[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT OF NRC: ENSURING EFFICIENT AND
PREDICTABLE NUCLEAR SAFETY REGULATION
FOR A PROSPEROUS AMERICA
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY, CLIMATE, AND GRID
SECURITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 14, 2023
__________
Serial No. 118-47
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
energycommerce.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
56-866 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
Chair
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio Ranking Member
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky ANNA G. ESHOO, California
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio DORIS O. MATSUI, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana KATHY CASTOR, Florida
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
TIM WALBERG, Michigan PAUL TONKO, New York
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina TONY CARDENAS, California
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama RAUL RUIZ, California
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida SCOTT H. PETERS, California
JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
DEBBBIE LESKO, Arizona MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
GREG PENCE, Indiana ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
DAN CRENSHAW, Texas ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota, Vice LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
Chair DARREN SOTO, Florida
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia KIM SCHRIER, Washington
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
RUSS FULCHER, Idaho LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas
DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee
MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa
KAT CAMMACK, Florida
JAY OBERNOLTE, California
------
Professional Staff
NATE HODSON, Staff Director
SARAH BURKE, Deputy Staff Director
TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Energy, Climate, and Grid Security
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
Chairman
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio Ranking Member
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky SCOTT H. PETERS, California
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio DORIS O. MATSUI, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana PAUL TONKO, New York
TIM WALBERG, Michigan MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah, Vice Chair KIM SCHRIER, Washington
DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona KATHY CASTOR, Florida
GREG PENCE, Indiana JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota TONY CARDENAS, California
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas officio)
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
(ex officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Jeff Duncan, a Representative in Congress from the State of
South Carolina, opening statement.............................. 2
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Hon. Diana DeGette, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Colorado, opening statement................................. 6
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Washington, opening statement..................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 16
Prepared statement........................................... 18
Witnesses
Christopher T. Hanson, Chair, Nuclear Regulatory Commission...... 20
Prepared statement........................................... 23
Answers to submitted questions \1\
Jeff Baran, Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.......... 33
Prepared statement........................................... 35
David A. Wright, Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission..... 38
Prepared statement........................................... 39
Answers to submitted questions............................... 107
Annie Caputo, Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission........ 41
Prepared statement........................................... 43
Answers to submitted questions \1\
Bradley R. Crowell, Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.. 49
Prepared statement........................................... 51
Answers to submitted questions............................... 125
----------
\1\ Mr. Hanson's and Ms. Caputo's replies have been retained in
committee files and are available at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/
Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=116103.
OVERSIGHT OF NRC: ENSURING EFFICIENT AND PREDICTABLE NUCLEAR SAFETY
REGULATION FOR A PROSPEROUS AMERICA
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14, 2023
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy, Climate, and Grid Security,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m. in
the John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building,
Hon. Jeff Duncan [member of the subcommittee], presiding.
Members present: Representatives Duncan, Burgess, Latta,
Guthrie, Griffith, Johnson, Bucshon, Walberg, Palmer, Curtis,
Lesko, Pence, Armstrong, Weber, Balderson, Pfluger, Rodgers (ex
officio), DeGette (subcommittee ranking member), Peters,
Fletcher, Matsui, Tonko, Veasey, Kuster, Schrier, Castor,
Sarbanes, Cardenas, and Pallone (ex officio).
Also present: Representatives Carter, Dunn, and Fulcher.
Staff present: Sarah Burke, Deputy Staff Director; Sydney
Greene, Director of Operations; Jack Heretik, Press Secretary;
Nate Hodson, Staff Director; Tara Hupman, Chief Counsel; Sean
Kelly, Press Secretary; Peter Kielty, General Counsel; Emily
King, Member Services Director; Elise Krekorian, Professional
Staff Member; Mary Martin, Chief Counsel; Kaitlyn Peterson,
Clerk; Karli Plucker, Director of Operations (shared staff);
Carla Rafael, Senior Staff Assistant; Emma Schultheis, Staff
Assistant; Olivia Shields, Communications Director; Peter
Spencer, Senior Professional Staff Member; Michael Taggart,
Policy Director; Dray Thorne, Director of Information
Technology; Waverly Gordon, Minority Deputy Staff Director and
General Counsel; Tiffany Guarascio, Minority Staff Director;
Kris Pittard, Minority Professional Staff Member; Kylea Rogers,
Minority Policy Analyst; Andrew Souvall, Minority Director of
Communications, Outreach, and Member Services; Medha Surampudy,
Minority Professional Staff Member; Tuley Wright, Minority
Staff Director, Energy, Climate, and Grid Security; and Nicole
Lu, Minority Intern.
Mr. Duncan. I will call the hearing of the subcommittee,
``Oversight of NRC: Ensuring Efficient and Predictable Nuclear
Safety Regulation for a Prosperous America,'' to order.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF DUNCAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Let me thank everyone for being here today, and I welcome
all five NRC Commissioners. I look forward to your testimony
today. It has been over 2 years since we have heard directly
from the Commission, and about 9 years since we have had a full
panel of all 5 Commissioners before the committee.
This is an exciting time in nuclear energy, and it is an
important time to make sure our laws and policies are up to
date and will enable the full promise of nuclear energy. Today
we will hear from you, the Commissioners who set the policies
for NRC, to discuss and understand how you are preparing the
NRC for the future, what is working, what is not working, and
what needs to be done.
We have a bipartisan goal in this committee of advancing
durable nuclear policy that will expand nuclear energy and its
many benefits for our Nation. Part of this work involves
examining the NRC to ensure its licensing, its regulation, and
oversight of safety and security is predictable, efficient,
risk-informed, performance-based, and protective of health and
safety. A well-functioning NRC that meets these goals helps
achieve the broader policy goal established by Congress, which
is to enable the expansion of nuclear that will be key to a
more prosperous America.
In April, Chair Rodgers, Ranking Member Pallone,
Subcommittee Ranking Member DeGette, and I wrote a number of
stakeholders for recommendations that might be needed to
improve the NRC and the Federal nuclear policies in general. As
we work on this legislation, your testimony today should help
those efforts.
We can all agree here on the numerous benefits of
maintaining a robust U.S. nuclear industry. The current nuclear
fleet consists of 94 reactors, with Vogtle unit number 3 coming
online just last month and number 4 by the end of the year,
first of next year. This was the first nuclear unit built in
the United States in more than three decades. This fact is
reflective of the fact that our current licensing structure is
not set up to encourage large-scale growth or investment of
large-scale nuclear projects, i.e., V.C. Summer in South
Carolina as an example.
Nuclear energy accounts for nearly 20 percent of our
Nation's total electricity and more than half of the country's
carbon-free electricity. In my home State of South Carolina,
nuclear power generates over 90 percent of our carbon-free
electricity and over half of our total electricity, around 58
percent. We understand nuclear in South Carolina.
The benefits of nuclear energy range from grid reliability,
emission reduction, and national security. New and advanced
reactor technology provides exciting promise for the future of
the industry. In order to achieve this promise, the NRC must be
ready. Its work to license nuclear technologies and assure
adequate safety of the industry is central to nuclear
expansion. NRC should not be an impediment to the advancement
of nuclear power and nuclear energy in this country, but it
should rather fulfill its mission, and that is to foster
nuclear power in the United States of America.
The NRC has been talking about preparing for the future for
a very long time. More than 5 years ago, the NRC's then-
executive director of operations initiated a transformation
effort. Building on other recent reforms, that effort led to
continued work on transformation, all to meet the needs of
existing and future fleets. Shortly after that, at the end of
2018, Congress passed the Nuclear Energy Innovation and
Modernization Act, or NEIMA, which pressed the NRC to develop
new regulatory framework to license advanced reactors. I am
hopeful we will get a sense today how these agency and
congressional efforts have been working.
From what we learned in our April meeting with industry
experts, it might not be going so well. The NRC has been slow
to update its environmental reviews and site and construction
permits. It has sent uncertain signals about the policy
direction of the Commission, leading to uncertainty in the
marketplace. And its implementation of new regulatory framework
for advanced reactors has, to date, been a profound
disappointment.
I am hopeful we can hear some positive news today. Chair
Hanson and other Commissioners speak positively about preparing
the NRC for the future. We want to hear about that, but I would
like to start seeing some concrete evidence that that progress
is being made.
Modernizing the agency does not mean moving away from your
core principles of safety. It means ensuring regulations are
updated to reflect the advances and capabilities of the nuclear
industry today. The United States has the technological and
engineering talent and capabilities to be the global leader in
nuclear, and we have got to return to that. We need a regulator
that reflects this to propel us into the nuclear future.
I am excited about the future of nuclear energy. This
committee is excited about the future of nuclear energy on both
sides of the aisle. We have a window of opportunity here to
advance nuclear power in this country. It starts today with
this hearing, with the regulators themselves, and we will
create policy to help advance nuclear technology and nuclear
energy production in this country.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Duncan follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Duncan. So I want to thank you all for being here, and
I now will recognize the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee
DeGette for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DIANA DeGETTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to
all of the NRC Commissioners for being here today. You are
right. It is nice to see five today.
As the agency responsible for overseeing our Nation's
nuclear fleet and radioactive materials, the work that the NRC
does is vital not only to our Nation's overall energy security
but to the health and safety of the American public. Experts
agree that nuclear energy has the potential to play a
significant role in our efforts to drive down our Nation's
greenhouse gas emissions as we take on the climate crisis. But
in my opinion, shared by most people here, I think, we can only
do that if we continue to prioritize public health and safety.
Currently, nuclear energy is responsible for producing 20
percent of all the electricity generated in this country and
nearly half of all of the carbon-free electricity the U.S.
generates each year. As we work to reduce our emissions from
the U.S. energy sector, nuclear energy is often seen as a key
technology that can continue to be used to provide the American
people with the power they need to make the clean energy
transition. So it goes without saying that the NRC would be at
the forefront of that effort.
While there are several potential benefits of increasing
our use of nuclear technology here in the U.S., we simply can't
do so unless we address a number of issues first. In April, as
the chairman said, this committee sent a series of letters to
some of the Nation's largest nuclear stakeholders to solicit
their feedback on NRC's licensing process. The overwhelming
response we received from these companies was that the
licensing process is overly burdensome and needs to be
reformed.
So if we are going to make nuclear energy a key part of our
clean energy transition, we have to streamline the process.
But--and this is a big but--we have to do so in a way that will
continue to ensure the highest level of public health and
safety. Streamlining the process without increasing safety is
not an option.
Now, the NRC has a long record of making safety a priority,
and we have to keep it that way. We need to develop a long-
term, comprehensive, and community-driven strategy for dealing
with spent nuclear fuel. For far too long, we as a nation have
simply ignored this problem. And if we are going to expand this
resource, we cannot do it anymore. Expanding nuclear energy
without a long-term strategy to deal with the spent fuel, fuel
rods that will come as a result, will only leave more
communities vulnerable to an unwanted buildup of nuclear waste
in their area.
So while I believe deeply that these are issues that must
be resolved before we begin to expand the use of this
technology in the U.S., I also think that solutions are
possible. Through meaningful engagement and dialogue we can
address each of these issues and start moving forward in
looking at the use of this critical technology. But if we
don't, if we fail to address the issue of spent fuel or if we
fail to take the steps needed to ensure that the highest
standards of protecting the public's health and safety remain
in place, then I frankly don't see a way that nuclear energy
will become a significant part of our clean energy future.
So let me just close by saying I believe there is a real
opportunity to drive down our emissions and accelerate our
clean energy transition through increased nuclear power, but
only if it is done the right way and only if it is done
collaboratively.
[The prepared statement of Ms. DeGette follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. DeGette. So I am looking forward to hearing the
testimony and the discussion today, and I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Duncan. The gentlelady yields back. It is now my
distinct pleasure to recognize the chair of the full Committee
on Energy and Commerce, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, for 5 minutes
for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mrs. Rodgers. American leadership in nuclear energy and
energy technology is critical to our economic security and our
national security. It is how we win the future with reliable,
affordable, and clean energy to power our way of life, keep the
lights on, build stronger communities, and keep our economies
going.
American leadership has been essential to civilian nuclear
energy around the world. We can trace this vision back to the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 that--when Congress established and
said, I quote, ``To make the maximum contribution to the
general welfare, the development, use, and control of atomic
energy shall be directed as to promote world peace, improve
general welfare, increase the standard of living, and
strengthen competition and private enterprise.''
With that policy, the United States led the world for over
40 years developing civilian nuclear technologies. We set the
standard for safety and security that continues to this day.
You can find American know-how in more than 80 percent of the
nuclear reactors deployed around the world. These reactors
trace to innovations by American companies that were spread by
Congress' vision for what nuclear can provide. That is the
vision of nuclear leadership we are working to restore during
this Congress.
The world today presents serious challenges to American
nuclear leadership. China and Russia seek to dominate emerging
nuclear markets to control supply chains for technology and
fuels. Here at home, nuclear generating capacity has been
nearly flat for three decades.
We can reverse this trend, but there is work to do. For
example, Congress enacted incentives for a resurgent nuclear
industry in 2005, and in 2009 the NRC had received 8
applications for 28 new state-of-the-art reactors. To its
credit, NRC issued licenses for the construction and operation
of 14 new reactors over the following 9 years. Yet, for a
variety of reasons, only 2 of those projects have been
constructed: a plant at Vogtle in Georgia. The remaining
licenses were terminated or in indefinite hold by the
applicants.
And so, today NRC operates as an agency that is overseeing
the completion of 2 reactors, from start to finish, over the
last 40 years. To restore American nuclear leadership, we need
an NRC that performs its mission with the urgency reflected in
the Atomic Energy Act. NRC must focus on providing reasonable
assurance of adequate protection of public safety--public
health and safety. That is its core mission.
And I agree with NRC Chairman Hanson that ``NRC must do its
best not to implement''--be an impediment, sorry--``NRC must do
its best not to be an impediment to innovation and
deployment.''
We need a modern regulator that works in service to the
policies established by Congress. There is no time to waste.
America has the best operating fleet in the world. The
performance and safety of American nuclear plants are
unmatched. There are many promising advanced nuclear
technologies coming to the doorstep of NRC for licensing.
Our allies in Eastern Europe and elsewhere yearn for
American technology and support. We heard this when we were in
Portland and the Czech Republic--Poland, sorry, Poland and the
Czech Republic earlier this year. Our allies seek American
leadership on safety and performance.
We need an NRC that encourages innovation. Key questions
for this hearing concern how the Commission plans to modernize
and meet the urgency of the moment.
Will it update its regulations to account for the best
available data and operational experience?
Where is the urgency enabling innovations that will improve
efficiency of operations, oversight, and safety?
Where is the urgency to implement the reforms directed by
Congress to establish predictable, clear regulations
appropriate to the risk of the technologies it licenses?
And is NRC a results-driven agency?
I am looking forward to this hearing, looking forward to
the discussion, the answer to these questions.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Rodgers. And I yield back.
Mr. Duncan. The gentlelady yields back, and the Chair will
now recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Mr.
Pallone from New Jersey, for 5 minutes for an opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Nuclear power plays an important role in producing carbon-
free power for the electric grid. In April this subcommittee
held a hearing examining the current and future nuclear energy
landscape. I thought it was an informative and bipartisan
hearing, and I look forward to building on that progress today
as we conduct oversight of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Democrats have long been committed to decarbonizing the
power sector to combat the worsening climate crisis. Over the
past 2 years, congressional Democrats and President Biden took
major action on climate by passing both the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act, and these
laws included historic climate investments to help us lead the
rest of the world in the transition to clean energy, while also
creating millions of good-paying, clean-energy jobs and
lowering energy costs for Americans.
In 2022 the power sector accounted for about 31 percent of
total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. If we are going to
dramatically reduce power sector emissions while keeping prices
low for consumers, we need reliable, carbon-free resources that
can sustain output for long periods of time. And nuclear power
can meet this test, and that is why we looked to bolster
nuclear power in the two new laws, both the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law--we authorized in that the Civil Nuclear
Credit Program, a $6 billion fund at the Department of Energy
to support our existing reactor fleet. And then, as part of the
Inflation Reduction Act, we created a tax credit for zero-
emission nuclear power and invested $700 million in a program
to support the next generation of nuclear fuel.
Now, the NRC has done an admirable job over the years of
ensuring nuclear power is safe and secure. The nuclear industry
often touts its safety successes over the past decades, but
that success is partly due to the efforts of Federal regulators
to stay on top of inspections and safety protocols at plants
across the country.
I would also like to commend the NRC for creating an
environmental justice review team 2 years ago to evaluate how
the agency's policies and activities address environmental
justice. The resulting set of recommendations is an important
first step on environmental justice, and the report recommends
that the NRC enhance its environmental justice outreach
activities. It also recommends that the Commission reassess its
ban on using funds to assist environmental justice communities
in participating in NRC proceedings and other topics.
This is also an issue that I discussed with the FERC
Commissioners when they were before the subcommittee yesterday.
It is critical that our Federal agencies and commissions
acknowledge and include communities that have
disproportionately faced the negative effects of energy
generation and climate change.
Now, the NRC is also in the process of creating a new
regulatory framework for advanced nuclear reactors. This was
something that Congress required the Commission to do in 2018
as part of the bipartisan Nuclear Energy Innovation and
Modernization Act. Earlier this year NRC staff proposed a draft
of this new framework, which is now referred to as part 53.
In April I joined Chairs Rodgers and Duncan and Ranking
Member DeGette in a request for information. We asked nuclear
power stakeholders for comments and recommendations on the NRC
licensing and regulatory process. And one common theme we heard
in these responses is that the draft 53 or part 53 framework is
too cumbersome and difficult to use. So I hope the Commission
can make targeted revisions to the licensing framework so it
can be used to safely and efficiently license advanced reactors
in the future.
Advanced reactors can be designed to provide enhanced
safety features and produce less waste. They can come in
different sizes, be constructed faster with lower construction
costs, and be sited in more remote areas.
Finally, I want to briefly mention the Commission's
decommissioning rulemaking that will guide the process for
shutting down and decommissioning shuttered nuclear reactors. A
proposed version of this rule was published last year, but I
remain seriously concerned that that rule provides an
insufficient role for local communities to participate in the
decommissioning process, and I hope this will be corrected
before the rule is finalized.
But it is good to see all five Commissioners here today,
and I look forward to your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Pallone. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Duncan. The gentleman yields back, and that now
concludes the Members' opening statements.
The Chair would like to remind Members that, pursuant to
committee rules, all Members' opening statements will be made
part of the record.
So I thank all the witnesses for being here and taking time
to testify. Each witness will have the opportunity for a 5-
minute opening statement, followed by a round of questions from
Members.
There are some lights in front of you. If it goes to
yellow, that means start trying to get to the end. If it goes
to red, it is time to wrap it up. Just try to stay on time, and
that goes for committee members, as well.
So let me introduce everyone.
First off, we have the Honorable Christopher T. Hanson. He
is Chairman of the NRC, and we welcome the Chairman.
We also have Commissioner Jeff Baran.
Jeff, thanks for being here.
I am going to skip over David for a second. We have the
Honorable Annie Caputo.
Thanks for being here, Commissioner.
And Commissioner Bradley Crowell, thanks for being here.
I skipped over David Wright. He and I have known each other
for about 20-plus years, and he is a fellow Clemson graduate--
and go, Tigers.
So I look forward to hearing from everyone today, and,
Chairman Hanson, we are going to jump right into this, and you
can start with your opening statement.
STATEMENTS OF CHRISTOPHER T. HANSON, CHAIR, AND JEFF BARAN,
DAVID A. WRIGHT, ANNIE CAPUTO, AND BRADLEY R. CROWELL,
COMMISSIONERS, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER T. HANSON
Mr. Hanson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you to Ranking Member DeGette and Chair McMorris Rodgers and
Ranking Member Pallone and other distinguished members of the
subcommittee. My colleagues and I appreciate the opportunity to
discuss the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's fiscal year
2024 budget and to update you on some of the agency's licensing
and oversight and rulemaking activities.
The NRC is an independent Federal agency established to
regulate commercial nuclear power plants, research and test
reactors, nuclear fuel cycle facilities, and radioactive
materials used in medicine, academia, and industry. The agency
also regulates the transportation, storage, and disposal of
radioactive materials and waste and the export and import of
radioactive materials, nuclear reactors, and fuel cycle
facilities and, finally, the export of nuclear facility
components.
The NRC's fiscal year 2024 budget is right around $1
billion, which is a 6.7 percent increase, or $63 million, over
the NRC's enacted budget for fiscal year 2023. This increase is
primarily to support salaries and benefits in accordance with
U.S. Office of Management and Budget Guidance.
The budget also this year proposes to use 27 million in
carryover to offset the nuclear reactor safety budget. The NRC
expects to recover 832 million of the fiscal year 2024 budget
from fees assessed on NRC licensees. This will result in a net
appropriation of 156 million.
The NRC has realized several important accomplishments over
the past year. To highlight a few, the NRC authorized the
operation of Vogtle Unit 3 in Georgia. As Chairman Duncan
noted, Summer nuclear company projects Vogtle Unit 4 will be
operational by late 2023 or early 2024. Further, the NRC
completed NuScale's design certification for its small modular
reactor, and we also renewed the license of Westinghouse's fuel
fabrication facility in Columbia, South Carolina, for another
40 years.
Our progress in the advanced reactor space is accelerating
as the agency looks to the future while addressing present
needs. Indeed, we are currently interacting with 15 companies.
We have already dispositioned 51 technical reports and white
papers while we currently have 33 under review. Vendors,
utilities, and project sponsors tell us to expect as many as 20
applications in the 2025 to 2027 timeframe.
The staff reports--I have it here in my notes that the
staff reports that it is ahead of its 21-month review schedule
for the Kairos Hermes test reactor. In fact, Mr. Chairman and
Madam Ranking Member, I am pleased to announce that we are
going to issue the safety evaluation report for the Kairos
Hermes test reactor later today, 3 months ahead of schedule and
on budget for that construction permit.
We are also making progress on our 18-month review schedule
for the Abilene Christian construction permit for their
advanced test reactor at the university there in Texas.
And we have the TRISO-X application for their fuel
fabrication facility in Tennessee for--to manufacture high-
assay, low-enriched uranium fuel in Tennessee there for that
facility.
Resources will--in the budget will continue to support
staff work on the technology-inclusive reactor licensing
framework for advanced reactors--as a number of you have
already mentioned, part 53--ahead of the congressionally
mandated schedule in--under NEIMA. It will also assist in the
development of alternative physical security requirement for
advanced reactors and a rulemaking for increased enrichment to
support accident-tolerant fuels and advanced reactor fuel
designs.
The Commission recently directed the staff to develop a
licensing framework for near-term fusion energy systems under a
product material framework, and a major step forward, I think,
in fusion regulation.
The fiscal year 2024 budget request is anticipated to
encompass the regulation of 94 operating power reactors, 31
nonpower production or utilization facilities, 23 power reactor
sites undergoing decommissioning, and numerous other facilities
and materials that we regulate.
In addition, the budget request supports increased
international collaboration on SMRs and advanced reactor
technical reviews. We have had quite some success through our
memorandum of cooperation with the Canadian regulator in joint
technical reviews, finishing six topical reports in highly
complex areas of interest.
Funding will also allow NRC to provide critical
international assistance to countries with burgeoning
regulatory programs while we rise to the emerging challenges
around the world.
The budget request supports our goals to continuing
fostering a healthy organization and a hybrid work environment.
We will continue to maintain a highly qualified workforce
through recruitment and retention of staff, with greater
emphasis on entry and midcareer-level hiring to address
projected attrition and prepare for anticipated increasing
workload in future years. In fiscal year 2022 we successfully
hired over 250 people, and we are exceeding 50 percent of our
hiring goal for fiscal year 2023.
In closing, the fiscal year 2024 budget request allows the
NRC to focus on conducting our mission activities and
recruiting and retaining a highly diverse and skilled workforce
to ensure the safety and security of nuclear power facilities
and nuclear materials.
On behalf of the Commission, I thank you for the
opportunity to discuss the important work we anticipate in the
year ahead and for your support of the NRC's vital mission, and
I look forward to responding to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hanson follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Chairman Hanson.
Now we recognize Commissioner Baran for your 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JEFF BARAN
Mr. Baran. Thank you, Chairman, Ranking Member DeGette, and
members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify today. It is always great to be back with my colleagues
to discuss NRC's important work.
I have been reflecting on the changes in the nuclear energy
landscape since I left the Energy and Commerce staff and joined
the Commission in 2014. A lot has changed. We have seen major
shifts in NRC's workload, budget, staff size, hiring, and
overall outlook for the future. When I arrived on the
Commission, these factors were all on a downward slope. Our
workload was shrinking, our staff and budget were shrinking. We
had the Project Aim effort to reduce costs, narrowly avoided
layoffs, and essentially had a hiring freeze. Nuclear power
plants were shutting down. Back then there was little talk of
new construction beyond Vogtle. There was some interest in
small modular reactors but almost no real discussion of
advanced, nonlight water reactors.
Today we are in a very different situation. Policymakers
and the public are increasingly focused on climate change and
on energy security. The urgency and scale of the challenge have
led to a growing consensus that meeting ambitious climate and
energy security goals will involve nuclear power, including new
reactors. The bipartisan infrastructure legislation and the
Inflation Reduction Act make large investments to drive this
expansion, including through the Clean Electricity Production
Tax Credit and funding for domestic high-assay, low-enriched
uranium supply chain. Few, if any, nuclear power plants are
expected to close anytime soon, with more potential
applications for advanced reactors, small modular reactors,
subsequent license renewal, new fuel designs, power uprates,
and risk-informed programs expected. NRC's overall workload is
increasing. We are hiring again, and our budget requests are
stabilizing or even growing a bit to allow us to do this new
work.
The outlook for nuclear has markedly changed, and it is an
exciting time to be doing our important work. NRC has a key
role to play in addressing climate change and energy security.
It is our job to ensure the safety and security of nuclear
power in the U.S. energy mix. To accomplish our mission, NRC
needs an efficient, effective, and timely licensing process
that can handle every application that comes our way. This is
an important NRC responsibility.
Based on preapplication interactions with potential
licensees, the NRC staff anticipates that at least 20 advanced
reactor designs, reactor license applications, and early site
permit applications will be under review in the next few years.
The Department of Energy, utilities, and vendors predict that
applications for hundreds of additional reactors may follow in
the coming decades. NRC must, therefore, be fully prepared for
a surge in new reactor work.
Readiness is a multifaceted challenge. NRC has intensified
its focus on having sufficient resources and the right
expertise to conduct these reviews. We are focused on retaining
our talented staff and on the significant external hiring
necessary to do the work in front of us now, and to be ready
for the work coming our way.
The agency is also working hard to establish a risk-
informed, performance-based, and technology-neutral regulatory
framework for new reactors.
At the same time, the staff is taking steps to make
individual licensing reviews more efficient and predictable.
The NRC staff is employing core review teams with stable
staffing over time, doing more in-person checks of support
information and fewer formal requests for information,
addressing more substantive technical issues during
preapplication engagement, elevating tough licensing issues
more quickly for senior leadership or Commission direction,
using probabilistic risk assessments to focus reviews on
safety-significant items, and utilizing data analytics to
quickly identify schedule risks.
In addition, the staff has developed a generic--has
developed a draft generic environmental impact statement for
advanced reactors.
As Chair Hanson noted, these efforts are already having an
impact with the Kairos application and the Abilene Christian
University application.
To sustain and build on this early progress, I believe that
the Commission must provide leadership and accountability by
communicating our expectations for new reactor licensing
reviews. Since NRC was established, Commission policy
statements have been used to share our expectations for the
staff or regulated community on high-priority issues facing the
agency.
I think it makes sense for the Commission to issue a policy
statement on the effectiveness, efficiency, and timeliness of
new reactor licensing reviews. A Commission policy statement
could address several key aspects of the agency's licensing
work, including aggressive but achievable target schedules for
the safety and environmental reviews, a first-of-a-kind
applications and subsequent reactor applications of the same
design, the ability to apply regulatory findings and analyses
from first-of-a-kind reviews to simplify subsequent reviews,
innovative licensing approaches and techniques that will evolve
over time to optimize reviews, and a risk-informed focus on
safety and security.
I think we all recognize that this is a critical moment for
the nuclear sector. I want to see NRC meet the moment.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Baran follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Commissioner Baran. I now recognize
Commissioner Wright for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF DAVID A. WRIGHT
Mr. Wright. Thank you, Chairman Duncan, Ranking Member
DeGette, and honorable members of the committee, and thank you
for the opportunity to appear before you today.
And Chairman, thank you for your personal comments. As you
know, we have been friends for a very long time. And if you
remember, I was the very--you were the very first person I
called when I was diagnosed with stage 3 colon cancer back in
2008. So you are very important to me in my life. So thank you.
Mr. Duncan. David, if you could, pull the mic a little
closer.
Mr. Wright. Oh, sure, I am sorry. All right.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you.
Mr. Wright. So I would like to start by thanking my
colleagues on the Commission and their staffs for being willing
to work together on important issues before us such as small
modular reactors, advanced fuels, cleanup of legacy uranium
mines, and spent fuel storage, just to name a few.
I am also grateful for the NRC staff who are truly some of
the smartest and most talented people I have been around. And
as I have said before, they do an outstanding job of monitoring
the day-to-day safety of our nuclear facilities, and I want to
take the moment to acknowledge them.
As you have heard, this is an exciting time for the
Commission. The policy decisions that we have in front of us
will play a pivotal role in shaping the energy future of this
country as well as beyond our borders. And I am honored to be a
part of that process.
As I mentioned to you all the last time I was here, we know
what success at the NRC looks like. Success means that we
enable the safe use of nuclear technology and don't disable it.
It means that we continue to accomplish our mission of
reasonable assurance, of adequate protection of public health
and safety, and to promote the common defense and security, and
to protect the environment.
The challenge is deciding how to reach that goal in the
most effective, efficient, and reliable way. I believe the NRC
is up to the challenge. This is a unique and special
opportunity in time, and by working together the five of us can
help meet this moment.
For example, I am currently reviewing a brand-new proposal
by one of my colleagues on efficiencies related to advanced
reactor reviews. I am also working together with Commissioner
Caputo on a new expedited proposal for establishing metrics in
key areas so the staff has tools to show that they are meeting
their goals with the urgency that is required for us to meet
this moment in time.
And by working together, we as a commission can do our part
to help provide energy security, energy resilience, grid
security, and national security, not just here in the United
States but for our allies around the world.
So thank you for the opportunity to appear before you, and
I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wright follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Duncan. I thank you, and I now go to Commissioner
Caputo for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ANNIE CAPUTO
Ms. Caputo. Thank you, Chairman Duncan and Ranking Member
DeGette, and to the members of the committee for holding this
important hearing. Like Commissioner Baran, I have fond
memories of my time in service to the members of this great
committee, and I am pleased to come before you today.
The primacy of the NRC's mission is indisputable, but we
must innovate how we accomplish that mission and do so with a
sense of urgency in recognition of our national and global
clean energy needs. We must innovate how we regulate, improve
our performance, and cultivate results-driven leadership. With
advanced reactor technologies emerging, our regulatory approach
must keep pace.
Significant work remains to develop the regulatory
framework Congress envisioned in NEIMA, one that is truly risk-
informed, reflecting the inherent safety found in advanced
designs. It is imperative that the Commission focus its
collective effort to meet Congress' intent with a sense of
urgency to allow safe nuclear energy deployment on a scale
warranted by our national and global clean energy needs.
Second, we must strive to improve our performance, not
simply measured by safety but also by the efficient and timely
completion of our work. As the old saying goes, you can't
manage what you don't measure. If you weren't measuring, you
won't know if something is getting better or worse. For over 20
years we have successfully used performance indicators to
objectively measure safety through our reactor oversight
process. However, there are few agency performance measures
that the Commission or the public see beyond those reported to
Congress with our budget, and those are not designed to drive
performance improvement.
Given the business intelligence tools the agency has
available today, I believe we should have meaningful, near-
real-time measures available to the Commission and the public
to track the duration and level of effort for our licensing
reviews. Gathering data on these reviews would allow us to
benchmark best practices, discover opportunities for process
improvements, and refine budget estimates.
Measuring the agency's performance would also enable
Congress and us at the Commission to hold ourselves accountable
for improving. Releasing this information publicly would also
reduce perceptions of regulatory risk by providing external
stakeholders a window into our progress.
I am glad to see Commissioner Baran emphasized timely
decision making by proposing that the Commission establish its
expectations for new reactor reviews. While I agree with his
intent, I am unconvinced it will achieve results without a
robust set of performance indicators. I am pleased to be
working with my colleague, Commissioner Wright, on a proposal
to do--for the Commission to do just that.
Third, I believe we need results-driven leadership. We must
cultivate effective staff leaders who can innovate, implement,
and sustain change without falling prey to groupthink. We need
our leaders to cultivate a workforce with the best talent and
brightest minds and instill a culture of striving for the
highest levels of performance.
We must also empower our leaders to use their deep
knowledge of agency processes to renew our focus on licensing
and oversight work. Staff leadership should engage the agency
in a back-to-basics effort to risk-inform and streamline
internal operations, thereby reducing unnecessary busywork and
stress on the staff.
In 2008 and 2009 the NRC was rated the best place to work
at a time when the agency was executing a heavy new-reactors
workload with challenging schedules and a sense of urgency. I
am confident our staff will strive to meet or exceed the goals
we set for them. Demonstrating that we can achieve timely
reviews and celebrating those successes is vital to improving
morale.
In conclusion, as the Nation's safety and security
regulator, we are the gatekeepers to the deployment of advanced
reactors. The posture with which we approach our mission will
have a distinct impact on whether nuclear energy will make a
growing contribution to our energy needs. Congress has made its
expectation clear, and the drumbeat from external stakeholders
is unmistakable. Our regulatory structure should be clear and
straightforward to navigate, and our decision making should be
timely, transparent, and predictable. It is incumbent upon us
as an agency to innovate, improve our performance, and
cultivate the results-driven leadership capable of bringing it
all together to meet these expectations.
Going forward, I hope the committee will continue its
oversight and monitor our performance and hold us accountable.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide my comments, and I
look forward to your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Caputo follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Commissioner Caputo, and welcome
back.
I will now go and recognize Commissioner Crowell for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF BRADLEY R. CROWELL
Mr. Crowell. Thank you, Chair Duncan, Ranking Member
DeGette, and members of the committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today.
As the NRC's newest Commissioner, I have had the pleasure
of building positive working relationships with my fellow
Commissioners, and it has been readily apparent that a genuine
spirit of collegiality among the Commission forms the
foundation for successfully overseeing the execution of the
NRC's mission with maximum effectiveness and efficiency.
Indeed, the benefits of collegiality are most fully
realized when operating with the full complement of
Commissioners. With five Commissioners since last August, the
Commission has made progress on pivotal issues related to the
existing reactor fleet while forging ahead on establishing a
responsible regulatory framework to support the next generation
of nuclear technologies.
Chair Hanson highlighted many of these topics in his
testimony, as well as other notable recent accomplishments by
the NRC, while also emphasizing the robust work schedule ahead
for fiscal year 2024 and beyond.
The NRC plays a central role in the future viability of
nuclear energy, both in the U.S. and abroad. As our Nation's
regulator for the safe and secure operation of civilian nuclear
technologies, the NRC is committed to fully meeting this
responsibility such that the public can have confidence that
all NRC licensees operate in a manner that minimizes risk and
maximizes safety.
The foundational mission of the NRC must always be the
uncompromising commitment to public health, safety, and the
environment, and to promote the common defense and security.
However, as we look to the future, this vital mission must be
achieved using a broader lens than has traditionally been used
at the NRC.
While the function of an independent commission-led agency
such as the NRC is intentionally distinct from traditional
Federal executive branch agencies, Congress did not intend for
independent agencies to operate in a vacuum or be immune from
the inherent collective responsibility of all U.S. Government
agencies to advance the common good. Based on this bedrock
principle, I believe the NRC must renew its commitment to
safety and security by embracing the shared responsibility of
our Nation's collective effort to address climate change and
energy security within the context of executing the agency's
statutorily defined mission.
Nuclear energy provides over half of America's carbon-free
electricity and avoids more than 470 million metric tons of
carbon dioxide emissions that would otherwise come from fossil
fuels. This is just in the United States. Globally, the
International Atomic Energy Agency estimates that nuclear
energy avoids 2 gigatons per year of carbon emissions. This is
roughly equivalent to displacing the energy output and
associated pollution of over 500 coal plants. To achieve an
equivalent reduction in emissions without nuclear energy would
require siting, building, and operating over half a million new
wind turbines.
Similarly, recent geopolitical events have brought back
into clear focus that energy security and national security go
hand in hand. Meanwhile, maintaining the current operating
fleet of nuclear reactors and deploying new and advanced
reactors is one of the very few options to achieve meaningful,
near-term reductions in carbon pollution while serving as an
important baseload power supply.
These benefits, combined with the anticipated significantly
enhanced safety features of newer and advanced reactors,
creates the opportunity for advanced nuclear energy to be truly
game-changing technology in the U.S. and beyond. However, while
the potential for nuclear energy to make meaningful and
enduring contribution to reducing carbon emissions and
stabilizing our energy grid is real, time is of the essence.
The NRC plays a critical role in our Nation and, indeed,
our world's collective effort to meet this moment. But to be
successful, the NRC must embrace a contemporary sense of
purpose that embodies the challenges and opportunities before
us. Essential to this effort, the NRC must restore, build, and
maintain public trust through proactive and meaningful
interactions with the public, other governmental organizations,
and the full spectrum of stakeholders.
Likewise, we must not focus solely on the benefits of
nuclear energy and the power sector. The NRC must also maintain
a commitment to safely regulating the full fuel cycle by
asserting commensurate focus on issues from mining to waste in
its regulatory decisions, oversight, and research activities.
Proactive engagement on used fuel management, decommissioning,
and waste disposal is critical to enhancing public confidence,
and failing to do so will have the opposite effect.
I am excited by the challenges of what we can and must
accomplish by the end of this decade, but we must get to work
now to maintain this level of commitment--and maintain this
level of commitment in subsequent years to succeed. With
adequate resources for the agency and under clear, consistent
leadership by the Commission, I believe we can achieve our
goals, and I am confident that the NRC staff is up to the
challenge.
The fiscal year 2024 budget request is an important next
step to ensure the NRC has the resources necessary to meet this
pivotal moment, and I look forward to discussing that with you
today and your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Crowell follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Duncan. I thank you for that, and time is of the
essence, exactly.
I want to thank everyone for their testimony. We will now
move into the question-and-answer portion of the hearing, and I
will begin by recognizing myself for 5 minutes of questions.
Each of you talked about preparing the NRC for the future
while maintaining its mission to provide assurance of adequate
safety. I appreciate that. I support that and will support you
in that mission.
However, the NRC seems to have been undergoing efforts to
transform itself to meet the future for over a decade. The
future is now. I am wondering how that is going. An important
example is license renewals for existing reactors. This work
may double over the next decade.
Chair Hanson, you and I talked about the staff review of
license renewals and subsequent license renewals that take
longer and cost more. The reviews doubled in cost and in time
from the first reviews in 2000 through 2015 and have trended
higher ever since. NRC is charging $6 million per review today
versus $2 million in 2000, including for previously reviewed
sites. This does not reflect an agency learning, improving, or
getting more efficient.
Now we learned that applicants like Oconee, Turkey Point,
and North Anna, that their subsequent license renewals will be
delayed by months, failing to meet their published deadlines.
So how is that a sign of positive transformation or efficient
and predictable regulation, Chair Hanson?
Mr. Hanson. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate
the discussion on subsequent license renewals.
I agree we should be getting more efficient on these. I
don't have all the numbers about the dollars in front of me.
Since 2015, when we have really been tracking the specific
hours on these, we have had an average of about 21,000 hours.
We are a little above that right now on the subsequent ones,
for 25,000 hours. I have been digging into this. I am not
entirely satisfied with the answers I am getting, and I am
going to continue to explore this.
There are some more--a few more areas we need to look at
when we go from 60 to 80 years, but there should be a lot of
things that are also the same. And I admit that our review
process isn't fully risk-informed, and we need to take a look
at that and see how we can achieve some efficiencies there and
make sure we are focused on the most safety-significant items.
So that is an area that I am focused on with the staff as we
speak, and I am going to continue to do so.
Mr. Duncan. And I appreciate the 60 to 80 years. I know my
constituents would probably be concerned that we are licensing
nuclear reactors out to 80 years, but I appreciate your efforts
there, I will say that.
Commissioner Caputo, you make an important point about
being an innovative regulator. I am hopeful we will see more of
that. You also talk about measuring results and references. You
have referenced Congress' requirements for metrics in the
NEIMA. Have those metrics been implemented sufficiently to
measure performance?
Ms. Caputo. Well, Congress has established expectations,
but I have yet to see how we publicly track those with actual
metrics.
And when I refer to business intelligence software that is
accessible to us, I believe it is possible for us to track
progress of reviews in what I said in my statement, near real
time, to show progress in terms of a percentage of completion
but also to track hours and review. A lot of our reviews are
done by chapters.
So as discussions unfold and hours that are budgeted for
the review are executed, it would be easy to tell in real time
where the hours necessary to complete the review--how far along
we are in that review, so that people can actually see what
progress we are making and where any sticking points might be
in terms of actual schedule.
Mr. Duncan. In real time for all the Commissioners to
actually keep track of?
Ms. Caputo. And the public.
Mr. Duncan. Yes, good.
Well, Chair Hanson, let me come back to you. You and I
talked about measuring performance. What are you doing to
improve the metrics so that staff leaders can manage better?
Mr. Hanson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have--we are
implementing a couple of tools. One is called our Mission
Analytics Portal, which we have been kind of piloting inside
the agency, where project managers on specific reviews can
track hours, and not only track hours but actually assign hours
to resolve particular technical issues. So----
Mr. Duncan. These are regulators or industry folks?
Mr. Hanson. I am sorry?
Mr. Duncan. Are these regulators or industry folks that are
working together on that?
Mr. Hanson. Well, it is--we have piloted this largely
internally, and then we have got an external version which we
are just starting to roll out so that our licensees can then
track our progress and know what to expect on our reviews.
What we haven't done, I think, yet is then kind of set the
benchmarks on that. We are tracking it, but, you know, setting
those bright lines within that system and fully understanding
where we are approaching them or where we are crossing them, I
think, is kind of the next step then in the management of that.
Mr. Duncan. Yes.
Mr. Hanson. So we are--again, I don't think we are fully
where we need to be. I think Commissioner Caputo makes a good
point about needing to make progress in this area. I fully
agree with that. But we have taken some, I think, some
important steps.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you for that. My time is expiring. I will
say this, that there's a lot of industry folks in the room, and
we engage--all of us engage with industry folks, and they need
to know certainty, timelines. And they have investors they have
got to inform. I like the open portal for the public. So what I
am hearing I appreciate.
I will now go to the Ranking Member DeGette for 5 minutes.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So as all of you know, in April we had a hearing with
leaders from the nuclear industry to talk about the challenges
that they are facing in their operations and their planning.
And the question I asked, which I referred to in my opening
statement, was how the panel--how the lack of a comprehensive,
long-term nuclear waste strategy impacts their planning and
their industry.
So now, here--we have you all here today. I would like to
ask a similar question, starting with you, Chairman Hanson. In
your view, how has the lack of a comprehensive spent fuel
strategy impacted the nuclear industry?
Mr. Hanson. Thank you, Ranking Member DeGette, for that
question.
We are overseeing right now the safety and security of
spent fuel at sites around the country, and that spent fuel is
being safely stored.
Ms. DeGette. How has it impacted the industry that we don't
have a long-term policy?
Mr. Hanson. I think I would say that it has probably
increased the costs for the industry, but I think safety--we
are able to assure the safety of that spent fuel on----
Ms. DeGette. Right.
Mr. Hanson [continuing]. On site.
Ms. DeGette. Would it be a good idea to get a long-term
policy about disposing of spent fuel? Maybe that is a better
question.
Mr. Hanson. Undoubtedly.
Ms. DeGette. And would----
Mr. Hanson. I think it is--it may be up to our colleagues
at the Department of Energy to formulate that strategy, and
then we are going to have the role----
Ms. DeGette. You will implement it.
Mr. Hanson [continuing]. Of, well, not implementing it, but
assuring the safety of that. So for instance, in the interim
storage facilities, whether that is at reactors or away from
reactors, we license those and we evaluate the safety and the
environmental impacts of that. And then the overall national
strategy of that, the policy of that really kind of resides in
other arms of the executive branch.
Ms. DeGette. Right, thank you.
So the committee sent a series of letters to nuclear
stakeholders soliciting feedback on the licensing process, as
several of us have mentioned. And a lot of what we heard was
that the process was burdensome and would benefit from
streamlining. But as I said in my opening, we can't sacrifice
the public health and safety of Americans in the name of
speeding up development of nuclear energy.
So let me try this question, Mr. Chairman: Do you think
that the NRC can make meaningful reforms to streamline the
process without sacrificing public health and safety? Yes or no
will work.
Mr. Hanson. Absolutely, I do.
Ms. DeGette. What about you, Commissioner Baran? You are
shaking your head.
Mr. Baran. I agree, yes.
Ms. DeGette. Commissioner Wright?
Mr. Wright. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. DeGette. Commissioner Caputo?
Ms. Caputo. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. DeGette. Commissioner Crowell.
Mr. Crowell. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. Great. I think it is an important point about
not sacrificing public health and safety. And so, Mr. Chairman,
not to keep you on the hot seat, but under your leadership has
the NRC considered safety features of new nuclear technologies
while ensuring the same standard of safety evaluations that we
have come to expect from the agency in which it is performed?
Mr. Hanson. Yes, ma'am. We have a policy statement that
says advanced reactors should achieve at least the same level
of safety as the current operating fleet, and that is one of
our guiding principles as we explore these new reactors.
We have dived into the--some of the unique aspects of these
reactors. I mentioned the 51 technical reports. A lot of those
have been about the new technology that is being deployed, et
cetera, so that we can get a head start on some of that and
evaluate some of that early.
Ms. DeGette. Great, thanks. Now, if we were to reform the
licensing process, the amount of work required by the NRC would
increase, and Congress would have to provide additional
resources to ensure the safety that we have come to expect from
the agency.
And so, Commissioner Crowell, I was going to ask you, what
resources are most needed for the NRC to continue to ensure
safety within our nuclear fleet?
Mr. Crowell. Thank you for the question. You know, the NRC
is primarily a fee-based agency, so we derive most of our
operating money from the licensees. But as that dynamic changes
and fees may change over time, depending on the amount of
applicants we have or the facilities we oversee, I think it is
important to be able to do some independent evaluation on
safety and security that isn't necessarily tied to the fees of
licensees. And so having some appropriated dollars to focus on
those areas in--you know, generically and generally, I think
would be helpful.
Ms. DeGette. Commissioner Baran, do you have anything to
add to that?
Mr. Baran. Sure, yes. I would just say that in the last few
years Congress has been very supportive on the advanced reactor
side, establishing the framework, right? So there is no one to
bill for establishing the overall advanced reactor framework
that we have been talking about, part 53 and several of the key
policies around that. That is not a specific licensing review,
it is the--a regulatory framework. And so that has been off the
fee base, which is good. And Congress has been very supportive
in that area, and that has really helped us build that out
without affecting fees.
Ms. DeGette. Great, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Duncan. The gentlelady yields back. I will now go and
recognize Mr. Latta from Ohio for 5 minutes.
Mr. Latta. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the
Commissioners for being with us today. It is good to have you
all here again. I am going to kind of revise some of the
questions that I had earlier.
But let me start with this, Mr. Chairman. How much uranium
do we get from Russia for reactors in this country?
Mr. Hanson. Yes, I believe it is about 20 to 30 percent of
our current needs are fulfilled by Russia.
Mr. Latta. And the second question is how much of that is
being enriched by the Russians?
Mr. Hanson. I guess I thought that number was enriched
uranium.
Mr. Latta. Enriched and receiving.
Mr. Hanson. Yes.
Mr. Latta. OK. Let me ask this. If I could just get a yes
or no question maybe from all the Commissioners, is it a good
idea that we are getting this much uranium from the Russians,
or should we be getting it from the--from ourselves or from
other sources?
Mr. Hanson. I think I can say, as a matter of policy, no,
it is not a good idea.
Mr. Baran. I agree, it is not a good idea.
Mr. Wright. No.
Ms. Caputo. Not at this point, given their recent actions
in the last few years.
Mr. Crowell. I agree with the Chair's response.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you. And I think it is important
because the question that we were discussing when the Secretary
of Energy was here not too long ago was this. And I was just
following up with my friend from Colorado with her line of
questions, especially when we are talking about--with our spent
nuclear rods and where they are being stored.
France right now is about the only country in the world, if
I am not mistaken--is the only one that is really recycling
their rods. Is that correct?
Mr. Hanson. Correct.
Mr. Latta. And why isn't the United States not looking at
trying to do the same thing? Because it is my understanding, if
you can go out and with a spent rod you might be able to get
another usage out of it if you recycle it, which would then
reduce our dependance on uranium from foreign sources, and then
it would also have us take care of the situation as how we are,
you know, we are restoring it.
Because, you know, it has been several years ago that
several members of this committee have been out to Yucca
Mountain, which I have got to say is the most expensive hole I
have ever been in, at over--I think it was over $18 billion--
not being utilized, that we should be doing something in this
country with our spent rods.
But what is happening in this country that we are not doing
it?
Mr. Hanson. Well, Congressman, I can tell you that we--our
regulations are certainly adequate to ensure the safety of any
kind of recycling or reprocessing operation that might come
down the pipe. I think in the history, there hasn't been a--at
least in the last 30 or so years, been any prohibition on
recycling in the U.S. And so I think it has been a matter of
policy on other parts of the Government and the economics of
that.
Mr. Latta. Commissioner Caputo?
Ms. Caputo. Congressman, the point that you make regarding
domestic supply is very accurate, and that is in fact what
drove both France and the UK to develop reprocessing, because
estimates in the 1970s were that uranium was going to become
extremely expensive. But it is a cost-intensive process. And so
the economics of reprocessed uranium versus natural uranium is
an extreme cost difference.
I think the question----
Mr. Latta. May I interrupt on that question?
Ms. Caputo [continuing]. That we will be looking at----
Mr. Latta. When you say an extreme cost difference, could
you tell me any kind of a percentage of what we are looking at
there?
Ms. Caputo. When I graduated from school and took my first
post working with nuclear fuel buyers, the difference was
between 950 a pound for uranium and roughly 400.
Mr. Latta. OK. And since that time, though, has the cost
been able to be brought down from that level?
Ms. Caputo. Possibly. But I think one of the things--one of
the potentials for advancement here is with the advanced
reactors that we are seeing. They can use--utilize reprocessed
materials, I think, in different ways, just based on the
reactor physics of how they operate. So I think there are
opportunities perhaps for less cost-intensive separations,
technologies that could then fuel some of these advanced
reactors.
So I think there is room for progress in bundling those
two----
Mr. Latta. And are those studies going on right now and--or
the analysis of being able to bring those costs down to make
sure that we could be?
Because again, what happens if that 20 percent of the
Russian uranium that we are receiving right now all of a sudden
dries up? What does that do to the cost of everything else,
then, that would----
Ms. Caputo. Well, the difference between the 1970s and now
is we have much better understanding of uranium reserves, and
they are really prolific. And should the cost really rise, we
can actually recover it from seawater, although that, I think,
still remains in excess of $200 a pound. So there are
opportunities like that.
The last time a serious cost estimate was done, I believe,
was in 2006, and this was commissioned by energy and water
appropriations. But that was looking at the--a slightly
modified version of historic technology. So there is probably
room, I think, at this point to perhaps do another cost
estimate looking at the advanced reactor technologies and the
separations technologies that might facilitate those reactors.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, and thanks to the
Commissioners for being here.
Mr. Chairman, my time is expired, and I yield back.
Mr. Duncan. I thank the gentleman, and I now go to the
ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to start with
a topic that is relevant to my State and many others with shut-
down nuclear plants: NRC's decommissioning rulemaking.
Unfortunately, the proposed rule before the Commission
fails to properly expand the role of States and local
governments in this process, one that has generated impacts on
these communities. So with regard to the decommissioning
rulemaking, let me ask Chairman Hanson. In 2021 I asked you to
commit to taking a serious look at this, and you agreed,
stating, and I quote, ``I understand the importance of this for
local communities.''
Can you update me on where things stand as it relates to
the role of States and local governments in this proposed rule?
Mr. Hanson. Yes, thank you, Congressman Pallone.
We had an extensive public comment period on the draft rule
that--and had included a number of questions for the public and
got a lot of feedback on that. The staff is currently revising
the draft rule, and we expect to have a final rule in front of
the Commission, I believe, in October or November later this
year. Then we will see what the changes have been and how they
have incorporated the public's comments.
Mr. Pallone. Now, let me ask Commissioners Baran and
Crowell. Do you believe the proposed rule appropriately
addresses the role of States and local governments in the
decommissioning process?
I will start with Commissioner Baran.
Mr. Baran. Well, at the stage of the proposed rule I didn't
think it did. I shared your concerns about that. I think we
should go further in making sure that States and local
governments have a voice in the decommissioning process.
I mean, a plant shutting down is a big deal for everyone,
right? It is a big deal for the company, it is a big deal for
the workers, the State, the locality. And right now the rule
there is really very limited.
And one thing that could be done--and there were a lot of
comments we got on the proposed rule in this regard--was to
have a decommissioning plan that is approved by NRC. I would
like to see that, before it is approved by NRC, go to the State
as well for their feedback and have that baked in before NRC
even takes a look at it.
But I think there is more that we can do, and I would like
to see us do more on that rule to empower local communities
more than they are now.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Commissioner Crowell?
Mr. Crowell. I would generally agree with those sentiments.
I think, whether within the proposed rule or through other
mechanisms, there is room for improvement for engaging local
communities on decommissioning. You know, I think we could do a
lot outside of the rule, just through good stakeholder
engagement, to help communities feel like they are--their
interests are being protected in the decommissioning process.
We could do those mechanisms formally through a rule, but I--
there is no reason why we can't do them in an informal fashion
as well, to make sure that the communities are getting what
they need.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you. And I mentioned in my opening
statement in 2021 the NRC created an environmental justice
review team to review how the agency's programs, policies, and
activities addressed environmental justice. The resulting
assessment made six formal recommendations.
And yesterday, at a subcommittee hearing with FERC
Commissioners, I discussed the newly established FERC Office of
Public Participation, something I have advocated for a long
time. And this office will assist the public with participating
in often complex FERC proceedings. So let me ask Chairman
Hanson.
The FERC Office of Public Participation model seems like it
would provide similar benefits if implemented at the NRC. Both
commissions regulate complex topics that are often difficult
for regular citizens to understand and participate in. Would
you consider standing up an Office of Public Participation at
the NRC as part of the ongoing environmental justice review?
Mr. Hanson. Thank you, Congressman Pallone. Yes, the paper
that we got back from--on environmental justice from the staff
kind of--really centered around two main things. One was about
updating our strategy and policy, which are 20 or 30 years old.
The other part was really enhancing public engagement on that.
And so the paper is still before the Commission for
consideration, but should the opportunity arise in one of my
colleagues' votes to establish such an office, I personally
would welcome that.
Mr. Pallone. All right. And I don't know if there's only 45
seconds left, but Commissioners Baran or Crowell, do you have
any comments on this idea?
Mr. Baran. Yes, I think----
Mr. Pallone. Thirty seconds.
Mr. Baran. I think it is a very good idea. I think it is
important for NRC to establish a similar office. Other Federal
agencies like FERC have done that, and we got that comment over
and over and over in our environmental justice review comment
period.
I mean, just tons of stakeholders were saying it is very
difficult to navigate NRC's processes and procedures, and on
top of a lot of technical information. And having an office
that could help folks navigate all that, I think, would be
really valuable.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Thank you so much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Duncan. The gentleman's time has expired. I now
recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it.
As you all may be able to read from the plaque, I am from
Virginia. I represent the southwest portion of Virginia, and I
am excited about Governor Youngkin's energy plans, overall
energy plans, and his aspirations to make the Commonwealth of
Virginia a leader in nuclear power renaissance. We are looking
at the viability of small modular reactors in my district,
particularly the possibility of using an abandoned mine site,
particularly a surface mine or a brownfield site.
Now I would ask all of you, for early site permit
timelines, what would be your goal for applications--
application review time, including preapplication meetings, and
particularly for small modular reactors?
Chairman Hanson, and then we will just go down the row.
Mr. Hanson. OK, thank you.
I believe the early site permit would include an
environmental impact statement in there. And I think the new
debt ceiling bill includes some specific timelines in there for
the completion of EISes. I believe that is 24 months, so we
would expect to meet that schedule.
Mr. Griffith. All right. Any difference of opinion?
Mr. Baran. No, not at all. In the proposal we were talking
about earlier that I had, you know, presented to my colleagues
just last week, I think one of the things we should be doing is
looking at what are the aggressive but achievable schedules we
should be thinking about for different types of applications
like early site permits.
Mr. Wright. I absolutely think, Representative, that we can
do better than 24 months. And that would be--I mean, efficiency
is something that is needed right now in order to meet this
moment, and I think we have got--we are the ones that have to
kind of model that.
Mr. Griffith. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Caputo. I agree with that, but I also think that the
Commission and the agency have been fairly quiet about these
timeframes and the need to meet them and have a sense of
urgency. And so I think there is room for us to sort of step up
the message and create an expectation for staff that we are
serious about meeting these goals.
Mr. Crowell. And I will just agree with most of what my
colleagues have said and just add that if an applicant chooses
to pursue an early site permit, that should help facilitate the
license review and approval process, not just add time to it.
So we need to make sure that that is being taken into account
as we review early site permits.
Mr. Griffith. Yes. And I am excited about it possibly
coming into our region. The district is an energy region,
historically. We are also--the district is fairly large, so it
does stretch out a little bit, but we are only a few miles from
BWX in Lynchburg. We are maybe 30, 40 miles from BWX in Erwin,
Tennessee. And the district also is only about 75 miles from
Oak Ridge. So we have got all the right components close by
that I think we need to make sure that we have a safe
opportunity, and we are excited about those prospects.
Commissioner Caputo, I understand that the NRC holds a so-
called mandatory hearing for several license types. These
hearings can be duplicative. By the time you all get around to
the hearing, the license has been subject to an extensive NRC
staff review, Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguard reviews,
and public challenges and public comments. Could you talk some
about the streamlining of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's
licensing hearings?
Ms. Caputo. Well, these hearings are currently mandated in
the Atomic Energy Act, but they are separate from adjudications
and adjudicatory processes that result from contentions that
get filed. So these are the practices to conduct these at the
Commission level.
So I think there would be a fair amount of streamlining
that would occur in terms of reducing the time to prepare and
actually hold these hearings. The Commission is, hopefully in
the fall, going to hold a mandatory hearing for, essentially, a
research and test reactor. But the months leading up to it are
filled with preparation. And it is a full day of the Commission
with numerous witnesses and, I think, probably in excess of 30
staff members committing their time.
If the Commission were to find itself reviewing a
significant number of applications, it would be pretty time
intensive both for the Commission staff to prepare for these
hearings and for the Commissioners to put a lot of these on the
calendar in addition to its regular duties.
So I think there is room for a reform there to give the
Commission discretion over situations where they might believe
a mandatory hearing would be warranted versus opportunities to
streamline the calendar by not conducting them.
Mr. Griffith. All right. Will you help us if we need to
draft legislation to help you all do that?
Ms. Caputo. Happy to.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Duncan. The gentleman yields back. I now go to
California, Mr. Peters, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the
witnesses for being here.
I want to start by congratulating you on what is really a
remarkable safety record in this industry. I did a little
looking and was really surprised at how really safe nuclear
power is in relation to other industries. If you want a fun
listen, I recommend the Freakonomics podcast about this, which
I am--you are all smiling, you have all heard. And--but
congratulations, and thank you for your work on that score.
I do want to say also thank you for the continued interest
in fusion and work on that. That is a--clearly, a long bet that
is worth making, and I continue to support the country's
investment in that.
But I am also interested, as my colleagues know, in making
our climate goals. What I read is it is very difficult to
imagine how we do that without really relying on nuclear, and
nuclear is really a safe bet in terms of how to get there. So I
thank you for your work and look forward to working with you in
the next generation of nuclear power.
And I want to talk to you, Mr. Chairman, about my concerns
about the time it takes to get permitted. NuScale power is, so
far, the only company to achieve an NRC license for their small
modular reactor design. They chose to use the part 52 licensing
pathway, pursue a design certification which could help ease
future licensing reviews for their design. NuScale has publicly
stated they have spent over 500 million on application
activities, 2 million labor hours obtaining their design
certification. And according to the generic milestone schedule,
a combined license under part 52 could take anywhere from 30 to
42 months to reach a final safety evaluation. And this is not
entirely unknown. This is a schedule we really want to
compress.
So as you work to develop the new part 53 pathway, one that
will be specifically designed for advanced reactor licensing,
can you explain how the NRC intends to create a framework that
will lead to a more efficient and less costly licensing and
permitting process that--still guaranteeing safety?
What is our goal here? What are--where are we trying to get
to?
Mr. Hanson. Yes, thank you, Congressman. It is a great
question. If I could, I will make a couple of remarks about
NuScale, and then kind of what we learned and how I think we
are applying that then----
Mr. Peters. Right.
Mr. Hanson [continuing]. To the part 53 process.
We learned a lot through that NuScale design. It took 41
months. I am not sure how much money NuScale spent. They paid
us about $67 million over the period--that period of time to
conduct that review. But the part 52 process was also a process
where they needed to have, basically, a complete design. And
then that design is codified in regulation that anybody can use
to deploy anywhere, and so the idea being that the additional
review would just be site-specific type things, emergency
planning, external hazards, that kind of thing. So you make an
upfront investment then to achieve efficiencies on the back
end.
Mr. Peters. Right.
Mr. Hanson. For part 53, what we are really trying to do is
make it much more technology inclusive. The regulations that we
have now in part 52--as you noted, part 50--are very specific
to light water reactors. And so the folks who are pursuing
maybe advanced reactor applications under that have to go then
and do a detailed analysis, we have to do a detailed analysis
about which parts really apply.
Well, if we take a lot of that--maintain the safety
standards but take a lot of that light water reactor
specificity----
Mr. Peters. Right.
Mr. Hanson [continuing]. Out of the regulation, then that
provides, I think, an enormous potential to streamline the
process.
I can tell you that, even under part 52, our goal is to get
down to 24 months----
Mr. Peters. OK.
Mr. Hanson [continuing]. For a design certification----
Mr. Peters. Thank you for that.
Mr. Hanson [continuing]. Approval.
Mr. Peters. I appreciate that.
Is it Caputo, Commissioner? Is that how you say it?
I would just like to point out on reprocessing--so I have
got a--north of me I have got the San Onofre. I represent San
Diego. North of me is the San Onofre, a shuttered facility now,
with a bunch of spent fuel sitting there, you know, near
population centers, near faults, near a military base. I am
counting on you to keep that safe. I believe you when you tell
me that you will keep it safe.
But it does seem like a waste in another way. And I
understand that the added cost of reprocessing that you
explained. But when we are thinking about the costs that we are
talking about spending in terms of a permanent disposal, I
think we ought to factor those in as sort of opportunity costs
when we think about reprocessing. So I just favor us looking
aggressively at reusing that fuel in a way that generates power
and to the extent that that requires a Federal effort.
And I would love to have you answer that, but I am out of
time, so someone else has got to ask the question, or you could
sneak it in on somebody.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Peters. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Caputo. I am happy to take it for the record.
Mr. Duncan. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. I now
go to Mr. Walberg for 5 minutes.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the
Commission for being here. We all have plenty of questions we
would love you to answer even further. So thanks for taking the
ones we do have.
My district is home to two nuclear plants, Cook on Lake
Michigan and Fermi on Lake Erie, both sides of the State. I am
encouraged by the future of nuclear, but I also am concerned
about some things that I read.
NEI recently conducted a survey that found that over half
of nuclear utilities are exploring power upgrades. But the
problem is the NRC's review process has gotten longer and
longer and longer, and consequently more and more expensive.
For example, Palisades Nuclear Plant is located just a few
miles north of my district, on Lake Michigan. While it is
being--currently being decommissioned, there are serious
efforts to bring the plant back online, including through the
Civil Nuclear Credit Program established by Congress.
So, Chairman Hanson, there are a few hurdles the plant must
clear before reaching the Commission. But if it does, how can
we ensure an expeditious approval process to bring it back
online?
Mr. Hanson. Thank you, Congressman Walberg. I grew up right
near Palisades, actually, and my family lives near Cook, so--
and I worked at the State park there right next to the plant
during college.
Mr. Walberg. Warren Dunes, yes.
Mr. Hanson. I know that site well and have taken a keen
interest in it too, obviously.
We are in active discussions with Holtec, the current owner
of that site, about how to--they have gotten a series of
exemptions when they shut down--basically, how to undo those
exemptions in a timely way, how they are going to physically
bring the plant back into compliance, and how they are going to
reestablish the programs.
It is new ground for both Holtec and, I admit, for us. But
I am confident that the staff can approach this with the
appropriate sense of urgency and creativity while maintaining
safety too, to--if Holtec decides to proceed through that and
the economics work for them and so on and so forth, that we can
work with them productively to get that plant up and running.
Mr. Walberg. Well, that is encouraging to hear. The only
discouragement that I potentially feel comes from concerns
about Diablo and what went on there in California. In that
situation, as far as I know, the operator asked the NRC
Commissioners and staff to resume review of the previous
licensing application, which had been 80 percent complete. And
I know that is a bit different than what Palisades would have,
but I think the principles are still there.
It is my understanding that staff, not the Commission,
rejected the request. This was a new and novel matter that
would appear to fit the definition of a policy matter requiring
Commission input, not as staff matter. But the staff does not
appear to have consulted the Commission. And so when you say
that you are confident of the staff in working with Palisades,
that gives me a little bit of concern. Choices like these could
cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars more than necessary.
Could you encourage me a bit more, Mr. Chairman--and I
offer to the Commission, as well, to respond--on the
Commission's role in Palisades and other similar entities in
the future?
Mr. Hanson. Thank you, Congressman. You know, I was out at
Diablo just a couple of weeks ago, and I engaged in this
conversation with the licensee.
Because we didn't grant the request--essentially, the staff
didn't grant the request to just restart--my question for them
was how are interactions going with the--you know, the idea
here is that the licensee shouldn't have to start from zero,
that a lot of the information in that previous application
ought to be usable kind of going forward. And how are those
interactions going? I wanted to hear directly from the
licensee.
And the feedback at least I got from Pacific Gas and
Electric was that they were going well, that they didn't--that
there weren't big areas that they were going to have to do,
that they could rely on previous decisions that the NRC made in
this new submittal, et cetera. So that is part of why I am
feeling reasonably encouraged.
You know, I am not Pollyannaish. You know, I don't want the
staff to--and we shouldn't regulate to, you know, eight decimal
places when one or zero will do for a reasonable assurance of
adequate protection. So----
Mr. Walberg. Well, the regulated, of course, in responding
to you, doesn't want any more upheaval----
Mr. Hanson. Right.
Mr. Walberg [continuing]. And may temper what they say.
But I guess I am asking more about future, how involved--
and I guess I could--Mr. Wright, give me your thoughts on that
so I feel more confident that the Commission will make sense of
what should go forward, regardless of the good staff.
Mr. Wright. Right.
Mr. Walberg. What will you guys do?
Mr. Wright. Right. So I am--quickly, on two issues. One,
you are talking about Diablo. I think we missed a huge
opportunity right there to be transformative, innovative, doing
something new and novel, because it could happen that way, it
could have happened, right? And we would have probably given
the licensee a little bit more time, I guess, and--to get
things done. But we have kind of put them up against it a
little bit. So things have got to go right, going forward. And
I know they are engaged, and I think that staff is on top of
that, and I am following that not just with staff, but also
with the licensee.
And with Palisades, I think that approach has been
different from the start. Holtec is--I have talked with them. I
have talked with staff as well. The engagement process there
was very early, and it has been going on. They have been very
transparent with each other, and everybody now--I get the sense
that everybody knows what is required, who has got to do what
and by what time they have got to get it done. So I feel better
about that.
Mr. Walberg. Well, my time has expired, but I think warp
speed ideas need to take place. We know what we are doing.
Continue upgrades, but let's get her done.
I yield back.
Mr. Duncan. The gentleman yields back. I will go to Ms.
Matsui for 5 minutes.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want
to welcome all the Commissioners here today. It is great to see
you all.
You know, while many of my colleagues are focused on the
future of nuclear power, my district encompassing the
Sacramento region continues to grapple with the past. The
Rancho Seco Nuclear Power Plant in my district closed over 30
years ago, but the site is still acting as a temporary storage
site for spent nuclear fuel.
More than 88,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel are currently
stranded at current and former reactor sites around the
country. This material is a burden on local utilities like the
Sacramento Municipal Utility District, and it prevents long-
closed nuclear plants from being redeveloped and used for other
purposes.
I support nuclear energy as an important source of zero-
carbon energy, but we must address the waste question. I
believe the first step is to build a consolidated interim
storage site. According to a 2021 GAO report on spent nuclear
fuel, nearly all of the experts interviewed cited the
advantages of consolidated interim storage, including cost
savings.
Now, advanced nuclear reactor designs and small modular
reactors have many potential advantages over the current
nuclear fleet. However, new nuclear plants will continue to
produce hazardous wastes.
Chair Hanson, can you briefly explain how spent fuel and
other radioactive waste produced by these new reactors would
differ from the current generation of reactors?
Mr. Hanson. Thank you, Congresswoman Matsui.
It is really going to depend on the technology. So in some
cases, we are talking about smaller light water reactors, in
which case the fuel is going to be very similar to what we have
seen so far. In other cases, there are some new ceramic fuel
fabrications. Think of ping-pong-ball-sized or billiard-ball-
sized elements of nuclear fuel that will require, you know,
different storage configurations or security configurations as
well.
In many cases we are talking about high-assay, low-enriched
uranium, and so we are talking about longer burn-up times, and
so there may be some additional heat time that will potentially
change the storage requirements.
Ms. Matsui. OK. But we still have the waste question here,
and especially if we are going to start building new nuclear
power plants. And the status quo can't continue indefinitely.
The NRC has reviewed at least 4 consolidated storage sites
over the last 30 years, and we are not any closer to actually
building a consolidated storage facility. This is due in large
part to the failure of Congress to pursue a consent-based
siting process for consolidated storage facilities.
Whether it is a Federal or private-sector use, community
support will be essential to successfully building a
consolidated storage site. That is why I am glad to see the
Biden administration's efforts to develop a consent-based
approach to siting consolidated spent fuel storage. I have
secured funding for these efforts in each of the last 3 years
and look forward to working to secure funding for this crucial
program in fiscal year 2024.
Chair Hanson, my understanding is that there is currently
no requirement for storage license applicants to have community
support. But according to the standard review plan for dry
storage facilities, applicants must demonstrate financial
feasibility. Isn't that correct?
Mr. Hanson. That is correct. They must demonstrate the----
Ms. Matsui. OK.
Mr. Hanson [continuing]. Financial capability of----
Ms. Matsui. So applicants need to demonstrate this
financial feasibility because otherwise, reviewing the
application would be a waste of staff time. Similarly,
community support is clearly a very important element in
determining feasibility, is it not?
Mr. Hanson. We are focused fully on the safety aspects, and
the financial capability is how that pertains to the safety of
the facility.
Ms. Matsui. OK. So community support is actually a very
important element, right?
Mr. Hanson. It is important, but it is not an area in which
we are directly involved.
Ms. Matsui. OK. I want to make clear that I support the
NRC's authority to license private-sector storage sites. These
sites are safe and cost effective. But regardless of whether it
is Federal or private-sector sites, we must pursue a consent-
based siting process for spent fuel storage, and I believe it
is time for Congress to authorize a consent-based siting
process.
Now, the NRC is also responsible for regulating the
transport of nuclear fuels, nuclear materials, and waste. One
of the concerns that is commonly raised regarding the
development of a consolidated storage site is that the
transport of radioactive material poses new safety risks.
Chair Hanson, to what degree is spent nuclear fuel already
transported around the country?
Mr. Hanson. Yes, so spent nuclear fuel is already
transported around the country by the Department of Energy, by
the Navy, et cetera, has been safely for decades. We recently
undertook a readiness review for the commercial--the transport
of commercial spent fuel, and we believe our regulations and
policies and procedures are adequate to ensure the safety of
those operations.
Ms. Matsui. So you are confident that we can safely
transport spent fuel and other radioactive waste?
Mr. Hanson. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Matsui. From reactor sites to the consolidated storage
facility?
Mr. Hanson. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Matsui. OK, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Duncan. The gentlelady yields back. I now go to the
chair of the environmental subcommittee, Mr. Johnson, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to you
folks, the NRC Commissioners, for being with us today. This is
an important hearing, and this is going to inform us. And I
know I and others on this committee want to legislate in this
space, so I am looking forward to getting some of your thoughts
today as we go through this hearing.
I am planning on reintroducing my Strengthening American
Nuclear Competitiveness Act in the coming weeks, and the
legislation will require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, you
folks, to present several reports to Congress. So first I want
to go to Commissioner Caputo.
You mentioned in your testimony that you want the NRC to
innovate how it accomplishes its mission. My legislation would
ask the NRC to issue a report on innovative, nonelectric uses
of advanced nuclear technology or small modular reactors in--
perhaps in energy-intensive manufacturing and other
applications. Do you believe NRC is equipped to study these
technologies for future licensing, and do you support the NRC
having a role here?
Ms. Caputo. I believe it is very appropriate for us to
study the nature of how process heat, as it is generated in the
plant, would ultimately be used within the bounds of how it
impacts safety. So----
Mr. Johnson. But are you equipped to do that studying, do
you think?
Ms. Caputo. For the safety review?
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
Ms. Caputo. Yes, indeed.
Mr. Johnson. OK, all right. What about you, Chairman
Hanson?
Mr. Hanson. Yes, I believe we are well equipped to evaluate
the nonpower applications of nuclear power and the safety on
that.
Mr. Johnson. OK, all right. Well, next I want to touch on
another part of my legislation.
I think we all can agree here today that we are not
interested in inhibiting investment in nuclear technology here
at home. We want and need to strengthen the fleet. My bill
would lift the Atomic Energy Act's outdated ban on foreign
investment and control from entities in allied, friendly
nations. This has at times proven to be a barrier to further
nuclear development here in the United States.
So, Chairman Hanson, do you and the NRC have a position on
this?
Mr. Hanson. The Commission hasn't yet taken a position on
this. I can tell you I have very close relationships with the
regulators in a lot of the friendly countries that you identify
in your bill, Congressman, and I think there is a real
opportunity there to work more closely together.
Mr. Johnson. Do you think it is appropriate to continue
this ban? Do you have an opinion on that, or should we consider
changes?
Mr. Hanson. The Commission hasn't really taken a position
on this, as you know. But I can tell you certainly that, since
the invasion of Ukraine, I have--my interactions with my
friendly, like-minded countries on all aspects of the nuclear
fuel cycle have increased significantly about how we can
cooperatively work together, reduce international regulatory
barriers, et cetera, to integration of the global nuclear
supply chain along the lines that you propose.
Mr. Johnson. OK, all right. Next I want to pivot to keeping
our American innovators competitive overseas.
You mentioned the war in Ukraine. You know, we have seen an
increased interest overseas in the security and reliability of
nuclear energy. Ideally, these new reactors are U.S. designs. I
am encouraged by recent announcements in Poland and Romania.
Importantly, the designs that these countries are interested in
building are either licensed and operating or certified by the
NRC. We are talking about Westinghouse, AP1000, or NuScale.
Chairman Hanson, how can the NRC help other regulators
understand U.S. technologies and licensing decisions to spur
global deployments?
Mr. Hanson. Yes, thank you. We are doing this literally as
we speak, Congressman.
We have been--we have had a 10-year relationship with our
Polish regulatory counterparts. We have ramped up those
interactions in the last 2 or 3 years. I know there were a lot
of decisions--a lot of factors that went into the decision to
pick U.S. technology in Poland, but I think, you know, the
commitment on the part of the NRC to walk alongside and to help
prepare that Polish regulator was certainly a factor.
I think Commissioner Wright's visit to Romania last year
helped cement that relationship, as well. Our work with the
Canadians on the GE, Hitachi, BWX in the joint review we are
performing there--and also, the GE is looking at exporting that
to Poland and other parts around the world also.
Mr. Johnson. OK.
Mr. Hanson. I can tell you we have established now a civil
nuclear cooperation agreement with Ghana, and I am headed there
to work with their regulator here in just a few weeks.
Mr. Johnson. OK, all right. Well, thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Duncan. The gentleman yields back. We will now go to
the Granite State, Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Empire State, sir.
Mr. Duncan. Empire State.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Duncan. Somebody mentioned granite to me the other day
about----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Duncan. And that was just in my mind. My apologies to
the State of New York, Mr. Tonko.
Mr. Tonko. OK, New York appreciates you.
Well, thank you, Chair, and thank you to Chair Hanson and
the Commissioners. I appreciate you being here this morning.
Let me do a special shout out to Commissioner Baran:
Welcome back to the committee.
I have immense respect for the Navy's role in helping to
develop the workforce that our civilian nuclear industry relies
upon. Many of those sailors are trained on reactors in my
district. But I believe our Nation's engineering schools also
have an important role to play. RPI, Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute in Troy, in the 20th congressional district, is one
such university. RPI and its students have been the
beneficiaries of grants under the Commission's University
Nuclear Leadership Program.
So, Chair Hanson, can you discuss this program and its role
in supporting nuclear engineering programs at our Nation's
research universities?
Mr. Hanson. Thank you, Congressman.
I think I am an enthusiastic supporter of the University
Nuclear Leadership Program. We have supported over 2,900
students since 2014. Almost 50 percent of those students have
then gone on to pursue and obtain nuclear-related employment,
where another 25 percent are still working on their Ph.D.s or
their master's degrees. Part of that is our research grants
that kind of support graduate students and professorships and
so forth, and some of them are just direct fellowships and
scholarships to students that then establish that relationship
with the NRC.
I have visited probably half a dozen universities so far in
my tenure. I try and include those when I go and visit plants,
and encourage students both in the nuclear field but also in
public service. And I think we are seeing some results there.
Mr. Tonko. That is great.
And Mr. Chair, I noticed this program was zeroed-out in the
President's budget request. Can you shed any light on that
decision and what you expect the future might look like for the
program?
Mr. Hanson. Yes. We are--we usually have about a year of
funding kind of ahead of where we are in any given year,
historically, in order to meet the budget targets that we are
given. We have not requested funding. Congress will then give
us that funding in advance, and we are happy to receive it, and
happy to move forward in implementing that program.
Mr. Tonko. OK. I believe every Commissioner recognizes
nuclear energy's role in addressing climate change, but we know
these reactors exist in environments that are increasingly
stressed by the impacts of climate change, including increasing
numbers of extreme weather events and severe droughts.
Mr. Chair, how is the Commission working to ensure that the
existing fleet is more resilient to the impacts of climate
change?
Mr. Hanson. Yes, thank you.
We have a--within the NRC we have a program on the
assessment of natural hazards information that, basically, is
an ongoing evaluation of information surrounding the entire
fleet about the environment, about the impacts of climate, you
know, changing climate, wildfires, et cetera, and the
resilience.
I would say that our plants, as we see, I think every year
in hurricane season in this country--and due to both operator,
you know, cautious operator action, as well as NRC oversight
are--have been incredibly resilient to weather-related impacts.
Mr. Tonko. Do any other Commissioners choose to weigh in on
that whole concept? Are our reactors adequately updating their
operations and response plans to reflect climate change
concerns?
Mr. Baran. Yes, I would just add, you know, one of the
steps we took post-Fukushima was this program that the Chair
talked about. You know, there was a time when NRC was much more
reactive. You know, there would be new studies out there,
whether it be on earthquakes or flooding or climate-related
changes. And unless someone kind of brought that to us, we
weren't--the staff wasn't necessarily conducting those kinds of
reviews.
Now we have something that is much more proactive. We are
going out there, the staff is making sure they are up on the
latest science in these areas. They are attending academic
conferences. They are talking to the Federal agencies with
responsibilities so that we are keeping a much closer eye on
that, I think, than historically the agency has.
Mr. Tonko. All right, thank you.
And as Congress debates and continues to debate permitting
reform, it has become even more clear that successful energy
projects must be built based on early and robust community
engagement. So, Mr. Chair, what do you see as the role for
engagement with communities that host reactors, and how does
the Commission help to ensure license holders are good partners
with their hosts?
Mr. Hanson. Thank you.
For all of our--the reactor applications, as well as the
preapplication engagement activities, the vast majority of
those meetings are held in public. They are available for folks
to watch online. And then, when we actually get into the
application stage and we need to perform the environmental
review, we will hold numerous public meetings, opportunities
for the public to come and understand the technology, how we
are approaching that review, and also then the--how we are
approaching the environmental assessment for that.
I know we can always do better in terms of explaining our
processes, how we are reaching our decisions, et cetera, but we
have got the basic--I think the bones, I think, are good and--
on the processes that we have.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Duncan. The Empire State yields back.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Duncan. And I will now go to the crossroads of America,
Mr. Bucshon for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bucshon. You got that right. It is the crossroads of
America, Indiana. So thank you, Mr. Chairman, thanks to the
Commissioners for being here.
And recently the State of Indiana shared its intent to join
the NRC's Agreement State Program. This program empowers
individual States to assume NRC regulatory authority for
specific categories of nuclear materials, relinquishing some of
the regulatory load off of the NRC. So maybe I will start with
Mr. Crowell here.
Commissioner Crowell, could you discuss the benefits of
this program for both the NRC and for the agreement States?
Mr. Crowell. Thank you for the question. So I think the
more States that become agreement States, the more robust that
Agreement State Program overall becomes, and the burden
somewhat lessens on the NRC from having to do that directly. We
can do it through oversight, and it should lower costs over
time as well.
I also think the benefit of the Agreement State Program is
that it helps create an understanding and familiarity with
various aspects of nuclear power in those States, and that can
help with broader public engagement and support.
Mr. Bucshon. And can you maybe briefly discuss the timeline
and process for a State like Indiana to join the program?
Mr. Crowell. I would actually defer to the Chair on that.
Mr. Bucshon. All right, Chairman Hanson.
Mr. Hanson. Sure, Congressman, I would be happy to.
Typically, it is about a 4-year process.
Mr. Bucshon. OK.
Mr. Hanson. We work closely with them. There is a lot of
training and a lot of back and forth. We really walk alongside
the State to get them ready to take over that responsibility.
Mr. Bucshon. Great, and anyone can add. Do you think that
the Agreement State Program plays a role in supporting public
engagement efforts that foster public support for the safe and
responsible deployment of nuclear technologies?
Mr. Hanson. I certainly do. I agree with Commissioner
Crowell. Having folks--you know, government often works best at
the level closest to the populace, and I think this is a good
example of that.
Mr. Bucshon. Yes, I think you are right. I mean, we need
that. It is very important, right, for all the work that we
are--all of us are trying to do here to have public sentiment
behind us. As Members of the Congress, of course, that is the
most critical piece of this equation.
Yes, Commissioner Wright.
Mr. Wright. Congressman, just--I am a big fan of the
Agreement State Program, and I have been in the presence of the
people from Indiana at some of the meetings, the Organization
of Agreement States. We are willing to engage, so if we need to
come and meet with somebody, we are willing to do that. And I
would commit that I would go myself if you need me to.
Mr. Bucshon. Sure, thank you very much.
The Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act directs
the Commission to develop a risk-informed, technology-neutral
framework for advanced reactors. And I had another hearing in
Health, so I may have missed some of this. We have already
heard some comments on that, of course, but NRC is supposed to
provide reasonable assurance of adequate safety of nuclear
reactors.
Commissioner Caputo, can you speak to what risk-informed
means, and how that works in the context of reasonable
assurance of adequate safety standard?
Ms. Caputo. Risk informing fundamentally means using risk
insights together with other considerations to focus safety
reviews on the items that are the most significant to safety.
So it is an attempt to sort of narrow what our focus is to the
areas where safety regulation creates the biggest safety
benefits. So by narrowing that, it is a hope of limiting the
regulatory burden to where things are truly safety significant.
Mr. Bucshon. Yes. I also want to say I was recently in
Poland also with the chairwoman, and we were talking about this
issue, and we do have competition. They are talking with the
French, as you know. So it is very important for the United
States and North America to make sure that we are the--we don't
have things, processes in place that limit our ability to
effectively compete. And part of that is cost, part of that is
time, part of that is safety, other issues. So I just wanted--I
wanted to say that.
And then, in closing, I--the NRC doesn't regulate nuclear
submarines, is that correct?
Mr. Hanson. That is correct, Congressman.
Mr. Bucshon. So I do find it--and somebody mentioned this
to me the other day, that--if you have ever been on a nuclear
submarine--which I have, the USS Kentucky--when it refueled and
went out into the Pacific Ocean, it struck me that the person
that dove the boat under the water was about 22 years old. And
the entire ship, including the commanding officer--the
commanding officer, I think was about 33. So we have this big
nuclear reactor in a nuclear submarine in the middle of the
ocean, and we have--literally, we have very strong young people
that are in charge.
And so I just say that because I think we need to put that
in context of the overall situation that we are in here, and
that this can be done. I know it is different, but it can be
done if there are strong programs in place, and we don't need
all these barriers all the time.
Mr. Hanson. Yes.
Mr. Bucshon. Yes, Chairman, briefly.
Mr. Hanson. We are great beneficiaries of our Nuclear Navy
program. About 25 percent of our workers are military veterans,
and the vast majority of them from the Navy. And so that kind
of experience and that kind of a strong experience, including
our executive director of operations here behind me, Dan
Dorman, in operating and working on nuclear submarines.
Mr. Bucshon. Yes. I yield back, Chairman.
Mr. Duncan. Not a single mishap in the United States Navy
with regard to nuclear.
So I now go to the Granite State for real.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Duncan. Ms. Kuster is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Kuster. Thank you, Chairman Duncan and Ranking Member
DeGette, for holding this important hearing. And I want to
thank all five NRC Commissioners for taking the time to join
us.
There are 54 nuclear power plants in the United States, and
these power plants provide, as you have heard today, nearly 20
percent of the electricity generated and 50 percent of the
noncarbon electricity. The nuclear power generated in the
United States displaces the equivalent of roughly 500 coal
plants. But unlike coal or natural gas, nuclear energy is
carbon-free.
Given the significant role nuclear energy plays in our
energy system and our energy future, the footprint of nuclear
power plants across the Nation, most Americans would be
reassured to learn about the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or
NRC. The NRC exists for one purpose: to ensure nuclear power
plants in the United States operate safely. And I want to
underscore that this is an incredibly important responsibility.
Chairman Hanson, the NRC currently has a full contingent of
five Commissioners. Can you explain how a full contingent of
five Commissioners helps the NRC function properly?
Mr. Hanson. Thank you, Congresswoman.
I think, fundamentally, having five people with differing
views but who have very professional and collegial
relationships actually results in stronger decision making and
policymaking on the part of the agency.
It really--because of, I think, as the chairman mentioned,
the urgency of the issues in front of us, we are able to kind
of divide and conquer on a number of things, whether it is
Commissioner Caputo focusing on effective performance measures,
or Commissioner Baran on policy statements, or other things
that I have the opportunity to lead on. I think, given the
amount of work in front of us, it is more important than ever
that we have a fully--a full complement of Commissioners.
Ms. Kuster. Well, thank you. And I might note Commissioner
Baran's term expires at the end of the month, and his
renomination is currently pending before the Senate. I am very
supportive of Commissioner Baran, and I hope that the Senate
acts quickly to confirm him.
I want to zero in on the impact of nuclear energy in my
State, New Hampshire, the Granite State. Nuclear energy is the
largest power generation source in New Hampshire. All the
nuclear electricity generated in New Hampshire comes from the
Seabrook Nuclear Power Station. And while Seabrook is a key
piece of infrastructure in my State, it also faces some
significant challenges.
There is an ongoing alkali-silica reaction, ASR, at
Seabrook that is slowly causing cracking throughout the
facility. Monitoring the ongoing ASR is critical to ensuring
the integrity and the safety of Seabrook and my constituents,
my colleague Chris Pappas, and our colleagues in Maine, Jared
Golden and Chellie Pingree.
Thankfully, the NRC has two resident inspectors at Seabrook
whose full-time job is to walk the plant and ensure its
operating safety. The two resident inspectors, Chris Newport
and Travis Daun, are unsung heroes, and I want to acknowledge
how important their work is for keeping the public safe. They
literally have spent thousands of hours per year inspecting the
plant and ensuring that it is safe.
Chairman Hanson and Commissioner Baran, both of you have
visited Seabrook. Can you briefly describe the role that Chris
and Travis play and the benefits of having NRC personnel on
site at our nuclear power plants around the country?
Mr. Hanson. Thank you, Congresswoman. Well, hopefully,
after this hearing they are not completely unsung.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hanson. I think very highly of both Chris and Travis,
as well as the rest of our resident inspectors who walk around
these plants every day.
And with regard to the alkali-silica reaction, that is
actually a phenomenon that NRC staff discovered at Seabrook,
and we have been keeping track of that ever since and bringing
the expertise of the agency and working with the licensee to
bear on that.
And I make it a point--and I know my colleagues do too--to
meet and spend some quality time with our resident inspectors
when we go visit plants, understand both in more depth the
situation at that plant but also how our program is working for
them. It involves maybe more moves for them around the country
because of the rotations that we require, often in kind of far-
flung places. Seabrook isn't particularly far flung----
Ms. Kuster. It happens to be beautiful, the sea coast of
New Hampshire.
Mr. Hanson. It is beautiful, but we do have plants in some
far-flung places that can make that more difficult.
So, I don't know, Commissioner Baran, if you want to add
anything.
Mr. Baran. Well, thanks. I agree. I think our resident
inspectors at Seabrook are terrific. And, you know, they are
closely tracking the alkali-silica reaction issues, but all the
more traditional safety and security issues as well.
I think one of the things that's so great about that team
is they are focused on being transparent about sharing their
findings with the community so that folks understand what is
going on and what NRC is doing there. And when I visited in the
run-up to that visit to Seabrook, I talked to C10, one of the
community organizations that is very engaged, and I heard from
them that our residents are really building, you know, trust
and confidence. And that is really good to hear. And in some
ways, I think that team at Seabrook is really the model for
what that relationship should look like between----
Ms. Kuster. I hate to cut you off, my time is up. But thank
you. We will leave it at there, the model.
Mr. Baran. Thank you.
Ms. Kuster. Thank you very much, and I yield back.
Mr. Duncan. I thank the gentlelady, and I will now go to
the vice chair of the Subcommittee on Energy, Mr. Curtis, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was hoping you would
call Utah the crossroads of the West.
Mr. Duncan. You are the crossroads of the West.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Curtis. Listen, I am really delighted to be here, and I
have stayed here through this whole hearing. I think this is
incredibly important. I am not sure in recent time that we have
had any more five important people in front of us for the
future of our energy security and our climate and energy goals
here in the United States and around the world.
I want to begin by giving a shout out to a couple of Utah
projects. The Pacificorp project is very exciting, although
that will ultimately be in Wyoming. I am hoping their
additional plans will expand in Utah, and I am just really
pleased to see the progress that they are making.
Also, a shout out to Utah Municipal Power Authority--UAMPS,
excuse me, UAMPS--and you well know the amount of time and the
work that they have put into that small nuclear reactor.
I think that, as I look at 2050, I see our energy sources
being affordable, reliable, and clean, and nuclear, you know,
hits it out of the park on reliability and on clean. But
currently, affordable is problematic, and a lot of that has to
do, of course, with the delay in time period and uncertainty in
licensing.
And we have talked a lot today with my colleagues about
speed, and I have heard a lot of positive things from you about
speed and innovation. But I want to make sure that we are all
kind of on the same page, because I am thinking we are not
talking about doubling speed, we are not talking about tripling
speed. I am thinking we are talking about, between now and
2050, hundreds of nuclear facilities here in the United States,
maybe thousands of nuclear facilities here in the United
States. And I just want to get your reaction.
Are there behind-closed-door conversations of, like, no,
this isn't a little bit faster, this is not necessarily even
faster, this is figuring out how to permit hundreds and
thousands of these facilities in the next couple of decades?
Mr. Hanson. Yes.
Mr. Curtis. Mr.----
Mr. Hanson. No, it--thank you Mr. Vice Chairman. It is a
great question, and it is a completely fair question.
The key to a lot of this, I think, is going to be the
standardization of the design. And I think for us, then, if we
have a standardized design that is getting cranked out of a
factory, we can go to that factory and say, ``Yes, quality
assurance is what it needs to be.'' Then all we are really
doing is looking at site-specific requirements. And I think
that--you know, external hazards and----
Mr. Curtis. Sure.
Mr. Hanson [continuing]. And some emergency planning and
that kind of thing, I think that review can be--my thought--and
again, I haven't consulted my colleagues--I think it can be
less than a year when we get those standardized designs that
are going to--kind of getting pushed out----
Mr. Curtis. I am really pleased to hear that, and I think
that is a good message for the industry as well.
And yet, at the same time, the industry is in this
interesting place where SMRs are getting standardized, but,
like, the Pacificorp project, there are also a lot of other
tentacles trying out new things, which we want to encourage as
well.
Let me pivot just to--a minute to the concept of investor
confidence. I know it is not your job to promote technology,
but many in the industry, investors, are watching what is
happening. What would you say, Mr. Hanson, as the Chair?
I know you would all do so well, but you are the Chair for
the group. What would you say to industry about how we can give
them the confidence they need to make the investments that they
are going to need to this, and not be scared about the process?
Mr. Hanson. Yes, certainly, I agree that there is a need to
kind of demystify the regulatory process here, in part for the
regulatory community. And I have had some conversations where I
have volunteered to do that where necessary.
But I think we can point to some things in terms of what we
have done. That is, the lessons we have learned from previous
reviews, and whether that is Vogtle or NuScale, but also then,
you know, what we did on Kairos, that advanced reactor
technology, and also then the Commission's efforts to really
roll up its sleeves and focus in on this advanced reactor
rulemaking to make sure that that is predictable, efficient, et
cetera, while upholding our safety standards.
Mr. Curtis. Sure. I am a little concerned, too, that if we
don't have the type of domestic program that we want to have,
we won't have the influence internationally that we would like
to have with international standards and safety standards. Can
you speak to what you are doing and what the Commission is
doing to make sure we have influence overseas?
Mr. Hanson. Yes, thank you.
Well, first of all, we are heavily engaged at the IAEA to
make sure that our interests are advanced and protected in that
international multilateral forum, but then also engaging, you
know, with our bilateral partners, whether that is in Poland or
Romania, the Czech Republic. I have had numerous discussions
with--and they are a very close ally.
But also then, even some folks that we are competing with,
in terms of the French, that we make sure that the standards
are high, you know, but that we are approaching it with the
right kind of flexibility.
Mr. Curtis. And I am, unfortunately, out of time. I would
like to just thank you and all five of you for being here
today, and for the chair and the ranking member for this very,
very important conversation.
Mr. Duncan. I appreciate the gentleman. I now go to Ms.
Schrier for 5 minutes.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all
of our witnesses for being here today.
And I would say thank you to Mr. Curtis, as well. I thought
that question line was really excellent.
In my home State of Washington, we have adopted a very
ambitious goal to completely eliminate carbon emissions from
our energy portfolio by 2045, which means we need to construct
new, emissions-free capacity resources like advanced nuclear
with haste. And this is in addition to wind and solar and the
abundant hydropower that we enjoy now as base load. And by
expanding our nuclear portfolio, we will be able to better and
more smoothly integrate other renewables like wind and solar
into our grid and reduce emissions.
Commissioner Caputo, I was struck by your testimony when
you acknowledged the need for NRC to ``innovate with an eye
toward the future,'' because that is what we are looking for in
Washington State. And you acknowledge that NRC must follow
congressional intent to develop--again, quote--``a framework
that is truly risk-informed, reflecting the inherent safety
found in advanced designs.'' And I think that is critical, and
I think it also pertains to Mr. Curtis' line of questioning
about how much more quickly we should be able to do this.
I was wondering if you could expand a little bit on this
point and how you are taking into account the difference in
risk, maybe what are your--some of your challenges, how can we
help?
Ms. Caputo. Well, when the Commission directed the staff to
proceed with the rulemaking, one of the elements of that
direction was to direct the staff to apply the same safety
standards as the existing fleet. By having advanced reactors
meet that same level of safety, it allows those reactors
through the technology to take credit for aspects of their
design that may provide inherent safety, just based on the
technology itself. And I think that is perhaps the most
important aspect that we need to focus on in part 53.
Ms. Schrier. OK, thank you. I am going to pivot to another
question also about Washington State, which is Hanford.
And I know that this is primarily a Department of Energy
issue, but since I have your expertise in front of me, I would
love to know if any of you have reservations, technical
reservations, about the Department of Energy reclassifying some
of its low-activity waste to something other than high-level
waste, because it would change how we can dispose of that. If
it is a low level, it can be disposed of in a grouting process,
and a high level needs to be--it needs to go through
vitrification, which is far more complex. I am just wondering
if any of you have any comments about that safety.
Mr. Hanson. I admit, Congresswoman, I am loathe to wade
into those waters, but I will note that----
Ms. Schrier. So am I.
Mr. Hanson. But the classification system that we have in
this country is largely based on origin and not based on
radioactivity. So sometimes high-level waste, regardless of the
activity level, is high-level waste because it is spent nuclear
fuel or originates from reprocessing operations.
Ms. Schrier. OK. Thank you for that clarification.
Does anybody else want to wade into this?
Ms. Caputo. I agree with the Chair. It is primarily
classified by the origin. So the characteristics of the waste
itself may be substantially different, based on where it is--
not based on where it is classified. So if there is a
reclassification done to more reflect the nature of the waste
itself, then there may be a scientific basis for doing that
rather than hewing to the historical classification based on
origin.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you. That is really interesting and
really reassuring. And that is why I asked you that question.
Thank you very much.
And I will yield back.
Mr. Duncan. The gentlelady yields back. We will stay in the
Evergreen State, and it is my distinct pleasure to recognize
the chairwoman of the full committee, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers,
for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Duncan and I, along with Ranking Members DeGette
and Pallone, wrote together to a range of nuclear stakeholders
in April seeking information about NRC licensing and oversight
activities. And we wanted to ``identify what makes sense for a
modern regulator to assure efficient, predictable regulation
that provides for a robust and growing nuclear industry.'' And
this is keeping with the goals of the Atomic Energy Act.
Chairman Hanson and Commissioners, an indisputable part of
your mission is to protect public health and safety. However,
your authorities derive from the Atomic Energy Act, which has
broader goals. I would like to ask each of you, beginning with
the Chairman, to describe how you would define NRC success as a
regulator in the context of the policy to provide for a robust
and growing industry.
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hanson. Thank you, Chairwoman Rodgers, for that
question.
Our success, I think--I met with a utility executive
recently that described the NRC as a tough regulator, but a
fair regulator. I took that as a point of pride. And I think we
can always be improving the efficiency of that and the
predictability of our regulations. And I think that is--I think
you are seeing an emphasis on that across the Commission as we
move forward, and an adaptability and creativity in achieving
those aims while protecting public health and safety.
Mrs. Rodgers. OK.
Mr. Baran. Yes, I think we need to do two things at the
same time: one, maintain our focus on public health and safety;
and two, have an effective, efficient, and timely licensing
process. Both of those things.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
Mr. Wright. Thank you for the question, and I agree with
what my colleagues are saying here. And I was present when I
heard the comment, as well, about being a tough but fair
regulator.
But also I would say that we do a pretty poor job of
talking about our successes and how--maybe the good things that
we do, because--and--because I am a believer, if you don't tout
your successes, you are going to be defined by your failures.
So there are a lot of good things that are going on, but we
certainly can do better.
Ms. Caputo. I think I will get passed back to a comment
that Mr. Bucshon made which relates to naval submarines. When
the Navy approves a submarine, it really is a dual mission,
which is safety, but also to enable the mission. And our
mission as a regulator is purely safety.
So I think there is room there to consider a little more
balanced approach because we are, as I said in my opening
statement, gatekeepers to a nuclear future, and we need to, I
think, focus on the fact that, while safety is our preeminent
role, we do have a responsibility to ensure timely decision
making so that we can actually enable the safe development of
nuclear power.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
Mr. Crowell. And Congresswoman, I will just add that if--
while protecting public health and safety are the--you know,
the primary goals and responsibility of the NRC, if we are
meeting that mission but we are not doing so on a timeline that
is commensurate with addressing reducing carbon emissions and
enhancing energy security, then I don't think we are
succeeding. I think we need to be doing both.
Mrs. Rodgers. OK, thank you.
To help set the Commission up for success, Congress enacted
reforms in 2019 to update its fee schedule and directed NRC to
issue risk-informed regulations appropriate for advanced
reactors.
My understanding is the staff spent about 2 years putting
together a proposal, the part 53 proposal, yet they have been
informed time and time again that the new regulations that they
were putting together ignored stakeholder input, and future
applicants would not use the rule as it was proposed. And then
staff chose to send a rule that they knew wouldn't work to the
Commission to fix. Something isn't right with that whole
situation.
Why is--so I wanted to start with the Chairman, and however
time we have--why is staff putting together rules that fail to
comply with congressional direction?
And what does this say about the staff working in service
to the Atomic Energy Act?
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hanson. Thank you. While I am certainly not going to
endorse or agree with all the things that the staff sent, we
asked them to put together that rule very quickly. And I think,
as a result, it--there is a high level of what I would call
adjacency to our existing frameworks that are not necessarily
conducive to the new technologies that are coming down the
road----
Mrs. Rodgers. So quickly, 2 years and they ignored
stakeholder input.
Mr. Hanson. Well, I think in some cases both the framework
A and framework B were included and structured that way at the
behest of stakeholders.
Mrs. Rodgers. OK. More to follow.
I yield back.
Mr. Hanson. Happy to.
Mr. Duncan. You could add some extra time. You are the
chairwoman.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Duncan. I will now go to Florida, Ms. Castor, the
Sunshine State, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Castor. Yes. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling
this hearing. It has been a good, bipartisan collaboration
here.
And I want to thank the NRC Commissioners for your public
service and being here today.
If we are going to slash climate pollution with the urgency
that is needed to avoid the worsening impacts and the
escalating costs, we have got to rely more on this carbon-free
energy source, nuclear power, that is consistent in its output
over long periods of time.
We have learned a lot over the past few years. There has
been a shift in thinking because of the climate crisis. In
fact, when I had the pleasure of chairing the House Select
Committee on the Climate Crisis, we invited nuclear energy
industry experts in to advise us and to help craft policies.
And it resulted in our action plan report that had a number of
recommendations relating to nuclear power that were
subsequently incorporated into the Bipartisan Infrastructure
Law, the IRA, the CHIPS and Science Act.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provided $6 billion for
the Civil Nuclear Credit Program, funds that will help ensure
that our already existing fleet of nuclear reactors stays safe
and competitive, and it also will save thousands of jobs over
time.
The Inflation Reduction Act created a tax credit of up to
1.8 cents per kilowatt hour for zero-emission nuclear energy
and provided the Department of Energy with $700 million to
invest in increasing the availability of next-generation
nuclear fuel for advanced reactors.
And the President's proposed budget this year includes a $1
billion investment in the NRC, including an 8 percent increase
in nuclear reactor safety.
Commissioner Baran, you highlighted this in your testimony.
You said the urgency and scale of the challenge have led to a
growing consensus that meeting ambitious climate and energy
security goals will involve nuclear power, including new
reactors. The bipartisan infrastructure legislation and the IRA
make large investments to drive this expansion, including the
Clean Energy Production Tax Credit and funding for a domestic
high-assay, low-enriched uranium supply chain. Few, if any,
nuclear power plants are expected to close anytime soon.
So when you think of life before these new Federal laws, if
they hadn't happened, what would the picture look at--look
like, Mr. Chairman, if you compare life before the
infrastructure law, the IRA, CHIPS and Science, where would we
be today?
Mr. Hanson. There are a lot of issues--I call it a series
of chicken-and-egg problems--associated with the deployment of
new nuclear. And certainly, the financing and the policy around
those can be one of them. And certainly, NRC regulation, I
recognize, is one, as well.
For us, as regulators, we see a renewed interest in the
continued operation of the existing fleet. So we are expecting
both subsequent license renewal applications as a result of the
law as well as power uprate applications, and then also
requests for evaluation of perhaps new fuel forms so that these
reactors can operate at potentially higher output levels, et
cetera, to take full advantage of that and deliver more clean
energy to the grid.
Ms. Castor. Commissioner Baran?
Mr. Baran. Yes, I think, in talking with our licensees, the
utilities, you really see an almost immediate transformation in
the way they were thinking about things. The price signals sent
by the legislation were really significant.
There were very few people talking about power uprates,
those kinds of investments in the plant to get more electricity
out of them, prior to the legislation. Now there is a lot of
talk about that.
There was talk, obviously, about subsequent license renewal
going from 60 to 80 at a lot of plants. Now it is, like, kind
of near universal. I mean, the whole value proposition has
changed enough that it was almost like a switch. I mean, you
could just see the effect of it.
When I was talking with Tennessee Valley Authority, you
know, not that long ago, they were talking about one small
modular reactor at the Clinch River site in Tennessee, then it
was four identical ones there, then it was four and maybe they
do four more at other sites if that goes well. So it is--it has
really ramped up the interest. I mean, there is a real surge in
interest now.
Ms. Castor. And Commissioner Wright?
Mr. Wright. I do not disagree with anything that my
colleagues have said.
I would also add that there is something else that could be
taken advantage of, and that is through--I believe it is NICA,
where you could use monies that are funded through DoE that
would come back to the Commission to help some of these small
vendors that are trying to get moving, because they don't have
deep pockets, right? And you could help identify issues that
are maybe barriers that could be solved early and that would--
you know, again, it would save money on the licensee--or the
applicant's part as well.
Ms. Castor. Great. Thank you very much.
I am out of time. I yield back.
Mr. Duncan. The gentlelady's time has expired. I will go to
Mrs. Lesko, who has the Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant in her
district.
You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yesterday we had a hearing here discussing--we discussed
grid reliability and all of the different concerns there are
from different Government organizations about grid reliability,
and that we are retiring baseload energy plants too fast and
replacing them with intermittent energy. And so I do believe
nuclear is part of the solution, so I thank you for your work
in making sure our nuclear plans and plants are safe. My
questions are for anyone that wants to weigh in.
My first question regards--says the NRC sends inspectors to
the nuclear plants to inspect machinery and for safeguards.
Nuclear plants like the one in Arizona have full-time
Government inspectors that stay on site. I have been told that,
in addition to these on-site inspectors, NRC sends out
additional inspectors that the nuclear plants pay for and that
these inspectors may be duplicating some of the work that the
on-site inspectors do.
In addition, I have been told that, during COVID, remote
technology was used to conduct--you know, sometimes used to
conduct the inspections.
And so my question is, do you think it would make sense to
better utilize the on-site inspectors and use remote technology
for some of the inspections?
Mr. Hanson. Yes, thank you, Congresswoman. We learned a lot
during COVID about how to better use technology, and everything
from laptops and, you know, iPads and this sort of thing to
help conduct inspections. I hope that there is not a lot of
duplication. I will dive into that for you and be happy to get
back to you about the duplication that our on-site resident
inspectors are conducting, and then our engineering inspectors.
We recently made a change at the Commission to reduce the
frequency of engineering inspections, actually, from 3 years to
4 years to kind of account for the reduced--I would say kind of
the reduced need to do a deep dive with some of these visiting
inspectors that you mentioned.
Mrs. Lesko. Yes, Ms. Caputo?
Ms. Caputo. Some of that virtual technology that resident
inspectors were able to use was to conduct routine monitoring
of plant parameters. And by, I think, making their time more
efficient, it frees them up to pursue other activities that are
more safety significant. So I believe there are probably
opportunities to do some of that and upskill our resident
inspectors so we rely less on regional inspectors and help our
residents to cover more ground. So I think there is room for
efficiency there.
But yes, all of these inspections are paid by licensees.
Mrs. Lesko. Yes. Anyone else?
Yes, Mr. Wright.
Mr. Wright. So this is an area that we really listen to our
residents. So when I go into plants--and I know my colleagues
do, as well--we meet with them. And one of the questions that
we ask them is, ``What is it that you are doing on site in your
inspections that you think could be done better or done
differently?'' Because they are the boots on the ground. They
need to be there, but they can also help us--you know, we
can't--from the top, that is not where we should be doing it.
Mrs. Lesko. Yes.
Mr. Wright. It needs to bubble up from the bottom, where
the boots are on the ground, so----
Mrs. Lesko. OK, great, thank you.
Oh, yes.
Mr. Baran. Sure. I would just add, you know, I think a lot
of the work that the resident inspectors do, and then the
regional inspection team, it is very complementary. You know,
the residents are there day to day, walking down the plant,
ensuring the safety day to day, you know, but then we have
specialized teams, maybe cybersecurity or a particular type of
engineering inspection. And those folks are real specialists in
those areas. And those--that is why we deploy the teams as
well.
But one of the things we learned--we learned a couple of
things, I think, during the COVID period. One, the value of
having boots on the ground and really seeing things firsthand,
that there is, you know, in-person inspection, the actual
inspection part of looking at equipment was really better than
remote. But there was stuff that we could do remotely. You
know, there was--there is a certain amount of--it is not
trivial, but, like, paperwork review, looking through the
licensing documents ahead to prepare the inspectors before they
go. That stuff we don't have to have the folks there on site
doing, and it saves time and money to have people do that back
at headquarters.
So I think there are lessons learned----
Mrs. Lesko. I am glad you are looking into this. I only
have a few seconds left.
The Nuclear Energy Institute has suggested the following
additions to your mission statement: ``Ensure that the
regulation of nuclear activities is efficient and does not
unnecessarily limit the potential of nuclear technology to
maximize its contribution to the benefit of society.'' Do you
agree with their recommendation, anyone?
Mr. Hanson. We have principles of good regulation, and
efficiency is one of those, along with openness, reliability,
independence, and clarity. And so every day we strive to live
up to our principles of good regulation, and efficiency is a
key one of those.
Mrs. Lesko. Yes, Mr. Wright.
Mr. Wright. I would just like to add, if we are going to
start talking about putting it in policy and we have got it in
our principles of good regulation, then it ought to be in the
other areas, too, to be consistent.
Mrs. Lesko. OK, thank you, and my time has run out. Thank
you, and I yield back.
Mr. Duncan. The gentlelady's time has expired. I now go to
Mr. Cardenas for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you very much, Chairman Duncan and
Ranking Member DeGette, for holding today's hearing. And I
appreciate the Chairman and Commissioners of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission for being here today and sharing your
thoughts.
As it stands, 79 percent of our electricity comes from
fossil fuels, making the power sector the second largest share
of greenhouse gas emissions nationwide. If we are going to be--
significantly cut carbon pollution, it is undeniable that we
will need to utilize carbon-free and reliable energy sources.
On the front end, nuclear seems like an ideal zero-carbon
electricity source, and I appreciate the committee's ongoing
discussion about its role in building out a clean energy
economy. However, as I have mentioned in previous hearings, I
have concerns about the legacy of toxic waste associated with
nuclear energy, and believe that to ensure the long-term health
and safety of communities, we must find more permanent storage
solutions.
As the commission overseeing the safety and licensing of
our Nation's nuclear reactors and interim storage facilities, I
am pleased to have the opportunity to speak with you about
these concerns today. Chairman Hanson, can you describe the
Federal standards and processes in place that ensure safety
when storing low-level and high-level waste in interim storage
facilities, and how are environmental impacts and community
input considered during the licensing process of interim
storage facilities?
Mr. Hanson. Yes. Thank you, Congressman, for that question.
We have standards for storage facilities, as you mentioned,
and they are focused on containing the radioactive material,
providing radiation shielding for the people who work around
those spent fuel canisters, preventing nuclear criticality, so
making sure that we have got the right kind of materials in
those casks that prevents a nuclear chain reaction, and also
maintaining retrievability. That is, if something goes in a
concrete cask, that you can pull that out again, should you--
should the need arise, essentially.
Post-Fukushima, we also required additional instrumentation
on spent fuel pools to maintain water levels. So we have got
a--and we have a robust inspection protocol for those spent
fuel storage systems as well.
Mr. Cardenas. So everything you just described somebody
can't get at a Container Store.
Mr. Hanson. I am sorry?
Mr. Cardenas. Somebody can't get what you just described at
a Container Store. These are very----
Mr. Hanson. No, no.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cardenas [continuing]. Specialized, highly engineered,
proven techniques, thank God, that we have available to us
today.
Mr. Hanson. Correct.
Mr. Cardenas. And that is part of the process of properly
storing spent fuels.
Mr. Hanson. Absolutely, highly engineered barriers.
Mr. Cardenas. OK, thank you. How long are interim storage
facilities intended to hold nuclear waste?
And how common is it for these facilities to hold nuclear
waste for longer than the agreed-upon time?
Mr. Hanson. Well, most of the spent fuel storage facilities
at operating reactors are licensed along with the reactor. So
it would be as long as that reactor has its operating license,
the spent fuel storage facility will as well. When that reactor
shuts down, there are some regulatory boxes to check there that
then transitions that to a standalone facility.
We license storage casks for an initial period of 40 years,
and then up to an additional 40 years.
Mr. Cardenas. But this spent fuel, these byproducts, they
are dangerous for 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, 50 years, 1,000
years? About how long?
Mr. Hanson. The initial fission products, the real heat off
of that, the heat declines really reasonably precipitously, the
thermal heat. But the radioactivity then, the high amounts,
probably 500-ish years, and then some of the long-lived
radioisotopes can be much longer than----
Mr. Cardenas. Five hundred years. So a lot longer than any
of us may be in Congress or you might be a Commissioner, right?
Mr. Hanson. I----
Mr. Cardenas. Multiple times longer.
Mr. Hanson. Yes, yes, sir.
Mr. Cardenas. OK. No, I just wanted to get--for the average
American to understand what we are talking about here. We are
not talking about, OK, storing things for 5 or 10 or 15, 20
years. We are talking about super-duper long term.
Mr. Hanson. Well, in the near term we can assure--we have
reasonable assurance that the systems that we use to store
spent fuel are safe and protective of the public.
Mr. Cardenas. But also, as a society, we need to make sure
that longer than tens of years--that there is a way to make
sure that people don't just say, ``Well, I am done, it has been
20, 30 years, we can just leave it alone and stop monitoring
it.'' And so this is a process that is--that takes--it is going
to be around for a long time.
Mr. Hanson. Yes, Congressman, you have identified a key
policy issue about the--about spent fuel storage and its
connection to ultimate disposal.
Mr. Cardenas. OK, thank you. My time expiring, I just
wanted to remind everybody that we really appreciate you very
much, and any recommendations you can make to us, we look
forward to it.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Duncan. The gentleman yields back. I will now go to Mr.
Pence from Indiana.
Mr. Pence. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
Commissioners for being here today.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is critical to deploying
innovative nuclear resources for our grid to provide zero-
emission baseload power, as my colleague next to me talked
about a minute ago.
I am encouraged that, under Chairman Duncan's leadership,
this committee can advance important reforms to streamline
licensing for nuclear assets and lay the groundwork to deploy
next-generation reactors.
In the Hoosier State, my State, innovators are leading the
way to power the next generation of nuclear energy. Purdue
University is a national leader in nuclear engineering programs
and home to the country's first and only fully digitalized
nuclear reactor used to train students and research cyber-
physical protection. Recently, the university released a
completed feasibility study with Duke Energy to bring a small
modular reactor to power their campus.
Similarly, Rolls-Royce, with facilities in Indianapolis, is
advancing their designs for transportable small modular
reactors to provide 470 megawatts of baseload power.
Chairman Hanson, SMRs have been defined as generating 300
megawatts of power or less. Rolls-Royce has developed an
innovative design that produces 470. Given these innovative
designs, how do you view SMRs above the 300-megawatt threshold?
Mr. Hanson. Thank you, Congressman. I don't think that
there is anything particularly magical about the 300-megawatt
threshold, and a lot of the safety issues, I think, would be
very similar between 300 megawatts and 470. So it--from a
regulatory standpoint, there shouldn't be any additional--you
know, depending on the design and a lot of other things being
equal----
Mr. Pence. Yes, super.
Mr. Hanson [continuing]. Should be relatively
straightforward.
Mr. Pence. So do designs such as those from Rolls-Royce
present different challenges from a licensing perspective?
Mr. Hanson. I would have to understand a little bit more
about the specifics. It can, but oftentimes--and we encourage
this--with preapplication engagements, where people are coming
to us and talking about maybe the unique aspects of their
design and getting kind of a presign-off, we can sign off on
that stuff in advance of them getting that application in. That
often works very well to resolve those issues.
Mr. Pence. I think your colleague would like to comment on
this as well.
Ms. Caputo. One difference I would like to point out is
indemnification under the Price-Anderson Act. I believe the
threshold is 300 megawatts. So the insurance required and the
participation under that indemnification framework would
probably be slightly different for the reactor at 470, because
it would be treated more akin to the larger operating units
that exist today. So below that 300-megawatt threshold, small
modular reactors operate under a different price structure.
Mr. Pence. OK, thank you. Kind of changing horses here a
little bit, last month Purdue University and Duke Energy's
feasibility study included important policy recommendations to
advance nuclear energy for our State and Nation. As part of
their findings, the report detailed the need for a highly
skilled workforce to design, build, and operate the fleet of
next-generation reactors. And all of you talked about training
and hiring and looking forward with personnel.
To help maintain and build this workforce, the NRC has
supported critical nuclear science and engineering initiatives
through the University Leadership Program. However, the NRC's
fiscal year 2024 budget request did not include any funding for
this program, which I hope is corrected and is included in some
way.
What gaps, Chairman, do you see in the current workforce
for next-generation reactors, and could the University
Leadership Program be helpful to meet these needs?
Mr. Hanson. Thank you, Congressman. The University Nuclear
Leadership Program is already helping meet these needs.
We are getting graduates out of these programs with
expertise in material science, nuclear engineering, fuels, et
cetera. It has been a real asset----
Mr. Pence. Sure. Is the program robust enough?
Mr. Hanson. It is. I believe it is robust enough, and----
Mr. Pence. It is providing you a lot of options?
Mr. Hanson. It is. Because we are both funding research
activities at places like Purdue and other big programs, but
also then we are just funding fellowships and scholarships for
students, as well, but just academic support.
Mr. Pence. OK. How can the NRC leverage expertise of
leading universities like Purdue to meet the challenges posed
by SMRs, in particular, and other transportable reactors of the
future?
Anyone? With 15 seconds left.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hanson. I think universities play a really important
role, in part by building some of these new, innovative designs
at a small scale. So Abilene Christian, University of Illinois,
Purdue, et cetera, I think, have a real----
Mr. Pence. So there will probably be something in the
budget as we go forward, then, I would assume. Thank you.
Mr. Hanson. Thank you.
Mr. Pence. I am out of time, and I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Duncan. I thank the gentleman. And she has been
patiently waiting, so I will go to Texas, the Lone Star State,
to Mrs. Fletcher for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Fletcher. I was waiting for that Lone Star State.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to Ranking Member
DeGette for having this hearing. Thank you to the Chairman and
all the Commissioners for being here and spending your time
with us this morning.
I think we have seen from today's hearing that there is
wide, bipartisan agreement that nuclear energy plays an
essential role in our system of generating reliable, carbon-
free baseload power. And advances in next-generation nuclear
technologies, including SMRs that we were just talking about
and have talked about a lot today, offer real potential
advancements that could increase efficiency, can improve cost,
safety, and versatility for our electric grid. These are very
important issues to those of us in Texas, and something that we
are working on, not surprisingly, as well.
Chairman Duncan mentioned in his opening that NEIMA
required NRC to create a new regulatory framework for advanced
nuclear reactors to speed up the development of next-generation
technology. And as Ranking Member DeGette noted, we have heard
from a lot of stakeholders, especially at our hearing in April,
that the proposed rule is overly complicated, that it needs to
change to provide functionality and really to make it possible
for this advanced nuclear reactor sector to grow.
So as I said, Mr. Pence was just asking about SMRs, and,
really, they have a great potential to lower emissions in a
variety of industries. And that is something that we are
focused on, which I expect my colleague Mr. Weber, who
represents the Texas Gulf Coast, may mention next. But I want
to raise that X-energy, in partnership with Dow Chemical,
recently announced that they would be deploying first grid-
scale advanced reactor at a site along the Texas Gulf Coast.
The project, once deployed, could open a new frontier for
advanced nuclear applications in the industrial sector,
creating an effective pathway to help energy-intensive
industries lower their carbon emissions while at the same time
providing reliable power to support our domestic supply chains.
While many of these reactors in development haven't shared
if they plan to use part 53, it is important that the NRC issue
a rule that allows these innovative technologies to be
developed. And as we have discussed, I think some of the
considerations that Congress intended in NEIMA don't seem to be
included in this rule to develop a technology-inclusive
regulatory framework that is risk-informed and performance-
based.
So like I said, we have heard from a variety of
stakeholders. I would love to get your input on part 53. And
maybe, if each of you could share your thoughts. As the NRC
continues to revise the proposed rule, how can a risk-informed
approach be better incorporated to recognize risk significance
when it comes to advanced nuclear technology?
And Chairman Hanson, I would love to start with you and
then just go down the line.
Mr. Hanson. Thank you. The staff did tee up, I think, a
number of key policy issues about part 53: whether or not there
should be one framework or two; the appropriate role of as-low-
as-reasonably-achievable; the role of risk assessment and
probabilistic risk assessments; and the role of the design. And
along with my colleagues, I think our staffs are meeting on a
weekly basis to basically work our way through these policy
issues, understand the entire picture of what that rule should
look like, and, I think, to achieve some potential
simplification on that.
I think we are all sensitive to the concern that folks
perceive it to be complicated, et cetera. So we are diving into
that, trying to understand the technical basis for that, and
then diving into what our options might be around that to have
something that is technology-inclusive, risk-informed, et
cetera.
Mrs. Fletcher. Great. Thanks.
Mr. Baran. It is hard to add much to that. I mean, I agree
with everything that the Chair said.
I guess I would just say I think we are all focused on
getting the substance of the rule right. You know, there is a
lot to digest. We are digesting it, we are talking about it,
our staffs are looking at it. I think we have identified the
key issues, some of which the Chair just talked about. And we
want to make sure, in the end, at least speaking for myself,
that we have an efficient and effective framework. And so that
is the goal. And there is some more work still to do there.
And then, you know, not to take us off part 53, there are
other pieces we have got to get in place, too, for the whole
overall framework.
Mrs. Fletcher. Great, thank you.
Commissioner Wright?
Mr. Wright. Thank you so much.
Mrs. Fletcher. Anything to add?
Mr. Wright. First off, it has got to be used and useful,
right, for the people that are going to use it. And we have
heard from stakeholders out there that they haven't been
listened to. I can tell you that is one of the things that we
are doing. My team, my staff is--we are talking to everybody
who said they weren't paid attention to. So we want to hear
from them and see if they are--and if they have got suggestions
that make sense, we are going to put it in. We are going to
talk about it.
Mrs. Fletcher. Great, thanks.
And I just have a few seconds left, Commissioner Caputo.
Ms. Caputo. I agree with most of what has been said. I
think I also agree with a comment made earlier. I am a bit
struggling with the nature of the staff having sent us a draft
proposed rule that the vast majority of the industry considers
unworkable.
So what I have done is tasked my reactor aide with
proceeding through the rule on a line-by-line basis to ensure
that we can--that at least the vote that I cast is the best
framework possible to be issued as a proposed rule and that we
are sending something forward that will meet the intent of
NEIMA and be workable and even beneficial over the existing
frameworks.
Mrs. Fletcher. OK, and Commissioner Crowell, in 2 seconds,
I am way over time.
Mr. Crowell. I will be very----
Mrs. Fletcher. Or you can add it for the record.
Mr. Crowell. I will add it for the record.
Mrs. Fletcher. Wonderful, that would be great.
Mr. Crowell. I generally agree with my colleagues that----
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you so much, and I yield back.
Mr. Duncan. You are welcome, thank you. And I will now go
to Mr. Weber, also from Texas.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, and I appreciate you all being here.
I had the South Texas Nuclear Project in my--when I was in
the State legislature, and we got to go there in 2010 and watch
them change out spent fuel rods. It is absolutely fascinating.
They can do it cleanly, they can do it safely.
Do you all have a periodic schedule, where you go to the
different plants and watch those kinds of activities?
Mr. Chairman, I will start with you.
Mr. Hanson. Oh, yes, absolutely. I am headed out to the
Midwest next week to go to LaSalle and to the new medical
isotope facility in Wisconsin. I was in California a couple of
weeks ago, so I try to hit as many as I can.
Mr. Weber. Do all the Commissioners have a similar format
of checking, you know, seeing that process take place? You all
do?
Mr. Wright. I am going to add a little bit more to it. I
actually go and spend a day, what I call an inspector for a
day. I go and spend a whole day with the resident inspectors
doing the walk downs and doing what they do.
Mr. Weber. OK. Well, if you come to South Texas Nuclear
Plant, they have alligators in their water pond, cooling pond,
and they taste like chicken. Just so you know.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Wright. I was going to say they taste like chicken.
Mr. Weber. Yes, sure.
Ma'am?
Ms. Caputo. South Texas is one of the plants that I have
seen. And yes, it is a very impressive facility.
I think one of the things that gives me a little pause
going forward is the Commission budget has operated at the same
level since 2014, with the exception of a couple of years. So I
think we are getting to a point where there are potentially
some constraints on staffing and perhaps travel.
Mr. Weber. OK.
Ms. Caputo. So I think we are trying to work our way
through that.
Mr. Weber. Commissioner?
Mr. Crowell. I would just say it is, you know, it is an
incredibly important part of the role as a Commissioner, is to
visit sites that we regulate, not just for the benefit of the
site but also so you can be an ambassador for--and reassuring
the public about the safety case at the NRC, be it at a
particular site or anywhere in the country.
Mr. Weber. Yes.
Commissioner, did we skip you?
Mr. Baran. Yes. No, I have been to about, I think, about
maybe 40 of the operating sites at this point.
Mr. Weber. OK.
Mr. Baran. And I learn a lot every time, and it is very
valuable.
Mr. Weber. To my colleague that said that he was concerned
about waste being handled safely, they had a video that showed
them with a really super-big steel container that they put
waste in. They put it on the flatbed of a railcar, chained it
all down, and then they rammed it into a concrete barrier at 60
miles an hour. And of course, the chains break, and the
container goes spinning off, but it doesn't fail.
And so, if we could somehow get that word out to the
American public that we can handle waste cleanly and safely--
have any of you all been to--I am sure you know about Andrews
County, Texas, Waste Control Specialists, low-level, and--have
any of you all been there?
Mr. Crowell. I was just there last week, and I think they
do an admirable job and could do more.
And I do agree with your point that the--I don't think the
public appreciates the robustness of waste packaging and
transport, and it is really--it is impressive, it is world
class.
Mr. Weber. Yes. So how do we get that--how do we get a
high-level waste facility like that? That is up to us, isn't
it? Yes. Well, what we ought to do is aim at someplace in
Nevada, in the mountains. See how that works for us.
So, Winter Storm Uri 2 years ago February, the water
cooling system on South Texas Nuclear Project, one of them,
failed. Now, we have unit 1 and unit 2. When I was in the
statehouse, they used to brag that unit 1 produced more
electricity than--for households than any other unit in the
country, and unit 2 was number 3. I don't know who it snuck in
there between us, because in Texas we like being in the lead.
They produce household electricity.
So did you all get to see the setup? Have you been--you
have been there to Waste Control, especially. Have you been to
South Texas lately? Did I miss that? Who has been there the
most lately?
Has anybody been in South Texas nuclear project?
You have. When was that?
Ms. Caputo. I think it was shortly before that storm.
Mr. Weber. Winter Storm Uri in February.
Ms. Caputo. Yes.
Mr. Weber. Two years ago. Anybody else?
Ms. Caputo. But I was able, having been there, to talk with
folks from the plant about the nature of what caused that one
outage to go down.
Mr. Weber. Right.
Ms. Caputo. Because both of those plants are more or less,
you know, required to be prepared and protect against extreme
weather events. And as it turns out, I think it was a 6-foot
piece of insulation that had not been put back after some
recent work.
Mr. Weber. Right.
Ms. Caputo. So it was an oversight on--in terms of not
following procedures.
Mr. Weber. Right.
Ms. Caputo. But----
Mr. Weber. Funny how that happens.
Ms. Caputo [continuing]. Otherwise, they were in good
shape.
Mr. Weber. Just take the--50 percent of the capacity. They
got 18 degrees on the Gulf Coast of Texas. I have grown up in a
20-mile radius, 70 years. I have never seen 18 degrees on
Galveston Island. Have you all been to Galveston Island?
We do want you to come down there and spend lots of money.
But thank you all for what you do. I just want to make sure
that you all are watching and paying attention and getting out
there in the field because there's a lot of jobs involved.
There is a lot of energy and electricity involved in it. So I
just--I appreciate what you all do. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Duncan. The gentleman yields back. We will stay in
Texas, go to Mr. Veasey for 5 minutes.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you very much. I want to thank Chairman
Hanson and the Commissioners for coming here today.
Nuclear technology has been in use for decades now in the
U.S., and it still produces about a fifth of U.S. electricity
with little or no carbon emissions. We use it in Texas on
ERCOT, and it has been a good, reliable source of energy for a
lot of Texans.
And from Germany to California, places planning to retire
their reactors have now really started to have second thoughts
on that. I know as Germany, in particular, they are burning a
record amount of coal because of--partly because of Ukraine's
unlawful invasion of--Russia's unlawful invasion of Ukraine.
And as you know, we in Texas are in similar situation where the
Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant is currently seeking
relicensing just outside of my district there in Johnson
County.
And it is just not the relicensing of existing plants. The
Department of Energy released a report in March that estimated
U.S. domestic nuclear capacity has the potential to scale from
approximately 100 gigawatts in 2023 to about 300 gigawatts in--
by 2050, driven by deployment of advanced nuclear technologies.
One of these new technologies is being led by Natura
Resources and sponsored at Abilene Christian University, which
I have had really great interaction with that group from
Abilene Christian there to my west. And I know that potential
new additions of safe, reliable, affordable, and clean nuclear
power like those being developed and demonstrated at places
like Abilene Christian are going to be essential to U.S.
security, U.S. energy security, and the deployment of new
advanced reactor technology that is going to be crucial for us
to be able to compete with Russia and China in the global
nuclear industry. For new nuclear technology to get us to these
goals, these reactors need to be licensed at a quick pace by
NRC at scale.
And my question is that I understand last week Commissioner
Baran submitted a memo to the Chair and colleagues calling for
the development of a policy statement on effectiveness and
efficiency for new reactor reviews. I would like to know from
each of the Commissioners and the Chairman, do you support
Commission action to address the elements outlined in
Commissioner Baran's memo?
And what--and where do you think current efforts may need
redoubling to meet the expectations ahead?
Mr. Hanson. Thank you, Congressman. I certainly support the
objectives of Commissioner Baran's memo.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you.
Mr. Baran. Well, having authored the memo, I would just say
I look forward to my colleagues' thoughts about it, their ideas
and suggestions, and I wanted to get the conversation started.
Mr. Wright. So, yes, I spoke with Commissioner Baran about
it on Friday, I believe it was when he brought it to us. But I
am also working with my colleague, Commissioner Caputo, on
another approach, as well, that brings some urgency to the
situation as well.
Ms. Caputo. I am thrilled to see him interested in timely
licensing, and I fully expect to vote yes on the process.
My concern is that, by the time a policy statement goes
through notice and comment, it could be quite some time before
it is in place, perhaps as long as 3 years or more. So I think
a very important complement to his memorandum would be the one
that Commissioner Wright and I are working on to try and put
metrics in place in the near term.
Mr. Crowell. I think Commissioner Baran's proposal is both
timely and appropriate, and I do support it.
Mr. Veasey. Yes, thank you very much. So what additional
support does the NRC need from Congress to aid the effective
and efficient review of advanced reactor technologies? And
anyone can answer that.
Mr. Hanson. Congressman, I guess I would kind of focus on
two things.
One is just additional hiring authorities so we have got
that flexibility in the way we bring people on. It is not to
say that we need a lot more people, necessarily. I have--I
think I have been pretty consistent in saying that we both need
to bring new people into the agency and also change the way we
work.
And I guess the other thing, then, is that some off-fee
money, where we don't--we are not relying on folks to come to
us with a specific product in order to get up to speed on some
of these reactors and some of the technologies and the novel
approaches that people are using.
I would kind of maybe focus on those two things to start.
Ms. Caputo. As I mentioned earlier, I think Congress giving
us statutory relief or discretion, at least, in the conduct of
mandatory hearings, I think, would be very helpful.
I think certain amount of discretion with regard to the
reviews that are conducted by our advisory committee on reactor
safeguards would also create some efficiencies.
And beyond that, there is a question about whether
companies that manufacture microreactors or even small reactors
have the authority to manufacture fully and do some limited
testing before shipping to the end user. So there might be a
benefit to creating some clarity in that area to enable reactor
manufacturers to do limited testing in-house before shipping to
the final user.
Mr. Veasey. Yes, thank you very much. My time is expired.
Mr. Duncan. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. I will
go to Mr. Palmer from Alabama for 5 minutes.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Nuclear energy has the potential to transform our energy
production. We need affordable energy, but we also need clean
energy, but we desperately need reliable energy. And I think
nuclear energy can provide that.
And one of the things that I try to point out to people,
particularly with next-generation nuclear, you could site one
next-gen nuclear facility on 640 acres of land to generate the
same amount of power--or to have the same power generation from
a wind farm would take 77,000 acres. That doesn't even take
into account the enormous impact that it will have in terms of
mining and the extraction of the various elements and
components that you have to have to even begin to think about
building a wind or solar farm.
So Commissioner Caputo, today the NRC--and it is along the
lines of what you were just talking about, I think--requires an
environmental impact statement for every new reactor, even for
reactors that are 1/100th or 1/1,000th the size of traditional
reactors. Now, that seems like that is overly burdensome.
So would--and I guess I would direct this to all of you. Do
you commit to supporting changes to the NRC's regulations to
allow the use of different types of environmental review, such
as environmental assessments or categorical exclusions based on
the actual environmental impact of a reactor?
Ms. Caputo. Without seeing specifics or a specific
proposal, I would generally look favorably on those types of
activities----
Mr. Palmer. OK----
Ms. Caputo [continuing]. To streamline our environmental
reviews. These reviews are--given that licensing is a major
Federal action subject to NEPA. But within the bound of our
authorities under NEPA, I would be interested in those kinds of
proposals.
Mr. Palmer. Well, in your testimony you mentioned the
importance of agency innovating with an eye to the future.
Ms. Caputo. Yes, sir.
Mr. Palmer. And this is where I am on this, is looking at--
and I know it has been mentioned by a couple of my colleagues
who have already raised this point about the fact that next-gen
nuclear can recycle spent fuel rods. You can recover 96 percent
of the recoverable usable material, and what is left can be
used for other purposes. For instance, nuclear medicine.
One of the things that I want to point out, we had a
hearing in here and we had the director of the national nuclear
laboratory. And I asked, if we went in this direction,
considering that there's 39 States where we have--we are--we
have spent nuclear fuel in storage, I asked had he run the
calculations to determine how long we could operate our--power
our country with the spent fuel rod, spent fuel. And he said
that he had actually run the numbers.
Do any of you have a--hazard a guess how long we could do
that?
Ms. Caputo. I think it is pretty hard to put a number on
it. It depends on the type of reactor, as well. The numbers
that you are using, 96 percent, 96 percent of it is reusable.
But of that 96, there's only a couple percent that actually
generates fuel----
Mr. Palmer. Right.
Ms. Caputo [continuing]. In a conventional reactor. So it
actually has to be topped up with a little bit of fresh.
But advanced reactors or fast reactors are able to harness
the energy in the rest of the 96, and to even perhaps get rid
of some of that 4 percent. So there is a higher efficiency. It
would take a significant number of fast reactors to work
through the spent fuel that we have currently, but that
opportunity, I think, is there to work that off over a long
period of time.
Mr. Palmer. His response was he thought it would last 100
years, which--I think that is part of what we need to take into
account.
And your point, too, you would have to have additional
fresh fuel into the mix to make this work properly. But the
point is that we can build these. They will have an operational
life cycle of a minimum 40 years and could operate much longer
than that. And they operate 24/7, providing reliable fuel. And
they are only shut down when you are doing maintenance on a
reactor.
Ms. Caputo. If this was Dr. Gehin from Idaho National Lab,
he might have talked about technologies that Idaho National Lab
pioneered, which actually, through using a fast reactor, would
consume most of the long-lived products in the fuel, generating
a waste product which would decay below the level of natural
uranium over a span of about 400 years. So the life span of the
waste product itself that would come at the end of that process
would be much, much shorter lived than what we currently face.
Mr. Palmer. Yes.
Well, Mr. Chairman, my time is expired. I yield back.
Mr. Duncan. I thank the gentleman. I now go to Mr. Sarbanes
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
all.
Chairman Hanson, I just wondered, before I get to my main
question, if you could speak, if you are able to, to the safety
activities that NRC has undertaken recently in Maryland around
the safety of the Calvert Cliffs plant, and I would just be
curious how that is going, in your view.
Mr. Hanson. Congressman, I am sorry, I don't have a lot of
the details in front of me on the specifics on Calvert Cliffs.
I am happy to get back to you.
Mr. Sarbanes. That would be great.
Mr. Hanson. Or reach out to your office.
Mr. Sarbanes. I appreciate it very much.
Mr. Hanson. Yes.
Mr. Sarbanes. So we have had a lot of discussion of the
part 53 draft, and there's some concerns about the input and so
forth that has happened around that. Could you just, for my
benefit, because I think it has been assumed a lot in the
conversation, describe what the--I think it is two frameworks
are that are contained within the draft, A and B? What are
they? What are the differences between the two? What are the
implications of that for the process, going forward?
Mr. Hanson. Yes, I would be happy to. I will--and I will do
it as briefly as I can.
Mr. Sarbanes. Great, yes.
Mr. Hanson. Framework A is based on--the industry developed
what they call the Licensing Modernization Project, which is
really where risk information takes kind of a leading role. You
have got--you know, if you are a vendor, you have got a
sufficient information about your design, you can conduct those
risk analyses to identify the most safety significant aspects,
and then present those to the NRC.
In framework B it is a more traditional approach, like what
we have in 50 and 52, but with a lot of the light-water-
reactor-specific elements kind of stripped out. It is more
deterministic. It recognizes that, you know, maybe you don't
have that super-detailed design or you don't have a lot of that
extra scientific information, so we are going to build some
extra either operational requirements or physical envelope
around that reactor to ensure safety.
There is a third little piece of that. It is kind of
framework B light, which is really for microreactors, as well,
in there.
Mr. Sarbanes. OK. And can you describe where you think,
ultimately, to the extent you can, this whole new frontier
around advanced reactors is taking us?
What is the portfolio going to look like between the more
kind of traditional approach that we have seen in terms of
nuclear capacity and the space that will now be occupied? And I
assume it will be a growing space occupied by these advanced
reactors. What does that look like, assuming, you know, all the
regulations go the way they should, or you hope they do, and
the trajectory rolls out over the next few years--10, 15, 20
years?
If you could look forward, what does the broad portfolio
look like in terms of the relative, you know, participation of
those two things?
Mr. Hanson. Yes, with the caveat that predicting the future
is hard, as Yogi Berra said, I would say that we are likely to
have a kind of a broad portfolio of different--of very
different technologies--so a pressurized water reactor, a
boiling water reactor, a high-temperature gas reactor, molten
salt, et cetera, and then standardized designs in each of those
fields that allows for kind of broader deployment.
What we have in the--in this country right now with the
initial fleet was we have a lot of pressurized water reactors,
we have a lot of boiling water reactors, and every one of them
is a little bit different, either in the aspects of the design
or on the secondary side--the secondary side being, really, the
electricity generation side.
So I would see a real move to standardization, and that----
Mr. Sarbanes. Right.
Mr. Hanson. That, I think, makes the regulatory process
substantially easier and more efficient as well.
Mr. Sarbanes. OK. One other question: How does our progress
in this regard compare to what is happening with peer nations
around the globe? Do you see us moving in a way that
demonstrates leadership here? Just describe the larger
ecosystem in which you operate.
Mr. Hanson. I think we do have some leadership,
particularly in our partnership with Canada and the UK. I think
the three of us are moving very closely together, deploying and
evaluating similar kinds of technology.
I think other countries are coming along, other allies--
France, Korea, Japan, et cetera. They are taking their time a
little bit more and certainly engaging in some technology
development efforts, but maybe are a little bit behind that.
But I would say that the U.S. and these three key nations are
in a leading role.
Mr. Sarbanes. Great. Thanks very much.
I yield back.
Mr. Duncan. I thank the gentleman. And I will now go to the
Bluegrass State, Mr. Guthrie, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, I appreciate that, for recognizing
the Bluegrass State. We are also an energy State, and so I
wanted to ask a couple of questions--one for Commissioner
Caputo and, Commissioner Wright, if you would add as well.
So power providers in my district, you know, we are famous
for coal, Kentucky has been,--Kentucky coal. They have started
establishing nuclear energy generation. We are interested in--
and now that there is some switching to--or making some
changes.
But we are being quoted at--our providers--a 10-year
timeline to get reactors online, including, like, small modular
reactors.
So, Commissioner Caputo, do you have any suggestions for
cutting down the time it takes to get a new reactor online
without compromising public safety? And it would be helpful if
you could outline some of the key steps in the licensing
process.
And then, Commissioner Wright, if you would add to that, as
well----
Ms. Caputo. Sure.
Mr. Guthrie [continuing]. It would be helpful.
Ms. Caputo. One of the comments that staff and the
Commission make prolifically is we really need to see complete,
high-quality applications. To the extent that a licensee really
strikes a balance between ensuring that we have all the
information that we know, and that there is enough information
for us to reach decisions, I think, is an important way to
start.
We also encourage preapplication engagement to more or
less--particularly with novel technologies--acquaint us with
the nature of what is going to be in the application when it
comes forward and ensure that the design is well developed.
This, I think, is a process that can be very beneficial. I
think, in the case of the NuScale review that was mentioned
earlier, this preapplication phase went on for 8 years. So I
think it is incumbent upon us to ensure that the preapplication
engagement that is going on is efficient and effective, but
also on the applicant to ensure that they are well developed.
From there we go into a review process, which, while we are
aspiring to achieve 24 months, this would be a new mark for us.
And so I think, once again, it is incumbent upon us to ensure
that whichever process or whichever framework a licensee
chooses, that the staff is operating with a sense of urgency,
limiting any requests for additional information to the actual
safety findings that need to be made, not just questions based
on curiosity about furthering their understanding of a design,
that we limit the nature of the work that we are doing to
actually making a decision based on safety.
Mr. Guthrie. Thanks.
And Commissioner Wright, anything to add to that?
Mr. Wright. Well, it is very important that, on our side,
that we stay within that safety strike zone over home plate,
that we don't go beyond reasonable assurance. Once it is
established, it is established.
I mean, there's some reviews that have to take place: aging
management, you know, certain structures, components, safety
systems, all that kind of stuff, and siting. There's ways that
we have to do certain things. But early engagement is critical.
And all of this, the more we get done ahead of time and the
more we get to resolution, the quicker it happens.
Mr. Guthrie. OK, thank you.
And Chairman Hanson, you know, as I talked about us being a
leading energy State, particularly in coal production, we have
a lot of coal-fired plants, power generation. Some are
transitioning. And so one of the--some of my folks in my area
are talking about transitioning our coal power to particularly
small nuclear, small modular reactors or to nuclear plants.
Could you talk about some of the barriers in the NRC licensing
process to converting old coal-fired plants into nuclear power
plants?
Mr. Hanson. Congressman, thank you. I am not sure I am
aware of specific barriers. If you have got a site that has
some infrastructure on it and is, you know, reasonably well
characterized, I would expect that the environmental review and
some other things can be actually more efficient than if you
were doing something on a greenfield site. So I am not aware of
specific barriers on that.
Mr. Guthrie. So they are not treated different, a
greenfield site and an existing power plant wouldn't be treated
differently. It is--whatever the application is--and the safety
that we talked--the steps we talked about is what is----
Mr. Hanson. Yes.
Mr. Guthrie [continuing]. Important. OK. Thanks for that.
So Commissioner Caputo, you highlighted the importance of
staff leaders who can innovate and cultivate a workforce and
culture striving to ensure the mission of the NRC is carried
out. What is the role of the Commission and the role of
Congress to support this effort?
And any other Commissioners could add in. So what is the
role of yourself and ourselves to make sure you have the
workforce you need?
Ms. Caputo. I think part of it rests with the Commission in
terms of the leaders within the agency that the Commission is
responsible for selecting. But then, below that, I think it is
incumbent upon the senior leaders in the agency to cultivate
mid-career folks and give them, I think, particular leadership
training to prepare them to move into senior roles.
Mr. Guthrie. OK. Anybody else? I have a couple of seconds.
Commissioner Crowell?
Mr. Crowell. This is an incredibly competitive field right
now, and so it is difficult for a Government agency to
necessarily compete with the private sector for a limited pool
of high-quality candidates.
That being said, the mission of the NRC and the relevance
of it to our--to, you know, solving contemporary issues today,
I think, should be a draw for particularly a younger set of
students.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. And sorry, my interest here is
absolutely here. I just want to say that there is another
committee going on, as well, and I have to go back to that. So
thank you for your time and effort.
Thank you.
Mr. Duncan. I thank the gentleman. And as an honorary
Texan, I start to realize how many Texans we have on this
committee. I will go to one now. Mr. Pfluger is recognized.
Mr. Pfluger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
holding this hearing in the, you know, the spirit of energy
security.
And the ability to have affordable, reliable, dispatchable
power is so important for us. And I will use an example. We
recently took a trip where we looked at the ability of our
European partners to have affordable, reliable energy, and they
are split. You know, the further west you get, with the
exception of France, they are turning away from nuclear power.
The further east you get, closer to Ukraine, closer to the
reality that geopolitically countries like Russia, Vladimir
Putin, have used energy as leverage in conflict. The Czech
Republic, Poland, and these types of countries are completely
turning towards nuclear because they understand it.
And you know, my concern--by the way, let me give a shout
out to Abilene Christian University. The research that they are
doing is just phenomenal. I am not too far away from them--
although not in my district, 90 miles south, is my hometown,
and I am very proud of the work that they are doing.
I am worried about keeping up with technology. And
Commissioner Caputo, you put it very nicely, and you stated
some hurdles that we have, and the emerging technologies and
the ability for the NRC to keep up with those technologies.
Do you think we are up for the challenge? Are we going to
meet the speed of relevancy to compete worldwide?
Ms. Caputo. I think, with increased innovation in our
procedures and processes, with strong leadership and
benchmarking and metrics to track our progress, I think those
are key tools to doing exactly what you have asked.
I think the expectations that Congress has put on us are
very important. I certainly feel a sense of urgency for meeting
that. I think one of the most compelling numbers that I have
seen lately was just this week, where China and Russia together
comprise 70 percent of the new reactor business happening in
the world, and I think that is a very sobering statistic. And a
lot of the attractiveness for doing business with those
countries lies outside the regulatory realm and in financing,
et cetera.
So our piece of helping America be competitive strongly
rests in safety, solely rests in safety. But the more we can do
to create timely reviews and ensure that the world can see that
the technologies we have have been approved by the regulator
and put into operation, I think, builds confidence in countries
that would do business with us that we really do have the best
options in terms of technology and that they are proven by
construction and operation here in the U.S.
Mr. Pfluger. Well, I couldn't agree with you more. We need
to export our technology, and we do it better, we do it more
efficient. We just know this better than anybody else. And you
do play a very important--not the entire role, but a very
important role in this, and this committee under Chairwoman
Rodgers' leadership is going to tackle the rest of those issues
that are preventing us from delivering it here and having that
affordable, reliable baseload power, but also getting it to our
allies and partners like Poland, like the Czech Republic, like
people who are right next to conflict zones or who know this
business.
Commissioner Crowell, you mentioned something that has me
very concerned about the waste management site, WCS, doing more
in Andrews County. And actually, I disagree with that. And I
heard discussions about safety, and I have heard discussions
about stakeholders.
And Chairman Hanson, I am going to ask you a question here
in a second, but I don't think that the process that we went
through in Andrews County actually took into account
stakeholder community interaction to the degree that it should
have.
We have low-level waste that has been there for a while,
but the community there--and the fact that we have the most
prolific oil and gas production region in the entire country,
probably in the world, I think, deserves a permanent solution.
We don't need an interim solution. And I know this committee
has been asked about that here.
Chairman Hanson, do we have a permanent solution in mind?
Because that part of the world, we have to be very careful
about where we are putting high-level nuclear waste. And I
personally am not in agreement with doing more, as was
suggested. We need a permanent solution.
Mr. Hanson. Yes. Thank you, Congressman. I certainly
understand the concern of communities who may be hosting
interim storage facilities about those being de facto permanent
facilities. And so part of the overall policy need in the U.S.
and for Congress and other parts of the executive branch is to
formulate that policy, that permanent solution that then the
NRC can come in and evaluate the safety merits of that
particular solution.
Mr. Pfluger. We would like to see that. It is very
important to my district. It is very important to that area of
Texas, that--the State of Texas has spoken loud and clear about
its view on not having that as a permanent site. And a 99-year
lease is not interim, in my opinion. That is very much a
permanent thing.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Duncan. I appreciate the gentleman. I now go to Mr.
Fulcher from Idaho.
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And to the committee, this has been an educational hearing
for me. And something kind of impressed me a few minutes ago.
And I looked up the mission statement that you operate on, and
I am abbreviating, but basically it says to license, to
regulate, to protect public health and safety. There is nothing
in there about--anything about efficient development or use.
Mr. Hanson, you said a few minutes ago it is part of your
principles. It is not part of your mission. So if I got to ask
a question, is any kind of efficiency or development important
to you? Is that part of what you do? And if so, give me an
example.
Mr. Hanson. Yes, it really is. I mean, we--you know, on
offices all over the building we have posted our principles of
good regulation, and not only what the words are, but what they
mean underneath. I think a good example of efficiency is the
Kairos construction permit that we just issued--that we are
issuing today, the safety evaluation on that. We did that 3
months ahead of schedule. We were able to track our progress on
that and identify and resolve the safety-relevant issues very
efficiently.
Mr. Fulcher. OK. So in my State of Idaho, we have got the
Idaho National Lab. Ms. Caputo, I understand you spent some
time, or you worked there at some point in time. In discussions
with them and stakeholders, there was three suggestions that
were brought forth that we attempt to try to promote, and I
will just summarize them. I can go into detail if you like, but
you will probably recognize them all.
Number one is the removal of mandatory, uncontested--the
mandatory, uncontested hearing requirement, which believes--
they believe would save up to about 6 months.
Number two would be removal of a contested hearing on
environmental topics. The specific one has to do with the NEPA
review, which turns into a series of lawsuits, lawsuits,
lawsuits, the analyze-paralyze point of things, or at least
restructure that so that the contested hearing on the
environmental is at least different. But that is the second
recommendation.
And I am going to ask Ms. Caputo to comment on this, and
then the Chairman or anybody else afterwards, as well. But Ms.
Caputo, because of your connection with INL.
The third one was simplify the contested hearing process,
which currently, as described by the AEA, goes into great
detail, and potentially the restructure to where it was more
like a legislative hearing process than its current structure.
Those are the things which, quite frankly, doesn't do a lot
of--change the responsibility of your Commission, as I
understand it. This is all stuff that can be done, process-
wise.
Could I ask you, Ms. Caputo, what do you think of those
recommendations? Are they good, are they not? And if so, why or
why not?
Ms. Caputo. Well, I definitely agree with the first one. I
think the devil is in the details on the second two. I think
there is probably opportunity there, but the details matter.
And as long as we are meeting our statutory requirements under
NEPA, to the extent that we can reduce the timeframe through
streamlining our processes, I would certainly be interested in
that.
I would also like to respond to your initial question. I
think, you know, the Chair--I agree with the Chairman about the
principles of good regulation. I quote those frequently. I
think they are really important guideposts for the agency. But
I also think that we need to do more within the agency in terms
of creating an expectation and setting objectives to achieve
more efficient business processes.
Mr. Fulcher. OK, thank you for that. I have only got a
minute left, and I want to give Mr. Hanson at least an
opportunity to talk to this too.
But in 2008, the State Senate--I remember INL coming in,
and the State--and the contractor saying, ``We are just around
the corner on the SMR, we are just around the corner.'' It was
2023, and we are just around the corner. So we are not making a
lot of progress.
I look at your mission, and I see the best thing you can do
to fulfill your mission is to make sure that we are not
efficiently developing or using. Mr. Hanson, your comments?
Mr. Hanson. You are talking about back in 2008?
Mr. Fulcher. I am talking about we are not making progress,
at least at the rate where we could be. And I think part of it
could be the mission that you are carrying out, which is the
best way to protect public health and safety is not to develop
and not to use. So we are not. And I would like your comment on
it.
Mr. Hanson. Yes, I----
Mr. Fulcher. How about those recommendations? We have only
got a few seconds.
Mr. Hanson. Yes, I don't think we should be--and I have
said multiple times--we shouldn't be an impediment to the
deployment of new nuclear. There are other factors out there,
economic supply chain and other kinds of issues that impact the
marketplace in the U.S.
Mr. Fulcher. Mr. Chairman, it appears to me the Commission
is doing exactly what their mission says they should do, and
that doesn't include any kind of efficient development or use.
I yield back.
Mr. Duncan. The gentleman yields back. I now go to Mr. Dunn
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Dunn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I also want to
thank you for the opportunity to waive on to this hearing
today.
As my colleagues have mentioned, nuclear energy plays a
critical role in American energy security and reliable
generation of power. This subcommittee is conducting extremely
important work, and I appreciate the opportunity to join you.
As you know, Turkey Point is located on the southern tip of
the Florida peninsula. This is a facility that is critical for
electrical generation grid stability in southern Florida. The
geography of the area surrounded by water on three sides
affords limited connectivity with the national electric grid.
There really aren't any redundant sources of electricity
available locally.
The continued operation of Turkey Point is critical to
protect--to powering South Florida families and businesses and
maintaining the electric grid in Florida. While other sites in
the United States may have other options, South Florida simply
doesn't have one they can turn to. So continued delays in
reviewing and processing the Turkey Point license renewal--
renewal--is creating significant uncertainty with no readily
available alternatives for power generation.
There is no doubt that Turkey Point is crucial to ensuring
energy reliability for Florida. However, in 2022, the NRCC,
under then-Chairman Boran, upended the NRCC regulatory process,
forcing Turkey point into a new subsequent license renewal
process.
This is not a new plant. It has been operating for over 50
years in Florida, providing clean and reliable power. And
keeping it running is incredibly important to Floridians. Last
week, the NRCC again changed the process for Turkey Point,
delaying it by at least 4 months.
Gentleman, this is unacceptable. It is imperative that we
have regulatory certainty, especially when it comes to our grid
security and reliability.
Chairman Hanson, has the NRCC considered the impact this
delay will have to grid reliability in Florida?
Mr. Hanson. Congressman, the license renewal for the plant,
I believe, is--the current license is out into the 2030s at
this point. So we are talking about the renewal now. The plant
continues to operate. There is no immediate impact to the grid
in South Florida. And I would expect that review to--I am not
sure of the specific delays. I would be happy to get back to
you----
Mr. Dunn. Yes, I--it is not the impression that I am
getting from our power generators in Florida.
So another question: What actions do you think you can take
going forward to make sure the relicensing decisions get back
on schedule, since you don't know they are off schedule?
We need to follow up with each other on this, because this
is a point of some pain and contention.
Mr. Hanson. Thank you. No, I think we should--we can and we
should get more efficient on subsequent license renewals as we
go through these. And I do agree that we need to risk-inform
that license renewal review process.
Mr. Dunn. Did you have some input?
Ms. Caputo. Yes. I won't comment on Turkey Point in
particular, because it is a subject of an ongoing adjudication.
But in general, when it comes to subsequent license renewal,
the process at Turkey Point is in, license extensions
fundamentally hinge on aging management, and the aging
management programs have been established and in place for
decades, and we have significant experience with them. So----
Mr. Dunn. We are under the impression you keep changing the
rules of the game.
Ms. Caputo. That was on the environmental review side. I
believe personally that going forward with subsequent license
review, given this experience and the established timeframe
that these aging management programs have been in place, we
should be able to achieve significant efficiencies in
subsequent license renewals.
Mr. Dunn. Well, I would certainly like to see that happen.
Mr. Chairman, what I am looking for is a commitment that--
no more delays in relicensing this plant as long as it is
performing as per specs.
Mr. Hanson. I am happy to commit to no additional delays.
Mr. Dunn. Thank you, sir. You may expect to be hearing from
other members of the Florida delegation, I am sure.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Duncan. The gentleman yields back now. Now I will go to
Mr. Carter from Georgia.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
allowing me to waive on, and thank all of you for being here.
This is extremely important.
Full disclosure: I am a big advocate of nuclear energy. As
all of you know, the State of Georgia just started up two
reactors--started up one and about to start up another one. We
are very proud of that. We feel like it is safe, it is secure,
it is reliable, it is clean. It just--we are just very proud of
that. And I am very, very happy that my State continued on with
that, albeit through, obviously, as you are aware, very--a lot
of obstacles. But nevertheless, we got there.
I am also encouraged by recent steps that the NRC has
approved, and that is the first advanced SMR nuclear design and
breakthroughs in fusion. All of those are encouraging to me. So
I am excited, to be quite honest with you, about what the
future holds.
And I see Europe, and I have been to Europe, and I have
been with the Conservative Climate Caucus and witnessed what I
have seen over there. Unfortunately, they have--to me, they
have made some serious errors in that they have allowed their
policies to get ahead of their technology. And a lot of the
countries over there--not all of them, but a lot of them--have
closed down their nuclear plants, and now they are having to
revert back to coal and to other forms of energy that they
didn't want to have to use as a result of letting their
policies get ahead of their technology.
But France is a leader in the space. We know that. France
is committed to nuclear. So I am excited about that. And
Finland just finished Europe's largest nuclear reactor. So--
giving them some independence from Russia, and that is
certainly something that we have got to be aware of on the
world stage, is our reliance on Russia and China.
One of the things I wanted to talk about is a bill that
Representative Scott Peters, a Democrat, and I, a Republican,
have, a bipartisan bill, obviously, and it is called the Global
Nuclear Energy Assessment and Cooperation Act. And this is a
bill that will take a multipronged approach to promoting
nuclear energy around the world.
First of all, it will prohibit the import of fuels from
adversarial nations like Russia and China. And we do need to
have energy independence. And I am--I think this is a good move
on our part.
Secondly, introduces a program, the International Nuclear
Reactor Export and Innovation Branch, that the NRC Commission
to--would have to focus on international nuclear efforts,
including training and sharing expertise with our allies. We
need our allies in this area, and I think you all--I hope you
all--recognize that and agree with that. It would inspire
coordination, research, and development of the U.S. and our
allies so we can create a safe and secure world and have energy
independence without having to depend on our adversaries.
So I wanted to ask you, Commissioner Hanson, there is a
growing appetite for nuclear power around the world. And
clearly, we would much rather help provide our allies than
Russia and China, who will use them as leverage. And we have
witnessed that with Russia already. How does having a robust
international market for nuclear technologies benefit the
American nuclear industry?
Mr. Hanson. Yes, thank you, Congressman. Let me just say we
are working closely with our allies on this. My phone is quite
literally ringing off the hook for folks who want to come and
interact with the NRC on U.S. technology. And we are providing
the kind of training and assistance that you mentioned in our
bill.
I think, as we think about the market pull for standardized
designs in reactors, having multiple areas of deployment,
whether that is, you know, you combine--if you think about the
GE BWX 300, that being deployed both in the U.S. and in Canada,
well, that contributes to the economy of scale that makes that
deployment very economical.
Well, you combine that then with what the Poles are looking
at--I am going to meet with my--and sign an agreement with my
Polish counterpart tomorrow morning, actually, to continue our
cooperation there. Then that is an additional market pull that,
again, increases the economics of that, makes the reactors
ultimately, I think, cheaper for us domestically but also then
extends our influence.
We know that deploying reactors around the world is a 100-
year relationship. I think it is important to the----
Mr. Carter. So I don't want to put words in your mouth, but
it sounds to me like you feel like the NRC plays an important
role in facilitating this.
Mr. Hanson. I have advocated that the NRC should be part of
the value proposition in U.S. nuclear----
Mr. Carter. Commissioner Wright, do you want to comment on
that?
Mr. Wright. I mentioned earlier I was in Romania when the
NuScale announcement was made and was visiting with them, and
they need our help. And we have got to be timely and----
Mr. Carter. We need them.
Mr. Wright. We do.
Mr. Carter. We need each other.
Mr. Wright. Yes, we do. And in fact, there was talk that
NuScale might be done there before it was built here, and that
we would be learning from each other----
Mr. Carter. Good, good. Well, thank you all. And please,
look at this legislation because it is with the best of
intentions--and of course, I know about intentions.
But nevertheless, we need to have energy independence. And
nuclear energy is one of the ways that we can have that. And
again, I couldn't be prouder of the State of Georgia for what
we have done with our nuclear reactors.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. Duncan. The gentleman yields back. And seeing there's
no further Members wishing to ask questions, I want to thank
all the witnesses and the Commissioners for being here today
for your answers, your comments, your statements.
As you see, on both sides of the aisle we are very
interested in the propagation of nuclear power across the
country to meet Americans' energy needs. We are going to
continue to press forward, continue the oversight, but continue
to work with NRC for the future of nuclear power in this
country.
And so, pursuant to committee rules, I will remind Members
that they have 10 business days to submit additional questions
for the record. And I ask that witnesses submit their responses
within 10 business days upon receipt of the questions.
And with that, thank you once again, and we will stand
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:22 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]