacts of a stranded nuclear waste site.
    Chairman Hanson, given the NRC's extensive expertise and 
experience with the decommissioning process, can you share your 
view on why the public would benefit from the programs and 
funding contained in the bipartisan STRANDED Act?
    Mr. Hanson. Senator, thank you. I also appreciate the 
hybrid nature of our interactions here. We are striving for 
this at the NRC, too, with the re-entry of the staff. So it is 
nice to see you virtually.
    As you recognize, Senator, the NRC's focus is really on 
protecting people and the environment. It is really focused on 
public health and safety and security. So we are not going to 
have necessarily a direct role in some of the issues you raise.
    But I think one of the most important things that the NRC 
can do is actually oversee and ensure the safe and timely and 
secure cleanup of these decommissioning sites, so that 
ultimately I think as I mentioned to Senator Markey, that they 
become available for unrestricted use into the future, so they 
can be used for any number of purposes.
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you. Helping these communities, 
these stranded communities, there is an urgent environmental 
justice priority. It is why, beyond just passing my bill, I 
also focus on what immediate relief the NRC could provide, or 
what specific authorities Congress could empower the NRC with 
to deliver such help.
    My understanding is that despite the NRC maintaining legal 
oversight, that you have mentioned, over a stranded nuclear 
waste site, the Commission is significantly limited in its 
statutory authority to assist my constituents in Zion and 
others throughout the country that are struggling with the 
preparations leading up to and the aftermath of a 
decommissioned facility.
    Chairman Hanson, what would be the most effective 
additional authorities to empower the NRC to achieve 
environmental justice goals and better support communities that 
are essentially forced to serve as dumpsters for nuclear waste?
    Mr. Hanson. Senator, thank you for that. I want to give you 
an answer, then I want to give Commissioner Baran an 
opportunity, because he has spoken a lot about environmental 
justice.
    We have a review ongoing within the agency with regard to 
environmental justice, a comprehensive review of our policies 
and programs, with a view toward environmental justice. That 
would certainly include decommissioning.
    We are expecting the conclusions of that review to come to 
the Commission in January or February 2022. We would be happy 
to follow up with you about that.
    It may be a little premature for me to say what I think our 
additional legislative authorities are, but we would be happy 
to follow up with you and your staff going forward.
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
    Mr. Baran. I think the Chairman gave a very good overview 
of it. I think all of us are approaching it with an open mind. 
We have asked the staff to take several months to talk to a 
large number of stakeholders and gather ideas. What are other 
Federal agencies doing? We know a lot of Federal agencies right 
now are focused on environmental justice. Some of those ideas 
may make sense for NRC; some of them may not.
    But the staff is pulling together, they have gotten 
hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of comments, and talked to a 
lot of stakeholders, Tribes, they have held panels to gather 
information. Talked to some of the folks that maybe haven't 
interacted as much with NRC in the past and see what they think 
about what NRC should be doing on environmental justice.
    I appreciate your flagging this issue. I am not sure how 
much focus there has been on that in this environmental justice 
conversation. I think it is an important aspect.
    We are looking for, I think all of us, to see what has the 
staff come up with, what are the options, are there any that 
require new legal authorities or changes in the way the agency 
has operated. That is coming, and I think we are all very open 
minded and focused on doing something there. I think we want to 
improve what the agency has done on environmental justice. I 
for one think we need to ask those tough questions and be bold.
    Thank you for flagging another area for us to look at 
there.
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you. I look forward to following 
up with you both.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Carper. Senator Duckworth, thanks very much for 
your involvement on this issue. It is an important issue, and 
your leadership.
    I have a couple of questions for our Chairman and our 
Commissioners. One of those deals with NRC funding. I think we 
have had some conversations about that already. I have been in 
and out, so I missed some of the questions.
    The NRC's work to help maintain the safety and the security 
of our Nation's nuclear power facilities and materials ensures 
that nuclear power can continue to provide safe, zero emission 
power for our Nation. For the NRC to do its job, the agency 
must be able to hire the best and brightest, be equipped to 
keep up with the industry's innovation and new technologies, 
which we are witnessing.
    At the same time, the NRC must be nimble and adapt to COVID 
and other work force challenges. And in NEIMA, you will recall, 
Congress put spending limits on how much the NRC could spend on 
human capital, on IT and building costs, commonly known as 
corporate support.
    In your testimony, again, this is for Chairman Hanson, in 
your testimony I believe you mentioned that the NRC is having 
difficulty meeting these limits. Would you talk a little bit 
more with us about those difficulties and what it may mean in 
terms of the NRC meeting its mission? And to follow up with 
that, how the COVID work force challenges and the prospect of 
new advanced nuclear reactors changed your view on the 
importance of corporate support. Please.
    Mr. Hanson. Senator, thank you. First, I want to say that 
collectively, as a Commission, we take the corporate support 
caps very seriously. We have strived to meet them. So it is not 
something that we undertake lightly to say that we are having 
difficulty in meeting those.
    We have reduced corporate support spending over the last 6 
or 7 years by over $100 million, and by well over 100 staff. So 
we have taken reductions, and I think what where are getting to 
is, we are reaching the limit of those reductions.
    A couple of key areas I may have mentioned to Senator 
Lummis and Senator Capito that I would like to highlight, and 
that would be in our IT function. IT costs, as you know, 
particularly you, Senator Capito, from the Appropriations 
Committee, are rising across the Government. Yet the need to 
invest in modernization and new technology continues apace.
    Most agencies across the Government invest probably 7 
percent to 8 percent of their IT spending in modernization. 
That is in new tools and new capabilities. The NRC is around 
the 2 percent to 3 percent mark. We could do that for the last 
couple of years, but that is starting to catch up with us, 
particularly as we have a hybrid work force, and as we train up 
to want to take on the challenges of licensing advanced 
reactors and wanting some of those advanced computing tools and 
other tools available to us.
    The other area is really in our H.R., which also falls 
under the corporate support. I have learned recently that--we 
talked about the under 30 cohort. I spoke about this with 
Senator Cardin earlier in the hearing, about how we are about 3 
percent under 30 right now within the agency, and that we 
really need to work on that to have the work force of the 
future.
    We have an apprenticeship program in the agency that we 
started a couple of years ago. We would be able to expand that 
if we had additional resources in our H.R. function, for 
example, and could more aggressively tackle that problem. One 
of the things we want to accomplish in our work force is to 
have some overlap between the new people and the more 
experienced folks with the institutional knowledge, so that 
they can transmit that knowledge and culture as they head off 
into retirement.
    So these are some of the challenges. I don't know if 
Commissioner Wright or Commissioner Baran want to speak about 
this a little bit as well. It has been a subject of a lot of 
conversation among the three of us.
    Mr. Baran. Yes, I think there is broad agreement between 
the three of us on it. I agree with everything the Chairman 
said.
    I would just flag a couple of things. With the agency, we 
talked about this earlier, kind of an aging work force, we have 
probably 6, 7, 8 percent of the agency turn over every year. So 
just to kind of keep our staff at the current level, that is a 
couple hundred people we have to hire. Right now, we struggle 
actually with H.R. to actually hire that many in terms of 
having the resources there to do it. That is just to kind of 
stay flat and be ready for everything that is coming down.
    The other area I would flag, just where I think basically 
the corporate support cap has had an unintended consequence in 
terms of our inability to make an investment that could save 
money down the road is actually something we were talking about 
earlier with Senator Capito, which is space planning. One of 
the things we want to be able to do, for example, is say let's 
have the up front costs to renovate a floor of our building. If 
we do that, we can take up less space, free up other space, we 
get rent savings.
    We found that there are times with the budget we just 
actually don't have the corporate dollars to do that renovation 
that would make sense as an efficiency and just improving the 
quality of the experience of the staff, too. But we can't 
capture those savings down the road, because we can't make the 
up front investment and still meet the corporate cap.
    So I really appreciate that you all are focused on this. I 
know it you all, on a bipartisan basis, want us to focus on 
corporate support. We have done that. And now we are at the 
point where it is starting to create some challenges.
    Senator Carper. Senator Capito has another question or 
comment that she would like to add. I have one or two more 
questions. I want to follow up on the apprenticeship program 
that you mentioned.
    Senator Capito, please proceed.
    Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to thank the three of you for being here today. I 
learned a lot, and I think we have a lot of things we can work 
on together. I look forward to that. I am hoping that President 
Biden heeds our call to have two more Commissioners nominated, 
so we can have a full boat in front of us.
    I would like to make a brief note, prior to leaving the 
meeting. The NRC's career staff provides invaluable scientific 
and technical advice. They do not make policy decisions. Policy 
decisions are made by the Commission. NRC staff do propose 
recommendations for the Commission to approve or disapprove, 
proposals that are grounded in the NRC statutory authority.
    The staff should be able to make recommendations in an 
unbiased manner without fear that a member of the Commission 
will take to social media, suggest that staff recommendations 
are designed to weaken or roll back nuclear safety. 
Commissioners should not use social media to call into question 
the motives behind the staff's recommendations.
    I am concerned that a Commissioner's recent and persistent 
social media comments will have an adverse impact on NRC career 
staff's unbiased work. I hope that all members of the 
Commission will consider how their social media activity may 
influence and threaten the objectivity of professional NRC 
staff's work.
    I appreciate that, and I would like to ask for unanimous 
consent to enter into the record my March 26th letter with you, 
Chairman Carper, to President Biden, requesting those 
nominations of two members, and a November 22nd letter from the 
American Nuclear Society and Nuclear Industry Council regarding 
the importance of the full Commission.
    Senator Carper. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The referenced information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
       
    Senator Capito. Thank you.
    Senator Carper. Thanks so much. This is an important 
hearing, and I am glad we could have it.
    I want to come back--I think, Mr. Chairman, you mentioned 
an apprenticeship program. We have mentorships; probably every 
Senator on this Committee has interns in our offices back home 
and here as well. I am a big fan of apprenticeships. Tell us a 
little bit about your apprenticeship program. How long have you 
had it, and how is it working?
    Mr. Hanson. We revived it here just 2 years ago. We took a 
cohort of 22 recent engineering graduates, and it is a 2 year 
program where each of those graduates cycles around in 3 to 6 
month assignments around the agency. So they are touching a lot 
of different areas that the agency works in, everything from 
medical technologies to reactor operations and so forth. So 
that when they are done, and they find a home in the 
organization, they have a broader sense and a lot of experience 
with the overall NRC mission. We are just coming to the end, 
and we are starting a new cohort now on that.
    You mentioned internships, Senator. We also have an intern 
program, a summer intern program for students.
    Senator Carper. I presume it is a paid internship.
    Mr. Hanson. Yes, paid internship, absolutely. We also have 
co-op for engineering students where they can take a semester 
off, come work for us and then go back and finish their studies 
as well. So we are really fully utilizing all those mechanisms 
to bring people into the agency.
    Senator Carper. Could you comment on the--I am going to 
stay on apprenticeships. So just hold your horse just for a 
second.
    One of the things we try to be mindful of as we are 
recruiting interns is diversity. Any thoughts anybody can make 
on that front, please.
    Mr. Wright. If you don't mind, I will pick up.
    First off, this is a very diverse group. They are very 
active as well. They are not shy. In fact, we learned a lot 
from them when we started the program back a couple of years 
ago. We had a group of four of them who actually came up to my 
office and talked about where the NRC was missing out. Because 
when they were recruiting some of the people, when they were 
applying for internships or for the NRAN program or whatever, 
we weren't getting back to them soon enough, and other agencies 
were coming in and taking the cream of the crop. They were 
saying, the NRC is missing that opportunity.
    So it actually helped us kind of refocus on how we went 
about this. I think it has been very successful. I am really 
excited; there are a couple of them right now that I am 
following their career as they go.
    Senator Carper. All right, thank you. Anything else on this 
point?
    Mr. Hanson. With regard to diversity, Senator, we take the 
diversity, the need to have a diverse apprenticeship class and 
internship class very seriously. I think this recent group of 
apprentices was culturally and ethnically diverse. But we could 
have done better on the gender balance. So I have asked our 
H.R. people to take a closer look at that and how we are 
approaching women graduates of some of the engineering and 
other programs around the country to make sure that those folks 
know that the NRC is a good place to work with an important 
mission.
    Senator Carper. That is great. Good, thank you.
    A question if I could for Commissioner Baran and 
Commissioner Wright. We have learned a lot about the nature of 
work throughout the course of the Coronavirus pandemic. And we 
know that the NRC needs to be able to adapt and remain flexible 
in order to maintain the safety as well as the security of its 
operations, and its ability to carry on the agency's regulatory 
responsibilities.
    While some aspects of the NRC's work can adapt to remote 
operations, some do not adapt. For example, safety and security 
inspections at nuclear facilities cannot be conducted over 
Zoom. With new variants of COVID-19 still emerging we would be 
sharing the lessons learned from the NRC's responses to the 
Coronavirus pandemic, both from an operation and a regulatory 
perspective. Any challenges you are expecting as we move 
forward? Would anyone like to lead that off?
    Mr. Baran. Sure, I am happy to. One of the things that I 
think we as an agency learned from the pandemic period is just 
how valuable the technology was. We were fortunate that our IT 
folks had really been forward thinking. We were in a position 
where everyone, for example, every employee had a laptop ready 
to go. You could transfer it, have your workstation at home. 
That is something, if it had all happened a few years earlier, 
we wouldn't have been ready for.
    So I think overall as an agency, we functioned very well, 
even at the 100 percent remote. We took advantage of new 
technologies at the plants, so we had many licensees would give 
our resident inspectors laptops with data that they could use 
on plant performance that really helped, if you weren't there 
all the time.
    One of the things I think we learned where we want to get 
back to where we were is on the inspections, as you mentioned. 
There is this, I think there was this growing appreciation from 
the inspectors, the managers, throughout the agency, that there 
is no substitute for having people on the ground at the plants 
with an NRC hard hat walking around. Remote inspections, they 
were good enough for the period where we needed it, but not as 
good as when we have people there in person. The ability to 
walk down the equipment, to just look and say, that doesn't 
look quite right, and then pursue it. Talk to the folks working 
there and hear if they have any concerns.
    So I think that has been one of the lessons. There is a lot 
we can do with technology, and then there are some really kind 
of core principles I think we have learned are super-important 
in terms of having people there, eyes on equipment and 
available to talk to folks.
    Mr. Wright. Thank you. So, if you want to look at examples 
of successes where being a risk informed regulator, you look no 
further than just what happened during COVID and how the agency 
responded. Personally, I will remind you of this. My 
confirmation hearing was, when Chris and I were here; it was 
the next day that the world shut down.
    Senator Carper. Was that cause and effect, do you think?
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Wright. Yes, and we do apologize for that.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Wright. There are many things that we have done that 
hopefully we can learn how to carry some of that forward. I 
agree with Commission Baran that nothing beats boots on the 
ground. The real live person being there helps.
    But because of COVID, our inspectors were given real time 
access via computer to the plant. So there are some things, if 
there was an event or something that they did not need to 
respond to right away, they had access to it via computer, and 
they could come in hours later, next morning, or something like 
that. We were able to do hybrid inspections, virtual 
inspections, or real time inspections in person.
    So we have learned how to do things, and we have learned 
how to be adept and nimble, as you mentioned earlier, sir. 
There are some things we can learn, and I know that we have 
empowered a group to go do that and try to figure it out. 
Hopefully, we will have some updates for you.
    Senator Carper. All right, good. Thanks for that.
    Last question is just, I want to know if you have any 
additional thoughts, maybe a question you were not asked that 
you wish you had been. Let us know what that question is and 
how would you answer it.
    We will start with you, Mr. Chairman, and then Commissioner 
Baran, and finally wrap up with Commissioner Wright.
    Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Hanson. Thank you, Senator, Mr. Chairman. People who 
hear me talk around the agency kind of know that I like to 
start and finish all my speeches with thank you. So I think I 
will do that today.
    I wanted to thank you for having us and the opportunity to 
appear before you. I think this was a really productive 
discussion this morning, so thank you.
    I wanted to thank my colleagues for their friendship and 
their professionalism, and their insights. As several people 
have noted this morning, we function--we are designed for five, 
and we benefit always from the additional perspectives. 
Although I think I have to say, among the three of us, we are 
accomplishing the mission, and we are getting things done.
    Finally, I want to thank the NRC staff. As Commission 
Wright noted, we shut down right in March 2020 and the staff 
pivoted to work remotely almost immediately. Not least of all 
because of some very fortunate and forward thinking IT 
investments that we made that allowed everybody to take their 
laptops home and work from home and accomplish the mission and 
figure out new ways of doing things. They have been equally 
professional and flexible in moving to this new hybrid work 
environment that we have undertaken in the last month or so as 
well.
    So I couldn't be prouder, really, to come to work every day 
and serve alongside my fellow Commissioners and to lead this 
agency. And I appreciate the opportunity.
    Senator Carper. You bet. Thanks for those words.
    Commission Baran.
    Mr. Baran. I agree with everything the Chairman said. In 
terms of the complement of the Commission, it is always great 
to be at five. I have been on the Commission long enough; I 
have been around for three, I have been around for four; I have 
been around for five. As long as you have quorum, it is good, 
and there is no issue there.
    But I would just echo what the Chairman said, that the 
three of us all have terrific working relationships. I think we 
are doing a lot of good work.
    Senator Carper. Some of us remember a time when it wasn't 
quite that way. This is refreshing.
    Mr. Baran. And those days are well behind us. It is just a 
really great, collegial environment. I think everyone is 
focused on the mission, and we have a terrific staff at the 
agency, as the Chairman said. We are working very well together 
and getting a lot of work done.
    So we appreciate your support, and we appreciate your 
interest.
    Senator Carper. You bet. Thank you, sir.
    Commissioner Wright.
    Mr. Wright. Thank you, Senator. Everything that my 
colleagues have spoken is true. But again, I want to reiterate 
two things. One, for them, to their staffs, I appreciate my 
staff. They are awesome. They make me look good; they keep me 
educated and up to speed. They have not missed a beat during 
this whole telework program, as have my fellow Commissioners' 
staffs. Our staffs work very well together.
    As you know, we can only get together one on one, but they 
can throw down three on three right now. Hopefully, it will be 
five on five at some point.
    The staff of the NRC, from the EDO shop all the way down to 
the person who cleans the floors and runs the security guard 
gates, they are incredible people. They are dedicated, they are 
passionate. From where I sit, they are very appreciated. I 
thank you for the opportunity to recognize them publicly.
    Senator Carper. You bet. I am reminded by your comments of 
a story. I don't know if it was a NASA story in Florida, or 
maybe in Houston. But we were preparing to, as a country, put a 
man on the moon. And someone was visiting this NASA operation, 
had an evening meeting. They got there, and they couldn't find 
the right place for the meeting, and they were kind of looking 
around, this guy was looking around. He came across someone 
from the custodial staff. He said to the custodian, what do you 
do here, sir? And the custodian said, I am helping to put a man 
on the Moon. Isn't that great? Helping put a man on the Moon.
    So folks, all the folks, including right here, the people 
who help make sure that this place, the building, the Capitol 
itself, is presentable and just an attractive place to live and 
work and visit. We appreciate everybody at the NRC and the 
folks that you lead.
    We try to emulate your collegiality here on this Committee. 
We reported out last year unanimously bipartisan infrastructure 
legislation on roads, highways, bridges, climate, on water, 
drinking water, wastewater, floodwater, unanimously. Most 
people in this country wouldn't believe that we do that, but we 
do. That is seldom in the papers. But we admire the way that 
you have evolved as a Commission over the last decade, and we 
seek to emulate what you are doing.
    I want to thank each of you for helping us to better 
understand the NRC's important work, and what we can do to 
better support this important agency. As you said earlier, a 
well functioning nuclear industry is critical to the future of 
our economy. It is critical to the future of our planet.
    We look forward to continuing our work together in order to 
ensure that this future, our future, our children's, 
grandchildren's future, is realized.
    Before we adjourn, there is some housekeeping work. I would 
like to ask unanimous consent to submit for the record a 
variety of materials that include letters from stakeholders and 
other materials that relate to today's nomination hearing. And 
one other unanimous consent request.
    I hear no objection to that first request.
    [The referenced information was not received at time of 
print.]
    Senator Carper. Since there is no other Senator here, 
unless I object to my own request, it will be affirmed.
    But one other unanimous consent request for this meeting. 
At this morning's business meeting, the Committee favorably 
reported the nomination of Jennifer Clyburn Reed of South 
Carolina to be Federal Co-Chair of the Southeast Crescent 
Regional Commission, and Amanda Howe of Virginia to be 
Assistant Administrator for Mission Support of the 
Environmental Protection Agency. I would ask unanimous consent 
that the record actually reflect the number of the presidential 
nomination there, they are Presidential Nomination 957 for Ms. 
Reed, and Presidential Nomination 633 for Ms. Howe.
    Hearing no objection, so ordered.
    And getting back to this hearing, before we close, 
Senators, members will be allowed to submit questions for the 
record through the close of business on Wednesday, December 
15th. We will compile those questions; we will send them to our 
witnesses, to you, and ask you to reply by Wednesday, December 
29th.
    Anything else that you all would like to add, take away?
    Hearing none, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you all very 
much.
    [Whereupon, at 11:59 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]