    [House Hearing, 118 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                 ------

     AMERICAN NUCLEAR ENERGY EXPANSION: UPDATING POLICIES FOR EFFICIENT,
                      PREDICTABLE LICENSING AND DEPLOYMENT

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

                                    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

                                   ----------

                                 JULY 18, 2023

                                   ----------

                               Serial No. 118-55

                   [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

      AMERICAN NUCLEAR ENERGY EXPANSION: UPDATING POLICIES FOR EFFICIENT,
                      PREDICTABLE LICENSING AND DEPLOYMENT

      AMERICAN NUCLEAR ENERGY EXPANSION: UPDATING POLICIES FOR EFFICIENT,
                      PREDICTABLE LICENSING AND DEPLOYMENT

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

                                    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

                                   __________

                                 JULY 18, 2023

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 118-55

         Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

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

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    60-201                      WASHINGTON : 2025

                        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.................................     7
        Prepared statement...........................................     9
    Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from
      the State of Washington, opening statement.....................    11
        Prepared statement...........................................    13
    Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
      State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................    16
        Prepared statement...........................................    18

                                   Witnesses

    K. Michael Goff, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Nuclear
      Energy, Department of Energy...................................    20
        Prepared statement...........................................    22
        Submitted questions for the record \1\.......................   284
    Daniel H. Dorman, Executive Director for Operations, Nuclear
      Regulatory Commission..........................................    26
        Prepared statement...........................................    28
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   286
    Ted Nordhaus, Founder and Executive Director, The Breakthrough
      Institute......................................................    78
        Prepared statement...........................................    80
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   301
    Maria Korsnick, President and Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear
      Energy Institute...............................................    96
        Prepared statement...........................................    98
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   305
    Jackie Toth, Deputy Director, Good Energy Collective.............   112
        Prepared statement...........................................   114
    Jeffrey S. Merrifield, Chairman, Advanced Nuclear Working Group,
      U.S. Nuclear Industry Council..................................   117
        Prepared statement...........................................   119
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   311

                                Legislation \2\

    H.R. ___, the NRC Mission Alignment Act
    H.R. ___, the Modernize Nuclear Reactor Environmental Reviews Act
    H.R. ___, the Nuclear Licensing Efficiency Act
    H.R. ___, the Nuclear Advisory Committee Reform Act
    H.R. ___, the Efficient Nuclear Licensing Hearings Act
    H.R. ___, the Advanced Reactor Fee Reduction Act
    H.R. ___, the Advanced Nuclear Reactor Prize Act
    H.R. ___, the Advancing Nuclear Regulatory Oversight Act

    ----------

    \1\ Dr. Goff did not answer submitted questions for the record by the
    time of publication. Replies received after publication will be
    retained in committee files and made available at https://
    docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=116255.
    \2\ The legislation has been retained in committee files and is
    available at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
    ByEvent.aspx?EventID=116255.
    H.R. ___, the Nuclear for Brownfields Site Preparation Act
    H.R. 995, Global Nuclear Energy Assessment and Cooperation Act
    H.R. ___, the Strengthening American Nuclear Competitiveness Act
    H.R. ___, the Advanced Nuclear Deployment Act
    H.R. ___, the Nuclear Fuel Security Act of 2023
    H.R. 4528, Strengthening the NRC Workforce Act of 2023
    H.R. 4530, NRC Office of Public Engagement and Participation Act
      of 2023

                               Submitted Material

    Inclusion of the following was approved by unanimous consent.
    List of documents submitted for the record.......................   155
    Letter of July 14, 2023, from Hon. Thomas R. Carper, Chair, House
      Committee on Enviroment and Public Works, et al., to
      Christopher T. Hanson, Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.   157
    Letter of June 9, 2008, from Dale E. Klein, Commissioner, Nuclear
      Regulatory Commission, to Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the
      House of Representatives.......................................   165
    Report of the Nuclear Innovation Alliance, ``Improving the
      Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Advisory Committee on
      Reactor Safeguards,'' March 2023...............................   178
    Testimony of Jeffrey S. Merrifield to the American Nuclear
      Society, June 13, 2023.........................................   185
    Response of American Nuclear Society to House Committee on Energy
      and Commerce Nuclear RFI Request, May 5, 2023..................   194
    Response of The Breakthrough Institute to House Committee on
      Energy and Commerce Nuclear RFI Request, May 5, 2023...........   197
    Response of the Clean Air Task Force to House Committee on Energy
      and Commerce Nuclear RFI Request, May 5, 2023..................   214
    Response of ClearPath to House Committee on Energy and Commerce
      Nuclear RFI Request, May 5, 2023...............................   220
    Response of Idaho National Laboratory to House Committee on
      Energy and Commerce Nuclear RFI Request, April 26, 2023........   223
    Report of the Idaho National Laboratory, ``Recommendations to
      Improve the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Reactor Licensing and
      Approval Process,'' April 2023 1A\3\
    Response of Nuclear Energy Institute to House Committee on Energy
      and Commerce Nuclear RFI Request, May 4, 2023..................   240
    Response of Nuclear Innovation Alliance to House Committee on
      Energy and Commerce Nuclear RFI Request, May 5, 2023...........   245
    Letter of July 17, 2023, from Judi Greenwald, Executive Director,
      Nuclear Innovation Alliance, to Mrs. Rodgers, et al............   260
    Response of Third Way to House Committee on Energy and Commerce
      Nuclear RFI Request, May 8, 2023...............................   269
    Response of U.S. Nuclear Energy Council to House Committee on
      Energy and Commerce Nuclear RFI Request, May 4, 2023...........   277
    Letter of July 18, 2023, from Jon Indall, Counsel, Uranium
      Producers of America, to Mrs. Rodgers, et al...................   282

    ----------

    \3\ The report has been retained in committee files and is included in
    the Documents for the Record at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/
    IF03/20230718/116255/HHRG-118-IF03-20230718-SD028.pdf.

      AMERICAN NUCLEAR ENERGY EXPANSION: UPDATING POLICIES FOR EFFICIENT,
                      PREDICTABLE LICENSING AND DEPLOYMENT

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, JULY 18, 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 (chairman 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, Allen, and Trahan.
        Staff present: Kate Arey, Digital Director; Sarah Burke,
    Deputy Staff Director; Marjorie Connell, Director of Archives;
    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; Mary Martin,
    Chief Counsel; Jacob McCurdy, Professional Staff Member;
    Brandon Mooney, Deputy 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, Energy; Michael
    Taggart, Policy Director; Dray Thorne, Director of Information
    Technology; Kris Pittard, Minority Professional Staff Member;
    Emma Roehrig, Minority Staff Assistant; Kylea Rogers, Minority
    Policy Analyst; Medha Surampudy, Minority Professional Staff
    Member; and Tuley Wright, Minority Staff Director, Energy,
    Climate, and Grid Security.
        Mr. Duncan. The Subcommittee on Energy, Climate, Grid
    Security will now come to order. The Chair recognizes himself
    for 5 minutes for an opening statement.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF DUNCAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

        Today the subcommittee will continue its bipartisan work to
    develop legislation to help accelerate the expansion of
    American nuclear technology. We want to make sure the relevant
    laws and policies are up to date and enable the full promise of
    nuclear energy for the Nation and our commercial and strategic
    relationships around the globe.
        The importance of American nuclear leadership and building
    our commercial relationships was underscored during our recent
    CODEL to Japan and Korea, with Ranking Member DeGette and
    several subcommittee colleagues. What we do here can help these
    relationships in the years to come, but our goal is to advance
    durable and bipartisan policies that will expand nuclear energy
    and its many benefits for the Nation, policies that make sense
    for the regulation of nuclear power today and the new
    technologies expected to seek licensing and deployment in the
    coming years.
        This was the purpose of the bipartisan request for
    information to stakeholders that Chair Rodgers, Ranking Member
    Pallone, DeGette, and I made back this past April. In the
    responses we received and the hearings we have had to date, it
    has become clear, more clear, that more can be done to update
    how both the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department
    of Energy implement their respective missions, and there is
    growing recognition of the urgency to implement reforms.
        This discussion draft today and the bills up for review
    today seek to make changes in law and regulation to align
    agency actions with the Nation's broader goals for advancing
    nuclear energy. These also reflect several of the key
    recommendations from stakeholders. For example, in a draft I
    intend to introduce we would align in statute the mission of
    the NRC and the--with the policy goals of the Atomic Energy Act
    to expand nuclear to maximum--maximize the general welfare.
    They should help foster nuclear and not be an impediment to
    nuclear development in this country.
        Several draft bills would improve the efficiency and
    predictability of NRC licensing by requiring more effective
    decision-making milestones, timeframes, and metrics to measure
    the performance and results. They should avoid duplicative
    analysis and citing environmental reviews and updating the
    reviews to reflect the realities of advanced technologies;
    seeking new regulatory processes for advanced manufacturing and
    technologies for more efficient and timely licensing; cutting
    the hourly fees the NRC charges in half for new advanced
    reactor applicants to reduce barriers to participation; and
    reforming a key advisory committee to the NRC to focus on new
    and novel technologies, and reduce unnecessary reviews.
        Another bill, following recommendations made by the NRC
    itself, would eliminate a superfluous Commission hearing at the
    end of the licensing process that no stakeholders have
    requested.
        An additional discussion draft aims to update NRC practices
    to incorporate more efficient oversight to free up resources to
    focus on safety-significant matters.
        These are good examples of reasonable, widely supported
    improvements that will make more effective, efficient, and
    predictable regulations.
        Other bills also involve the Department of Energy. For
    example, legislative provisions would update DOE's nuclear
    export reviews in its role to promote nuclear among our allies.
        Other provisions would remove barriers to foreign
    investment in American projects by our allies and would extend
    the critical liability protections necessary for nuclear and
    many DOE operations.
        I should note that not all the provisions today will make
    it forward in their current form in the process. That is why we
    have legislative process, hearings, information sharing. The
    goal today is to gather information and discussion, identify
    issues, and find improvements so we can ensure more efficient,
    predictable regulation and oversight. Today we will hear from
    two witnesses.
        First we will take testimony from two top officials from
    the Department of Energy and the NRC. I am looking forward to
    their testimony and perspectives and information on current and
    future activity, and how reforms may assist the agencies.
        Our second panel will include four representative
    stakeholders: the Breakthrough Institute, the Nuclear Energy
    Institute, the Good Energy Collective, and a former NRC
    Commissioner who is representing the U.S. Nuclear Industry
    Council. So welcome to you all. This is a solid lineup for what
    should be a very productive hearing.
        Finally, let me remind people that modernizing the NRC and
    DOE authorities does not mean moving away from 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 energy. Our
    regulatory system must operate in reflection of this fact if we
    are to succeed in our nuclear goals.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Duncan follows:]
        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Duncan. I will now recognize Ranking Member 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 I agree.
    One thing our Japan trip taught us is that the U.S. can be the
    leader in nuclear energy and safety, and I thought it was an
    important trip.
        I also think that today's conversation is an important
    opportunity for us to learn and find ways to support a nuclear
    industry that emphasizes public health and safety. I have said
    this before in previous hearings: Nuclear energy has the
    potential to meaningfully drive down our emissions as we
    transition to zero-carbon energy.
        We all know the statistics, but they are worth repeating.
    Currently, nuclear energy makes up nearly 20 percent of the
    electricity we generate in the United States and nearly half of
    the carbon-free electricity that we generate. And so, as we
    continue to move towards a clean energy transition, nuclear
    energy could supply a significant portion of the carbon-free
    baseload power we need in the future.
        Now, I say ``could'' for a very important reason. We can
    only invest deeply in the nuclear industry if we continue to
    prioritize public health and safety before everything else. And
    so to that end, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for including
    my NRC workforce bill in this hearing, along with
    Representative Levin's bill.
        As the lead safety regulator of nuclear energy and nuclear
    materials, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has an incredibly
    important role in this prioritization. It is critical that the
    NRC has the staff, tools, and resources it needs to operate at
    the highest level possible--the staff component, especially.
        Back in May, when we had our NRC oversight hearing,
    Chairman Hanson stated in his testimony that, to achieve its
    goals, the NRC must maintain a highly qualified workforce. But
    currently, one-third of the NRC staff is eligible for
    retirement. This expected attrition, in addition to the
    anticipated increase in reactor applications, creates a
    challenge for the NRC as it completes its work, and that is why
    I introduced the Strengthening the NRC Workforce Act of 2023.
        This bill is simple. It gives the Chairman of the NRC
    direct hire authority during candidate shortages or when there
    is a critical hiring need for certain positions. The authority
    is similar to the direct hire authority that Congress gave to
    the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in the Energy Act of
    2020.
        Additionally, it would allow the NRC to increase its
    existing employees' compensation, helping the NRC to retain
    staff. As the lead nuclear safety regulator, it is important
    that the NRC has the full workforce it needs to complete its
    work.
        And as I mentioned, I was also pleased to see
    Representative Levin's NRC Office of Public Engagement and
    Participation Act of 2023, which would establish the Office of
    Public Engagement and Participation at the NRC.
        One of the most important parts of any energy project is,
    obviously, community input. We can't act like public
    participation is inconsequential, especially in this arena. And
    in fact we know that a lack of public participation eventually
    slows projects down. But early, meaningful public engagement
    allows developers to avoid issues and make the changes that are
    necessary to stop unnecessary slowdowns.
        Additionally, as we are all aware, nuclear energy is an
    incredibly complicated and sometimes contentious topic, to say
    the least. And the office established by Representative Levin's
    bill would give communities the support that they need to fully
    understand the impact of a project. We cannot sacrifice public
    health and safety, and we cannot ignore the voices of those
    most directly impacted by energy development, and I think that
    these two bills help address both of the issues.
        Now, there are, of course, some bills that we are
    considering that concern me. Some of them would cut down on the
    review process, eliminate critical hearings, and expedite the
    licensing process. The highest standards of public safety and
    health can't be sacrificed for the sake of rushing projects
    through. And Mr. Chairman, I know that is not your intention, I
    just want to make sure these bills don't have that impact
    because it could be a recipe for careless mistakes that could
    lead to disasters.
        And so I am looking forward to the conversation today, and
    I am hoping that the majority will work with us so that we can
    do what the chairman says, which is update our procedures,
    update our protocols, but at the same time not sacrificing any
    public safety or health.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. DeGette follows:]
        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. DeGette. And with that, I yield back.
        Mr. Duncan. And let me reiterate to her point safety and
    security--security of fuel spent, et cetera, some of the things
    we talked about in Japan. That was the focus of the CODEL, to
    look at safety and what Japan, Korea were doing to propagate
    nuclear power in a safe manner in the post-Fukushima world.
        So with that, I will recognize the chair of the full
    committee, Chair Rodgers, for 5 minutes.

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

        Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning,
    everyone.
        Today we continue our work on restoring American leadership
    in nuclear technology and energy. It is critical to both our
    economic and national security. Expanding American nuclear
    energy and increasing deployment of American nuclear technology
    both here and abroad is essential for reducing emissions,
    providing reliable, affordable, clean energy to Americans, and
    for building durable economic and strategic relationships
    around the world.
        In 1954 Congress established the Atomic Energy Act, which
    has been foundational to our nuclear leadership for nearly 70
    years. Today the Atomic Energy Act remains a guide to us to
    build common defense and security, and to capture the peaceful
    benefits of nuclear technology. It states, ``to make the
    maximum contribution to the general welfare'' to ``increase the
    standard of living, and strengthen free competition and private
    enterprise.''
        This is the policy that has stirred the development of
    American nuclear leadership, incentivized our innovators, and
    enabled American industry to lead the world in nuclear energy
    for more than 40 years. As a result, American innovation and
    nuclear energy deployment remains the dominant design around
    the world. We set the global standard for safety and security
    that continues to this day.
        America must continue to lead, especially as our
    adversaries actively challenge our nuclear leadership. China
    and Russia seek to dominate emerging nuclear markets and
    control supply chains for these technologies and for fuels. In
    recent years their influence in these markets has grown. Energy
    and Commerce must lead the way to reverse this trend.
        Fortunately, we know our allies are eager for American
    nuclear leadership and technology. We saw this on recent visits
    to the Czech Republic and Poland, nations who have embraced the
    promise and security of nuclear technologies, seeking American
    know-how and support.
        The American nuclear energy is ready to lead from NuScale,
    TerraPower, GE-Hitachi, X-Energy's small nuclear reactors to
    OKLO and Project PELE's microreactors, and the new operating
    AP-1000 reactors at Plant Vogtle in Georgia. These are the
    kinds of innovative technologies that Poland and other U.S.
    allies are looking for to win the future.
        In order to restore American leadership and unleash these
    new technologies, both at home and abroad, there is an urgent
    need to make sure the licensing, regulation, and oversight of
    the nuclear industry is predictable and efficient, is risk-
    informed, performance-based, and protective of health and
    safety, and serves the foundational policies that Congress has
    established. This was the clear message from many of the
    stakeholders who responded to our bipartisan request for
    information this April.
        Many of the bills we discuss today reflect an effort to
    meet the needs expressed by nuclear policy thought leaders.
    Several bills refocus the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the
    Department of Energy to ensure they are carrying out the
    foundational nuclear policies that have been established by
    Congress. These bills would update how agencies implement their
    responsibilities to be sure they will be efficient,
    predictable, and risk-informed. They will also ensure that the
    agencies will not get away--not get in the way of innovation
    and deployment but instead serve the national interest by
    providing for the safe, reliable deployment of nuclear energy.
        Today we will examine in more detail what these bills will
    do and discuss how they have been enhanced, how can--how they
    can be enhanced. And, you know, while we may have some
    differences on some of the legislation with my colleagues on
    the other side of the aisle, I am hopeful this hearing can help
    us address those differences and continue the process for
    developing bipartisan legislation.
        This is how we win the future, restore American nuclear
    leadership, strengthen our energy security. So I thank the
    witnesses, all the witnesses, for being here today.
        [The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:]
        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mrs. Rodgers. And I yield back.
        Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will now recognize
    Mr. Pallone, the ranking member of the full committee, for 5
    minutes.

    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. And just last month we had all five Commissioners
    from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission before us to talk about
    the NRC's vital work. Those hearings have been the most
    bipartisan hearings we have had this Congress on the Energy
    Subcommittee, and I certainly hope today's hearing continues
    that tone as we examine ideas to improve America's nuclear
    power policies.
        The NRC has done an admirable job over the years of
    ensuring nuclear power is safe and secure. We must now find
    ways to make the NRC's work more efficient without compromising
    on the high safety standards that it has held for itself and
    the nuclear industry as well. And I look forward to hearing
    from our witnesses across both panels on how the 15 bills
    included in today's hearing advance that goal, and where they
    fall short and need to be improved.
        I think there are some good bills before us today, while
    some need improvement. And I am hopeful that we can work
    together on these bills so we can enable the NRC to safely and
    efficiently license our nation's nuclear reactors for the
    future. I want to briefly highlight a few of the bills.
        I am particularly interested in Ranking Member DeGette's
    bill, the Strengthening the NRC Workforce Act, which would
    allow the NRC to enjoy the alternative compensation authority
    we granted to FERC back in the Bipartisan Energy Act of 2020,
    as well as direct hire authority. This would allow the NRC to
    attract and retain talent and expertise, something that will be
    critical as we ask it to license advanced reactors.
        And then there is Representative Levin's bill, the NRC
    Office of Public Engagement and Participation Act. It would
    create an Office of Public Engagement and Participation at the
    NRC, modeled off FERC's Office of Public Participation. Last
    month in our hearing with the NRC Commissioners I asked
    Chairman Hanson about the concept, and he indicated that he
    would be supportive of it. The purpose of an Office of Public
    Engagement and Participation would be to demystify the NRC and
    increase the ability of communities impacted by its decision to
    access its proceedings. And I look forward to getting feedback
    on this bill today, and I am working with the majority to find
    a way forward on it.
        I would also like to mention the discussion draft based on
    Representative Latta's bill, the Nuclear Fuel Security Act. I
    support this bill so much that I offered it as an amendment
    during subcommittee and full committee markups of H.R. 1042,
    and I am pleased to see that it has been included in this
    hearing with relatively few changes. I hope my Republican
    colleagues have reconsidered voting no on it twice. Nuclear
    fuel security is a vitally important issue, but we can't just
    ban Russian uranium without ensuring that there will be an
    American supply chain to replace it.
        While I support all three of these bills, there are some
    bills I have concerns with and would like to see changes to.
        The Nuclear Advisory Committee Reform Act would potentially
    diminish the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards by only
    requiring the committee to weigh in when requested by the NRC.
    I am afraid this could create another layer of unintentional
    bureaucracy, or sideline the ACRS altogether.
        The Efficient Nuclear Licensing Hearings Act would remove
    the requirement that NRC hold hearings on new reactors, which
    could diminish public confidence that the NRC is holding
    nuclear power plants to a sufficient level of scrutiny.
        And finally, the NRC's--the NRC Mission Alignment Act would
    change and codify the mission of the NRC. It is a substantial
    expansion of the NRC's authority that I do not believe is
    necessary, and could undermine its independence. It could also
    send a bad signal to countries working to set up nuclear power
    regulatory regimes overseas who often look to the NRC as a
    model of an independent nuclear regulatory--or regulator.
        Now, over the last 4 years Democrats passed major
    legislation like the Energy Act of 2020, the Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Law, the Inflation Reduction Act, all to support
    safe and clean nuclear power, including investments at the
    Department of Energy. 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. So I am hopeful that we can now work together to
    build on these successes.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Pallone. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Duncan. Mr. Pallone, that is a very southern suit you
    have got on this morning, so looking good.
        Mr. Pallone. Jersey Shore.
        Mr. Duncan. We now conclude with Members' opening
    statements. The Chair would like to remind Members that,
    pursuant to the committee rules, all Members' opening
    statements will be made part of the record.
        I want to thank, and we want to thank all of our witnesses
    for being here today and taking time to testify before the
    subcommittee. Each witness will have the opportunity to give an
    opening statement, followed by a round of questioning from
    Members.
        And there is a panel of lights in front of you. You have 5
    minutes. I ask you to stay within that. It is going to go
    green, yellow, red. Just keep in mind that.
        Our witnesses for the first panel are Dr. Michael Goff,
    Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of Nuclear
    Energy at the Department of Energy, and Daniel Dorman,
    executive director of operations for the U.S. Nuclear
    Regulatory Commission.
        Again, we appreciate you being here today. I will now
    recognize Mr. Goff for 5 minutes for an opening statement.

        STATEMENTS OF K. MICHAEL GOFF, Ph.D., PRINCIPAL DEPUTY
     ASSISTANT SECRETARY, OFFICE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF
    ENERGY, AND DANIEL H. DORMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS,
                     NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

                  STATEMENT OF K. MICHAEL GOFF, Ph.D.

        Dr. Goff. Good morning and thank you, Chairman Duncan,
    Ranking Member DeGette, Chair McMorris Rodgers, Ranking Member
    Pallone, and the distinguished members of the committee. I am
    honored to appear before you today representing the Department
    of Energy, and I look forward to discussing the nuclear energy
    issues and legislation under consideration by this committee.
        The Department does not have an official position on the
    bills you are considering today, but we appreciate the
    committee's longstanding bipartisan support for the
    Department's civil nuclear activities and the broader civil
    nuclear industry.
        Mr. Duncan. Can you pull that mike a little closer to--or
    straight on?
        Dr. Goff. Sorry.
        Mr. Duncan. Thank you so much.
        Dr. Goff. To swiftly reduce our carbon emissions and
    rebuild U.S. leadership globally, the Biden-Harris
    administration is prioritizing activities that keep the
    existing fleet of nuclear power plants in operation, that
    deploy advanced reactor technologies, that secure and sustain
    the nuclear fuel cycle, and that expand international nuclear
    energy cooperation.
        Nuclear energy provides emissions-free, firm power
    necessary to underpin the transition to a carbon-pollution-free
    electric grid by 2035. New reactor deployments also have the
    potential to decarbonize industrial applications in support of
    the net-zero-by-2050 goals set by the United States and our
    partners around the globe. Ensuring this future for our Nation
    and our allies must include a secure and reliable source of
    fuel for today's nuclear power plants and those of tomorrow.
        The Department is working to address these energy security
    challenges in the face of ongoing global events. In 2022 the
    United States purchased 24 percent of the enriched uranium for
    commercial nuclear reactors from Russia. We cannot continue to
    infuse the Russian state with this source of income.
        As you know, there is no quick, easy path to reduce our
    dependance on Russian-supplied fuels. Expanding our domestic
    fuel capacity will require strategic investments coupled with
    import restrictions that protect those investments well into
    the future. We must act swiftly to support domestic enrichment
    capabilities and prepare our industry for this transition. The
    Department welcomes the opportunity to work with Congress to
    address this national security vulnerability.
        The United States and our allies share common visions of
    democracy, as well as safe and secure global economic and
    energy systems. In the June 2022 Group of Seven Leaders
    communique, the United States and our G7 partners made clear
    our collective intent to reduce reliance on civil, nuclear, and
    related goods from Russia, including working to assist
    countries seeking to diversify their nuclear fuel supply
    chains.
        To this end, the United States, Canada, France, Japan, and
    the United Kingdom have identified potential areas of
    collaboration on nuclear fuels to support the stable supply of
    fuels for the operating fleets of today, and to enable the
    development and deployment of fuels for advanced reactors of
    tomorrow, and to achieve reduced dependance on Russian supply
    chains. This multilateral effort would aim to leverage the
    unique resources and capabilities possessed by each country's
    civil nuclear sectors to establish a global commercial nuclear
    fuel market.
        Collaborating on strategic opportunities in the uranium
    extraction, conversion, enrichment, and fabrication supports
    our collective energy climate goals and economic resilience
    objectives. This multilateral cooperation would enable us to
    strengthen our domestic sectors and establish a level playing
    field to compete more effectively against predatory suppliers.
        Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the
    committee today. I appreciate the important items such as
    implementing long-term power purchase agreements, supporting
    initial licensing of new reactor technologies, addressing fuel
    needs, and focusing on U.S. exports that you are considering to
    ensure that nuclear energy is a critical part of our energy mix
    to meet our climate goals and our energy and national security
    needs. Those actions have the potential for the Department of
    Energy to further enhance licensing activities, deployment
    activities, and the export of U.S. advanced nuclear
    technologies.
        I look forward to continuing to work with you toward a more
    sustainable, equitable, reliable, affordable, safe, and secure
    energy system for our Nation, and I also look forward to
    addressing your questions. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Goff follows:]
        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Dr. Goff, and I will say I am
    thankful for the engagement we have had with Assistant
    Secretary Huff as well on these issues.
        I will now recognize Mr. Dorman for 5 minutes.

                     STATEMENT OF DANIEL H. DORMAN

        Mr. Dorman. Thank you, Chairman, Chair Duncan, Ranking
    Member DeGette, Chair McMorris Rodgers, Ranking Member Pallone,
    and distinguished members of the subcommittee. My name is Dan
    Dorman, executive director for operations at the NRC. I welcome
    this opportunity to provide the staff's views on bills under
    consideration. I will briefly address our regulatory framework
    for new and advanced reactors, the environmental review
    process, and international cooperation.
        As industry is developing new and advanced reactor designs,
    our staff is reviewing preapplication materials and submitted
    applications commensurate with the risk and safety significance
    of the proposed technology. NRC has worked hard to modernize
    its existing licensing processes to support the deployment of
    new and advanced reactors through the application of risk-
    informed and performance-based techniques and regulatory
    guidance.
        Our streamlining and efficiency efforts include extensive
    preapplication interactions, regulatory audits to enhance
    communication with applicants and licensees, and early
    engagement with the NRC's Advisory Committee on Reactor
    Safeguards.
        In addition, we are ahead of schedule in developing a new
    optional regulatory framework for licensing new reactors in
    accordance with the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization
    Act, or NEMA. In March the staff submitted a draft framework
    known as the Part 53 Rule to the Commission for its
    consideration. The rule would establish a technology-inclusive,
    risk-informed, and performance-based regulatory framework for
    licensing and oversight of new commercial nuclear power plants.
        NRC is also looking at how it assesses fees for reviewing
    new and advanced reactor applications to ensure they are fair
    and equitable. NEMA requires NRC to build entities for
    regulatory activities performed. The fees incurred for any
    given project will vary based on the type and quality of the
    application, the novelty of the technology, and the complexity
    of the proposed design.
        NRC clarified the applicability of its variable annual fee
    structure for Small Modular Reactors, or SMRs, to make it clear
    that nonlight-water SMRs are included. This clarification
    allows the agency to be technology inclusive and establish a
    fair and equitable approach for assessing annual fees to all
    new and advanced reactors, which would lower fees for many of
    these applicants.
        The NRC continues to assess and implement processes to
    streamline our environmental reviews while still complying with
    the National Environmental Policy Act and related laws. We are
    working aggressively to implement the Commission's direction to
    ensure that NRC's environmental regulations supporting analyses
    and guidance fully support the subsequent renewal of nuclear
    power plant operating licenses from 60 to 80 years.
        We are also aware that industry is interested in using so-
    called brownfield sites such as former coal plants or shuttered
    nuclear power plants to use the existing infrastructure and
    workforce. If we receive applications for new nuclear plants at
    these types of sites, existing data about the sites could be
    leveraged to support improving the efficiency of our
    environmental review.
        The NRC's international portfolio includes import and
    export licensing obligations and a broad range of international
    cooperation and assistance functions. To prepare for the export
    of advanced reactor technologies, NRC has initiated a
    rulemaking to clarify that its export regulations include
    nonlight-water reactor technologies, reducing potential
    regulatory uncertainty in our licensing reviews of export
    applications.
        NRC engages with its international partners to collaborate
    on a wide range of regulatory topics, including licensing and
    oversight of SMRs and advanced reactors. We have had noteworthy
    success in performing joint technical reviews with the Canadian
    regulator on highly complex areas of interest for SMRs and
    advanced reactors, including fuel qualification.
        NRC also complements broader U.S. Government nuclear energy
    outreach by providing targeted regulatory capacity development
    to countries with growing regulatory programs to ensure they
    are prepared to provide appropriate oversight of nuclear power
    or material use within their borders. NRC recently renewed its
    cooperation agreement with Poland's National Atomic Energy
    Agency that enables the exchange of information to support
    Poland in expanding its regulatory program to license both
    large light-water and small modular reactors.
        Chair Hanson is not at this hearing today because he is in
    Senegal and Ghana this week. Ghana is embarking on a nuclear
    power program to meet its electricity needs, and signed an
    agreement with the United States to strengthen economic and
    diplomatic ties. The Chair expects to deepen the relationship
    and emphasize the importance of an independent, technically
    competent, and adequately funded regulator.
        There has been a marked increase in the demand for
    regulatory support in international capacity-building efforts,
    and we are actively engaged with our Federal partners to ensure
    these efforts are coordinated and prioritized consistent with
    U.S. Government's strategic objectives.
        I appreciate the subcommittee's interest in NRC's mission
    and the work of our dedicated staff. We look forward to
    continued engagement with Members of Congress as the
    legislation under consideration advances, and I look forward to
    your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Dorman follows:]
        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Duncan. You all did great on time. I don't think we
    have had witnesses stay within the 5 minutes in a while. So I
    want to thank you for your testimony, and we will now move into
    the question-and-answer portion of the hearing. I will begin
    questioning, recognize myself for 5 minutes. Let me begin my
    questions on a high level.
        One of themes of our nuclear policy work reflected in the
    bipartisan letter we wrote in April is to restore agency
    alignment with the policy goals of the Atomic Energy Act. These
    policies, I think it is fair to argue, helped the United States
    for several decades lead the world in nuclear technology to
    spread the peaceful benefits of nuclear power. We want to
    recapture the focus of these policies going forward.
        Mr. Goff, you spent 30 years at Argonne and Idaho National
    Labs, two of the Nation's key nuclear technology labs. From
    your experience and in your current position at DOE, do you see
    the value of reasserting the principles of the Atomic Energy
    Act to promote and deploy American nuclear technologies,
    especially given competition with Russia and China?
        Dr. Goff. Yes. I mean, I view that we operate under the
    Department of Energy under the Atomic Energy Act. That provides
    most of our authorities. And we view those things as very
    critical. We do need to be, you know, the leaders, you know,
    reestablish the U.S. leadership in nuclear technology, both
    domestically and for export.
        We need to make sure that we, the United States, are
    setting the standards for safety and security and
    nonproliferation around the world. And the way we do that is
    through the international engagement, and be able to export of
    our technologies. So I do view the, you know, us reestablishing
    that leadership that is--you know, and through the directions
    of the Atomic Energy Act is, you know, critical for us moving
    forward. We have to be the leaders in this space.
        Mr. Duncan. Yes. Just as a sidebar question, Do you think
    the Chinese operate with that same mentality for safety and
    security?
        Dr. Goff. I think they operate under different--yes,
    somewhat different standards. I think, you know, they have
    operated some of the reactors safe and all, but as far as the
    overall security and the process that they go about, no, I
    would--I think we should be the ones that should be working
    with our partners and allies, as opposed to Chinese companies
    coming in and doing that. And we have reflected that in some of
    our export relationships with the Chinese.
        Mr. Duncan. Yes, thank you for that. I think we can be the
    leader. We have been. We can be.
        Mr. Dorman, you began your career in the nuclear Navy
    before moving to the NRC. At the hearing with the Commissioners
    last month, it was stated that when the Navy approves a nuclear
    submarine it is a dual mission, which is safety but also to
    enable the mission.
        It is not at all clear the NRC is performing its safety
    mission and service to the broader mission to enable nuclear
    energy. How are you, as executive director of operations,
    working to ensure NRC staff have a view in all their activities
    to this broader mission?
        Mr. Dorman. Thank you, Chairman. Broadly, I think in--
    within the walls of the NRC we talk about our mission as
    enabling safe and secure use of nuclear technology. So we are
    focused on reaching technically sound safety conclusions that
    support the applications that come before us.
        We also over recent years have focused on broader
    application of risk insight, in particular applying risk
    insight at the beginning of our review process to make sure
    that our activities are appropriately scoped and focused on the
    most risk-significant activities as we develop the basis for
    our safety decision making.
        Mr. Duncan. Yes, thank you for that. Let me stay with you,
    Mr. Dorman. Last month I discussed with Chairman Hanson the
    issue of subsequent license renewals taking significantly
    longer and costing more, which he agreed was a problem. This
    does not reflect an agency learning, improving, and getting a
    more efficient mindset. I understand inventory of the NRC's
    licensing actions have declined steadily over the last 20
    years, from 1,600 in 2003 to 800 today. And today, according to
    your data, 80 percent--only 80 percent of this smaller amount
    of actions is completed within the budget.
        Mr. Dorman, something isn't right here, either in budget or
    staffing priorities. What can you do to improve efficiency and
    put in place lasting measures so we can see performance
    improvements?
        Mr. Dorman. Thank you, Chair. We are focused on, again, at
    the beginning of our--any application that is before us,
    defining a scope of the staff's review and a schedule for that
    review, and managing to those plans. So I think that is gaining
    us some benefits in the focus and the level of effort in a
    number of reviews.
        The decrease in the number of reviews that you refer to
    also comes with an increase in the complexity of many of the
    reviews that the staff is looking at. So it is--I would say
    more--many of the more mundane and administrative tasks that
    were undertaken 20 years ago have been resolved through
    standardization of tech specs across licenses and so forth.
        On the specific issue of the subsequent license renewal,
    coming back from the hearing last month we have had
    conversations to focus on using risk insights, again, to look
    at the scope of the work that the staff is doing on subsequent
    license renewal applications. There are a number of attributes
    of aging of the plants that come into play in the 60-to-80-year
    period that we are not focused on because they had adequate
    margin already in the 40-to-60-year period.
        So there are some additional elements that we look at, but
    we are looking at where we can use risk insights to sharpen our
    focus and reduce the level of effort that we need to do to get
    to a sound safety decision.
        Mr. Duncan. Thank you for that. My time is up, and I will
    now recognize the--Ranking Member DeGette for 5 minutes.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
        As I mentioned in my opening statement, I introduced the
    Strengthening the NRC Workforce Act because one of the most
    critical ways we can ensure that the NRC maintains the highest
    levels of public safety is by making sure they are fully
    staffed. But the other thing is, if you want to ensure timely
    consideration of applications, you have to have the NRC be
    fully staffed, too.
        And so, Mr. Dorman, I want to ask you. I mentioned--and you
    were shaking your head, so I know your answer already--roughly
    one-third of the NRC staff is eligible for retirement, is that
    right?
        Mr. Dorman. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. DeGette. And so, with increased interest in nuclear
    energy and advanced reactors, NRC is expecting a significant
    increase in applications for new reactor licenses. Is that
    right?
        Mr. Dorman. Just to clarify, in the near term we are
    expecting several applications for new reactor licenses--I
    think those we call first-of-a-kind. As those become
    demonstrated, we are hearing from the industry that there are
    many people who want to be next in line. So I think it is--we
    are seeing a modest increase in the near term, with the
    potential for a fairly significant increase in the not-too-
    distant future.
        Ms. DeGette. And so you are going to really need to have a
    robust and highly educated staff. I guess that would be safe to
    say, right?
        Mr. Dorman. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. DeGette. How would the use of direct hire authority
    prepare the NRC for this anticipated increase in workload?
        Mr. Dorman. It would be a great assistance. I think the--we
    have--over the last decade, the staffing of the NRC was reduced
    by about a third. We have kind of turned that corner and
    leveled it off in the last year or two. And that--as you noted,
    the age demographic of our workforce has resulted in increased
    attrition. And so we are hiring, really, to offset that
    attrition. We are kind of just starting to make progress to
    increase, to get closer to our allotted FTE.
        Ms. DeGette. OK.
        Mr. Dorman. As we do that, the industry is also expanding.
    And so we are competing in a very competitive market right now.
        Ms. DeGette. Yes. And so if you could increase compensation
    for the existing workforce, that would ensure that NRC would
    remain fully staffed as well, right?
        Mr. Dorman. It would be a great help, yes, ma'am.
        Ms. DeGette. And if you had the staff and the funding, then
    the NRC would be able to be more expeditious in reviewing the
    licenses, especially the wave that you are anticipating. Is
    that right?
        Mr. Dorman. Yes, ma'am. It will be essential that we are
    able to fully staff the core teams for multiple applications.
        Ms. DeGette. Now, I want to ask you quickly about another
    bill, the Efficient Nuclear Licensing Hearings Act, because you
    talked in your testimony about one thing we could do about
    siting new reactors and so on. You talked about brownfields and
    other sites.
        How would removing the requirement that NRC hold hearings
    on new reactors threaten public safety and shake public
    confidence in the NRC?
        Mr. Dorman. Thank you, Ranking Member DeGette.
        I think the--there is a substantial amount of information
    that is available to the public today that was not available
    routinely or easily in the period when that requirement was
    established. Our public-facing, web-based records management
    system has been in place for over a quarter of a century now,
    and we have upgraded it with improved search engines to really
    make information available to the public.
        Ms. DeGette. OK, I think that is great. But what would
    happen if you removed the requirement that the NRC hold
    hearings on new reactors?
        Mr. Dorman. I think it is important to note that that would
    not in any way affect the interests of any party who would seek
    a hearing. So we still have the safety evaluation and the
    environmental review done by the staff--
        Ms. DeGette. OK, so you don't think it would make any
    difference?
        Mr. Dorman. It would not impact our safety conclusion. It
    would have perhaps one less----
        Ms. DeGette. Do you think it would impact the public's
    confidence in the facility if you didn't have hearings?
        Mr. Dorman. We have significant engagement with the public
    throughout our process. So I think it would not----
        Ms. DeGette. So yes or no will work.
        Mr. Dorman. No, I don't believe it would--
        Ms. DeGette. OK.
        Mr. Dorman [continuing]. Significantly degrade public
    confidence.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
        Now I wanted to ask you, Dr. Goff, very briefly, in the
    Strengthening American Competitiveness Act there is a section--
    part 810, where one--where it talks about our exports of
    nuclear materials.
        Do you think this would impact our ability to export
    nuclear materials to, say, places like Japan and other
    countries?
        Dr. Goff. I mean, we do have to abide by the 810 process.
    For countries like Japan and--a number of those countries
    already have general authorization, so it is much easier to,
    you know, transfer standard technologies to them.
        Countries that have--there are certain countries, though,
    that require specific authorizations, and those--there is much
    more of a review on that.
        Ms. DeGette. Great, thank you.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Duncan. The gentlelady yields back. I will now go to
    Mr. Latta for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for
    holding this legislative hearing today. And also, thanks for
    our witnesses for being with us today.
        Nuclear power offers the United States a reliable, carbon-
    emissions-free source of energy. While I am happy the
    subcommittee is looking at a host of legislative proposals to
    accelerate the deployment and utilization of nuclear energy, I
    am especially grateful that we are examining the discussion
    draft of my updated Nuclear Fuel Security Act.
        And Mr. Chairman, before getting to my question, I ask
    unanimous consent to submit into the record this letter of
    support for my bill from the Uranium Producers of America.
        Mr. Duncan. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Latta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Goff--and again, thank you very much for being with
    us--I hope you share my sense of urgency regarding the United
    States' dependance on Russia for nuclear fuel, especially
    considering Russia's invasion of Ukraine. We currently rely on
    Russia, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan--two nations within Russia's
    sphere of influence--for nearly half of our natural uranium
    purchases.
        Will you address the importance of ensuring that the U.S.
    has robust domestic capabilities at each step in the fuel
    cycle, including the production of natural uranium through
    conversion enrichment?
        Dr. Goff. Yes. Based on Russia's unprovoked and unjustified
    invasion of Ukraine, I think that does highlight that Russia is
    not a reliable supporter of energy security for any nation. So,
    yes, I share your concern that, you know, we do have a
    significant reliance, especially on enrichment and conversion
    activities from Russia, and we need to be able to work--and
    working with our allies, replace that with, you know, a more
    assured supply, you know, preferably domestic, additional
    domestic capacity here in the United States for enrichment, but
    also we could be working with our allies.
        So, yes, I do share that concern, and that is a very
    important issue that we need to move forward on in a very
    timely manner here.
        Mr. Latta. Well, you might agree that it is important to
    increase our domestic capabilities. The speed with which DOE is
    acting tells another story. DOE is moving especially slow in
    implementing HALEU availability program, which Congress
    directed through the Energy Act of 2020. Perhaps this is why
    companies like Centrus and TerraPower are moving forward with
    their own plans to collaborate on domestic production of HALEU,
    given DOE's absence.
        What are you doing to accelerate implementation of HALEU
    availability program?
        Dr. Goff. We did just complete the review--well, the
    comments are just in from the draft review, for the draft RFP
    that was issued. Yes, it did take a while to get that draft RFP
    out. There was a lot of interagency review to make sure that we
    got that right.
        We have now gone through the comments, and are working to
    address those comments in what will be the final RFP to, again,
    incentivize them moving forward on the HALEU activities. But
    yes, we share your concern that we need to be moving rapidly,
    especially on that activity, to provide high-assay, low-
    enriched uranium to be able to support especially those
    advanced reactor demonstration programs moving forward here.
        Mr. Latta. OK, let me follow up, because it sounds like
    there is a lot of interagency discussion going on. But will the
    proposed Nuclear Fuel Security Act help speed up the program's
    rollout?
        Dr. Goff. It does provide--yes, highlights a number of
    things that, you know, the Secretary could get involved in to
    be able to make sure we have assured LEU supply and high-assay,
    low-enriched uranium supplies.
        We are working already, though, I will note, on trying to
    within the Department find as much material that we can to
    provide for those companies as well. So many of those actions
    would, yes.
        Mr. Latta. Well, let me just--not that I am picking on
    you--let me ask another question.
        You know, after reviewing the public comments, it is clear
    that the nuclear industry has deep concerns with DOE's draft
    HALEU request for proposals. How does DOE plan on addressing
    these concerns?
        And will you commit to further outreach with the industry
    prior to the finalization of the RFP?
        Dr. Goff. We do commit to further outreach to the industry
    as part of that, and, yes, we are working now to see how we
    want to address some of those comments that came in to make it
    an effective program. We want it to be an effective program
    that will incentivize that new capacity. So we appreciate the
    comments that we got from the stakeholders in the industry and
    we are--you know, have just gone through the review of those
    and are working to see how we can address those and incorporate
    them in a final RFP.
        Mr. Latta. Well, I appreciate your comments because, again,
    it is--for me and for members of this committee and others, it
    is very important that we do go forward because, again, we want
    to make sure that the United States is not dependent with over
    50 percent of our uranium out there coming from pretty much,
    you might say, untrusted sources. So it is essential, and I
    hope that carries over to the Department.
        And Mr. Chairman, my time is expired, and I yield back the
    balance.
        Mr. Duncan. I thank the gentleman from Ohio, and I
    recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Peters, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Peters. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for this
    hearing, and thank you to the witnesses for being here.
        I also want to thank Congressman Carter for his leadership
    and partnership on the Global Nuclear Energy Assessment and
    Cooperation Act. That bill would include the training of
    foreign nuclear energy experts in the establishment of a U.S.
    international nuclear reactor export and innovation branch,
    which would help ensure we remain the world's leading developer
    of nuclear energy.
        From climate change to energy security, bipartisanship will
    be essential to tackling our most pressing energy challenges.
    And I just want to add, for purposes of context, how important
    transmission will be. And I know the chairman wants to get at
    hearings. I think that is going to be in the fall. The sooner
    we can get that conversation going about a strategy for
    promoting interregional transmission across the country, I
    think the better off we will be in deploying energy security
    and efficiency and better climate policy. So I appreciate the
    chance today to operate in a bipartisan way, and I hope that we
    can keep it up.
        The other point I would raise is, you know, we have done a
    yeoman's job in this country about decarbonizing our--planning
    to decarbonize our economy and to transition to a new energy
    supply and cleaner energy supply. But we have to recognize in
    context that we are 10 percent of worldwide emissions and that,
    if we don't keep cheap coal in other places in the ground, then
    we will lose this battle for this planet. And that is why there
    is growing bipartisan support for increasing U.S. exports of
    nuclear energy technologies and expertise, because that offers
    a real possibility for the development of the--or for the
    developing world to avoid using that really dirty and dangerous
    fuel.
        Mr. Goff, what are the current roadblocks to exporting U.S.
    nuclear technologies and expertise, and what reforms could help
    address those roadblocks?
        Dr. Goff. Well, we need to have certain agreements in place
    for different countries. So for countries that we already have
    a 123 Agreement, you know, we can export those technologies.
        Then it is making sure that we have the right support
    mechanisms to be able to export those. Do we have the right
    financing packages? We have--the Export-Import Bank can help
    with financing, but there are certain things we still can't do,
    necessarily, that other countries can do when they are going to
    export, especially, say, equity. We don't have a good way for
    the U.S. Government to provide equity financing for some of
    those exports to different countries that are very important
    for--you know, it is very important for those countries to have
    some equity financing. So making sure we have the right
    financing packages, I think, is very important.
        I think we also need to make sure that we deploy
    successfully in the United States. It is very--you know, most
    countries don't want to build first-of-a-kind. They want to see
    it operating in the country of origin first. So we have got to
    make sure that we can deploy successfully but also make sure
    that we have right financing packages, as well,
    internationally.
        Mr. Peters. Are you aware of existing proposals to deal
    with the--our inability to provide equity in the way you
    describe?
        Dr. Goff. Could you say that again? I am sorry.
        Mr. Peters. Are you aware of existing proposals to address
    this issue about providing equity that you described?
        Dr. Goff. I have heard of various things being bounced
    around, but not aware of a specific proposal out there.
        Mr. Peters. That is very helpful to me, and I will look for
    one myself.
        There is bipartisan recognition in both chambers of
    Congress that commonsense permitting reforms are needed to
    boost energy security and reduce pollution. While nuclear
    energy has been a clean, secure, reliable, maybe the safest
    source of energy for decades, and helps to stabilize our energy
    systems, the NRC's legacy environmental review processes have
    contributed to excessive process to build new nuclear.
        Dr. Goff, the draft Modernized Nuclear Reactor
    Environmental Reviews Act takes steps to reform the process for
    conducting environmental assessments to allow broader usage and
    potentially add new categorical exclusions. Do you believe
    these are good approaches? Would they be effective?
        And what else needs to be done to enable more rapid
    environmental reviews?
        Dr. Goff. I think we do need to make sure that we have a
    process that is in place--you know, we have the National
    Environmental Policy Act--that we are addressing the
    environmental impacts, but make sure that we do it in a process
    that is very efficient, not too duplicative, so that it doesn't
    become the, you know, the slowest portion of the process. So
    things that we can do to, you know, to make sure that we are
    doing that process efficiently and effectively, I think, are
    very important.
        It is not--the Department of Energy doesn't control that
    aspect of it, so I guess I won't necessarily speak on----
        Mr. Peters. Yes. I will share, one of my frustrations is
    that, you know, we do the same analysis on the same process in
    every single district court in the country. It doesn't make any
    sense, and it really handcuffs us. I am looking for ways to
    make sure that we don't do that anymore, not with just respect
    to nuclear but with respect to deploying all energy in the
    country.
        So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the hearing, and I yield
    back.
        Mr. Duncan. The gentleman yields back. I will now go to
    Texas. Dr. Burgess is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Chairman.
        Dr. Goff, just on that same line for a second, in the debt
    limit that was recently passed by the House of Representatives
    there was some streamlining in NEPA that was provided. Is that
    helpful at all in this venue?
        Mr. Dorman. Yes, I am thinking I might jump in here.
        Mr. Burgess. Sure.
        Mr. Dorman. So thank you, Congressman. Yes, we are looking
    at the provisions in that bill as well as the provisions in the
    proposed bill.
        We are also taking actions to--through an advanced reactor
    generic environmental impact statement, the Commission has
    asked us to look at our categorical exclusions that exist in
    the Commission's regulations of part 51.
        We are also looking at process improvements in the staff
    process, and particularly reducing the level of detail in our
    documentation to really focus it on the key elements supporting
    the environmental decision to help work towards streamlining
    our process. But we welcome the committee's interest in further
    efforts.
        Mr. Burgess. So just to distill it down a little bit: The
    language was helpful that was passed.
        Mr. Dorman. Yes.
        Mr. Burgess. OK.
        Mr. Dorman. Thank you.
        Mr. Burgess. Thank you for saying so.
        And Dr. Goff, I have a couple of questions on the power
    purchasing agreements. This committee has found successful
    collaboration between NRC, DOE, and private companies is vital
    if America is to usher in a new era of nuclear innovation. Can
    you share with the committee the scope of the power purchasing
    agreements that DOE has entered with advanced nuclear reactor
    companies?
        Dr. Goff. At this point, unfortunately, we have not entered
    into power purchase agreements for advanced nuclear.
        One of the issues in that area is the Department of Energy
    doesn't have authorization for long-term power purchase
    agreements. We can do more in the 5-to-10-year range. For most
    of the--for a large investment like a nuclear power plant, they
    are looking at more power purchase agreements in the 20 to 30
    years. So that is something we do not have that could be
    advantageous to help those first movers provide assurety of,
    you know, selling their power, and it is something that we
    would be interested in, especially as we are looking at using
    Department of Energy sites for some of the initial deployments
    of advanced reactors.
        It would be nice if we could be one of the purchasers for
    that, but right now I would say we don't have the authorization
    to be able to do long-term power purchase agreements from the
    Department of Energy. Other agencies like Department of Defense
    do----
        Mr. Burgess. So let me just be sure I understood that. You
    said if you could be the purchaser of those long-term
    agreements?
        Dr. Goff. For the Department of Energy, yes. I thought that
    was what the question was, that----
        Mr. Burgess. Yes.
        Dr. Goff. Yes, that right now we have not signed any
    because we are limited, and only--really, about 5 to 10-year
    power purchase agreements. Most companies, if they are going to
    make that investment, they are looking at more of a 30-year
    power purchase agreement. We do not have that authority right
    now in the Department of Energy.
        I think one of the pieces of legislation would potentially
    extend that out, but that would be a beneficial--
        Mr. Burgess. So that would be helpful.
        Dr. Goff. Yes, that would be helpful.
        Mr. Burgess. Thank you.
        Mr. Dorman, back to you. Ranking Member Pallone mentioned
    in his opening statement about demystifying the NRC, which
    seems like a laudable goal. You began your career as an officer
    in the nuclear Navy, is that not correct?
        Mr. Dorman. Yes, sir, that is correct.
        Mr. Burgess. And the safety record with the nuclear Navy is
    really unparalleled. It is something that should be--every
    American should be aware of that, yet most aren't. When we talk
    about nuclear power, most people think of Three Mile Island and
    Homer Simpson. They don't think about the nuclear Navy. Are
    there ways that you can identify that that would be helpful for
    people to begin to think about the nuclear Navy as the model
    for how we--what the future is in nuclear energy?
        Mr. Dorman. I think the nuclear Navy is a model. I think,
    you know, you mentioned Three Mile Island. It has been over 40
    years since that event, and the record of nuclear safety in the
    United States is well established.
        From our part, as the safety regulator, we provide
    information to the public on our website of the performance of
    each nuclear power plant in the country on an ongoing basis.
    But I think one of the things that is challenging to connect
    with the average member of the public is it is a complex issue.
    We have some really smart people who are probably not the best
    people to be explaining it, but others who have that skill.
        So I think, as we engage public stakeholders, we need to
    make sure we are putting the message out in as understandable a
    way as we can of the work that we do in our licensing and
    oversight processes to ensure the safety and what we are seeing
    as the safe operation of the facilities.
        Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back.
        Mr. Duncan. The gentleman yields back. I now go to Mr.
    Tonko for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate the
    subcommittee working on nuclear energy issues and hosting this
    hearing today. It should be an area where we can find
    bipartisan agreement.
        Our existing reactors are essential to our Nation's
    successful clean energy transition, and I am hopeful that
    several of the bills before us today will help with the
    deployment of new and advanced reactors. But as we think about
    how the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can support the
    industry's efforts to develop and deploy advanced reactors, we
    shouldn't lose sight of the needs of the Commission to continue
    to be a successful and independent regulator of the industry.
        So with that in mind, I would like to express my support
    for the bills introduced by Ranking Member DeGette and
    Congressman Levin. The NRC has awesome responsibilities, and we
    have a responsibility to ensure that the Commission has the
    expert personnel necessary to carry out its duties.
        Mr. Dorman, I heard the earlier discussion you had with
    Congressmember DeGette about recruiting and retaining its
    staff. But how difficult is it for the industry's regulator to
    compete with the private sector for a limited number of
    qualified candidates?
        Mr. Dorman. Thank you, Congressman. I think our advantages
    in that marketplace is a clear safety mission and the history
    of the NRC as a great place to work.
        I have actually had a new employee recently that reached
    out to me 2 weeks after coming to the agency and expressed how
    pleased he was because he had been wanting to come to the NRC
    for a long time. That said, when we have 17 technology
    developers on top of the operating industry, we are competing
    in a tight marketplace.
        And we have our attrition this year. Other than retirement,
    attrition is running about 2 percent, which is a little higher
    than our historical rate. And we are seeing good people make
    transition mid-career to some of these technology developers,
    and they have the ability to offer them pays that we don't--are
    not able to offer.
        So I think additional tools to help us particularly with
    the critical skills that we need for the innovations that are
    happening in the industry will be helpful.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And Mr. Dorman, again, if the bills
    and discussion drafts under consideration today were to be
    enacted, how would that increase the Commission's workload?
        Mr. Dorman. I am not sure I see anything in the bill that
    directly--in the bills that directly increase the workload. I
    think what I alluded to earlier is we are anticipating 4
    applications for construction authorization for 2 light-water
    and 2 nonlight-water power reactors in the next 12 months. If
    those projects move forward successfully, then I think we will
    see a substantial increase in the following years.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Dorman.
        Mr. Chair, the ranking member's bill is an important and
    needed addition to any legislation that provides NRC with
    additional workload requirements. I similarly believe we should
    be looking to provide our Nation's other energy regulator,
    FERC, with similar hiring authority to ensure they have the
    technical and legal and other expertise necessary to carry out
    its responsibilities.
        In the past there has been bipartisan support to streamline
    the NRC processes. Mr. Doorman, does the Commission have any
    views on the proposed bills to further streamline licensing
    hearings and other proceedings?
        Mr. Dorman. I can't speak for the Commission. I would say
    that we are happy to work with the committee on any and all of
    those proposals.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And were these bills to move forward,
    I believe it would be important to provide greater
    opportunities for the broader public and host communities to
    participate in Commission proceedings. Over the past couple of
    years, we have seen FERC's Office of Public Participation have
    success, and I hope we can do more to guarantee that
    streamlined regulatory processes do not result in fewer
    opportunities for the public to have their voices heard.
        So with that, I thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.
        Mr. Duncan. The gentleman yields back. I will now go to the
    chair of the full committee, Mrs. Rodgers, for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Rodgers. Clearly, NRC has the vital mission to assure
    adequate safety of nuclear technology. Yet it also works in
    service to the policies laid out by Congress, especially in the
    Atomic Energy Act.
        This past Friday my colleagues and I introduced a
    bipartisan, bicameral letter to the NRC, and we urged the
    Commission to resolve issues associated with the development of
    new, risk-informed regulations for advanced reactors. Congress
    wants a regulation that will be workable for the most efficient
    licensing of advanced technologies, and we said so much in
    legislative reforms in 2019 to set the Commission and industry
    up for success.
        Mr. Dorman, as you heard me say last month to the
    Commission, it is disappointing that, after 2 years, all the
    staff was able to produce for the--for Commission review was a
    rule that stakeholders said for almost 2 years was unworkable.
    We are trying to set the Commission up for success on these
    challenging issues, and we want to see results. We want more
    efficient licensing and responsive regulations.
        So how are you working to instill in the NRC staff under
    your management a results-oriented culture?
        Mr. Dorman. Thank you, Madam Chair. A number of things.
        First, I mentioned earlier a focus on risk insights. And so
    we historically have been risk-informed in the sense of taking
    risk studies of reactor technologies and applying those at the
    decision point at the end of our process. Over the last several
    years, we have been focused on taking that risk insight to the
    front end of our process and being very focused on our work
    planning and making sure that we are applying the right level
    of resource to the significant issues that come before us, that
    we are focused on the right significance issues--
        Mrs. Rodgers. 0K, so----
        Mr. Dorman [continuing]. So that our process becomes more
    efficient.
        Mrs. Rodgers. OK, thank you. So with that in mind, I wanted
    to ask about--and when it comes to this efficient licensing and
    developing regulations, certainly, communications is key. And I
    understand that agency staff states to applicants seeking
    clarifications on rules, guidance, expectations that NRC can't
    act as a consultant due to its independence and does not
    informally provide advice.
        So I wanted to ask if that really is the case. And how can
    you improve efficiency if you aren't communicating?
        You know, they need to have--stakeholders need to have that
    communication regarding the licensing and--along the way.
        Mr. Dorman. Yes, I appreciate that perspective, Madam
    Chair. And having been at the NRC 32 years, I experienced that
    a long time ago.
        I would say that we have been promoting and encouraging
    preapplication discussions with technology developers early in
    the process, and the two benefits that accrue to that--the
    benefit to the staff is understanding the technology that is
    being developed and making sure that we have the right skills
    in place when the application comes in. The benefit that
    accrues to the developer is to hear the types of questions that
    the staff are asking, and anticipate those and prepare a more
    complete application, which would also help in the efficiency
    of the review.
        So I think we are better in that regard, but I am always
    open to feedback on that.
        Mrs. Rodgers. Well, do you have plans for measuring and
    verifying progress on more efficient licensing decisions like
    metrics that stakeholders can track?
        Mr. Dorman. Yes, we have--as I mentioned, when we receive
    an application and determine that the application is complete,
    sufficiently complete for the staff to begin its review, we
    establish a review schedule, and we establish a level of effort
    for the staff for that, and we track those to ensure that we
    are meeting that, that we are identifying issues early in the
    process, elevating them as necessary for resolution so that we
    achieve the efficiencies that we are looking for.
        Mrs. Rodgers. Mr. Goff, let me turn to you. You have long
    experience in nuclear at DOE, National Labs. Are there lessons
    from how DOE regulates and collaborates with innovators that
    could be shared with NRC to improve the regulatory
    interactions?
        Dr. Goff. I mean, yes, we do have the ability to authorize
    nuclear facilities and nuclear reactors as well. So we have a
    process that has been set up. It benefits from the fact that we
    almost always license first-of-a-kind. So we have to have a
    fairly flexible process in doing that, and part of that
    flexible process is there is a lot of communication between the
    independent authorizer and the entity that is trying to deploy
    a nuclear facility.
        So some of the things that we have done is we don't do a
    lot of written requests for information back and forth. Most of
    the--if you have an issue, they typically call or have a
    discussion fairly quickly on it. So they minimize a lot the
    request for information until the very end of the process, and
    it is only major issues that come up there.
        We also--and I will say in this case, this is Idaho, and,
    you know, we operate the Idaho National Lab, the Office of
    Nuclear Energy is the landlord for Idaho National Lab--in our
    contract for Battelle Energy Alliance that operates that
    laboratory we do actually put in metrics for the review
    process. So if the laboratory submits something for--a safety
    document for review, the contract that we have between DOE
    Idaho and the laboratory says DOE Idaho has to turn that around
    in 90 days.
        Similarly, we have also, for the reviewers themselves, we
    actually have set up metrics. So the metrics for the reviewer
    as far as their performance review requires a slightly shorter
    turnaround. Like, they are required to turn it around in 70
    days or so.
        So those are some of the things that we have done to make
    sure that, again, we have an efficient process for authorizing
    nuclear facilities and--we haven't authorized a reactor again
    in a while, but hopefully authorize reactors here in the near
    future as well.
        Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I really appreciate the
    bipartisan focus on this issue. I yield back.
        Mr. Duncan. Absolutely. The Chair will now recognize the
    ranking member of the full committee, the well-dressed man from
    New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you for your comments on my jacket.
        Anyway, last month the NRC's Commissioners testified before
    this subcommittee. When I asked Chairman Hanson and then-
    Commissioner Baran about the potential for NRC to establish an
    Office of Public Participation similar to that at FERC, both of
    them indicated that they thought it was a good idea and they
    would support it. And we have Congressman Levin's bill before
    us today that would require the NRC to establish a similar
    office.
        So 2 years ago the NRC created also an environmental
    justice review team to review how the agency's programs,
    policies, and activities address environmental justice. And the
    resulting assessment made 6 formal recommendations, including
    that the NRC enhance its environmental justice-related outreach
    activities and that the Commission implement formal mechanisms
    to enhance how environmental justice is addressed.
        So I have 2 questions. Maybe 2 minutes each here, if you
    will.
        Mr. Dorman, could you talk about how the NRC is
    implementing those recommendations in both--you know, and how
    the potential Office of Public Participation might be able to
    help with the environmental justice?
        And talk a little bit about where the NRC staff currently
    sees gaps in the Commission's process in engaging communities
    impacted by NRC decisions.
        Two minutes.
        Mr. Dorman. Thank you, Ranking Member Pallone.
        We have stakeholder confidence as one of the goals in our
    strategic plan, and it is dispersed by project, I would say,
    through the organization. We have agreement State officers and
    State liaison officers in our regional offices. We have a
    Tribal program in our materials program office. So I think an
    office such as proposed by Congressman Levin could potentially
    integrate that and bring focus.
        But stakeholder engagement and stakeholder confidence is an
    important strategic goal of the Commission, and the staff is
    focused on that every day. We have over 1,000 public meetings a
    year.
        Mr. Pallone. And then, what about implementing the
    recommendations on environmental justicve?
        Mr. Dorman. Those recommendations still sit with the
    Commission. So we are awaiting Commission direction on that.
        Mr. Pallone. OK. All right, so let me go to Dr. Goff.
        When Secretary Granholm appeared before this subcommittee,
    she expressed conditional support for a ban on Russian uranium
    if we could develop our own nuclear fuel cycle supply chain. So
    do you agree with Secretary Granholm that, if we are going to
    ban imports of Russian uranium, it is important we also ensure
    our Nation has the fuel cell--the fuel cycle infrastructure
    needed to support our nuclear power reactors?
        And can you talk about the benefits that the Department
    sees in a program to ensure fuel security, such as the one
    authorized in the Nuclear Fuel Security Act that we have before
    us today?
        Dr. Goff. Yes, I, of course, agree with the Secretary in
    this case that, you know, the--you need to have both of those
    things moving forward. You know, it is hard to put a ban in
    place and not have something also to make sure that we are
    incentivizing the replacement.
        You know, right now we don't have enough enrichment
    capacity outside of Russia to support the reactors operating
    outside of Russia. So we have got to make sure we add new
    capacity. We have things that can make sure we have fuel for
    the existing fleet for, you know, a few years to come here, but
    at some point in the near future there will be a gap. So you
    need to make sure that we are incentivizing that new capacity
    at the same time, if you were trying to do a ban. They need to
    come hand in hand.
        Mr. Pallone. So at what point would we be able to say there
    should be an absolute ban because we have the capacity?
        Dr. Goff. Well, you could go ahead--if you start working
    forward--I mean, it is going to take a certain number of years
    to deploy new capacity, four years, five years, something along
    those lines. So, you know, once you have actions moving forward
    to have that new capacity being built out, then you could
    look--a ban would not negatively impact the continued operation
    of the reactors.
        Mr. Pallone. And you know, I don't--I haven't looked at the
    details of the bill, but would this bill allow for that
    transition?
        Dr. Goff. I believe it allows for, you know, waivers for a
    certain period of time, as well, that, you know, someone--the
    Secretary could give waivers for material to come in during
    that period of transition.
        Mr. Pallone. OK, all right. Thank you so much.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Duncan. The gentleman yields back. I will go to the
    gentleman from Virginia, the chair of Oversight and
    Investigations, Mr. Griffith, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
    appreciate it.
        Director Dorman, I have been working on so-called mandatory
    hearings and the Efficient Nuclear Licensing Hearings Act.
    Could you briefly talk about the current mandatory hearing
    process, what steps normally take place in the license
    application before a mandatory hearing takes place?
        Mr. Dorman. Thank you, Congressman.
        Briefly, when an application comes in, the NRC staff
    conducts a safety evaluation and an environmental impact
    statement. And in parallel with that, the Advisory Committee on
    Reactor Safeguards provides an independent review of the
    salient portions of that.
        Once the staff has completed its work, it goes to the
    Commission, and there is a period of preparation for the
    hearing, and then the Commission conducts the hearing, and then
    the Commission issues its decision.
        Mr. Griffith. And in what cases is a mandatory hearing
    initiated, and what type of preparation is required other than
    what you just told us?
        Mr. Dorman. So the mandatory hearing in uncontested events
    for production utilization facilities, basically for nuclear
    power plants, as well as certain fuel facilities, and it is
    conducted in any uncontested proceeding. But it doesn't impact
    the ability of any interested party to request a hearing.
        Mr. Griffith. And that is what gets interesting. And who
    are the participants in that so-called mandatory hearing when
    it is uncontested?
        Mr. Dorman. So in the mandatory uncontested hearing, the
    participants are generally the Commission and the staff.
        Mr. Griffith. OK, the Commission and the staff.
        So then let's get to the contested hearing, and the
    differences between a contested hearing, the mandatory hearing,
    and an adjudicatory hearing.
        Mr. Dorman. So you are going a little bit outside my
    expertise, because I am an engineer, not a lawyer. But I think,
    in the case of the contested hearing, it is an adjudicatory
    proceeding, and a person who is raising a concern with the
    application, in my understanding--and I am not a lawyer--they
    need to demonstrate that they have standing--in other words,
    they are impacted by the action--and that they have admissible
    contentions.
        Mr. Griffith. So here is my question. Do we--is it vital--
    and I understand you might have to do some hybrid work in
    there, but is it vital that you have, in an uncontested case,
    that mandatory hearing?
        I understand if somebody has got a contest, if somebody
    brings forward an objection, if they have standing and they
    have got some concerns. I don't want to cut anybody off from
    being able to come forward. But do you have to go through a
    formal mandatory hearing process if it is uncontested?
        I understand that lawfully you do. I am saying is it
    necessary for the safety of the operation of that licensee, or
    the person that has come before you?
        Mr. Dorman. I don't believe it is, sir.
        Mr. Griffith. All right. Finally, are you familiar with--
    let me check my time--are you familiar with the 2008 NRC
    proposal on the Atomic Energy Act transmitted to then-Speaker
    Nancy Pelosi? Yes or no.
        And didn't the NRC propose eliminating the uncontested
    hearing at that time?
        Mr. Dorman. Yes and yes.
        Mr. Griffith. OK. So they did propose that. All right. I
    appreciate it greatly.
        And I yield back.
        Mr. Duncan. I thank the gentleman for yielding. That is
    what a chairman does sometimes. Good job.
        I will now go to Mr. Veasey from Texas. Five minutes.
        Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        As you all know, the United States has 93 operating
    commercial nuclear reactors at 55 power plants across 28
    States, including 1 in Texas that we have down in Comanche
    Peak, accounting for about 20 percent of total annual U.S.
    electric generation, and about 46 percent of zero-carbon
    electricity. And maintaining and expanding this nuclear energy
    is going to be essential for us to have a cleaner and more
    sustainable energy future.
        I look forward to working with my colleagues to make sure
    that we can ensure that licensing and regulation of new nuclear
    plant reactors continues to protect the public health and
    safety, while also meeting our growing energy demands. We know
    that we are going to have more and more objects and devices and
    cars and what have you plugging into the grid, and that we need
    good, reliable energy.
        And so my question to Michael Goff is that we know that
    nuclear energy has long been one of the safest forms of energy
    globally, and that has been in large part to the NRC and the
    nuclear industry for continuing to innovate and meet new
    standards. And with new technology that is highly desired by
    our allies and possesses tremendous advantageous on safety and
    security, some stakeholders have echoed the sentiment that NRC
    must adjust for the current state of play.
        And so one of the drafts today would amend the duties of
    the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards in scheduling
    reviews, and impose term limits on members. And your
    experience, would the approach in this draft bill offer
    improvements to the current NRC process, or would it create
    additional layers of bureaucracy?
        And how is the NRC considering the unique characteristics
    and safety features of innovative nuclear technologies, while
    maintaining this gold standard in safety evaluations and risk-
    informed regulatory processes?
        Dr. Goff. Well, I will speak to part. I don't want to
    necessarily speak to the NRC portion of this.
        But yes, a number of the advanced reactor concepts that are
    being developed and deployed rely on additional passive safety
    features. So they do have some enhanced safety features over
    the already very safe operating fleet. So there are some
    potential advantages that could be taken advantage of in the
    licensing process for those reactors, because I do agree with
    you that, you know, we do need to make sure we can deploy these
    systems safely and efficiently.
        I will defer to my NRC colleague on----
        Mr. Veasey. Please.
        Mr. Dorman. Thank you, Congressman.
        On regarding the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards,
    I think that the--this is an independent committee that the
    Commission hires external experts. I know the leadership of the
    committee today is working hard to be very focused on the
    innovative aspects and the safety-significant aspects of the
    questions that come before them. I think the ability of those
    experts to apply their expertise is a critical part of their
    contribution to the process. They have added value beyond the
    staff's review in some of our recent actions.
        So I think they recognize the need to be very focused in
    their review, but I think they also need the leeway to follow
    their expertise.
        Mr. Veasey. Yes. Well, thank you very much.
        And this will be a question that probably both of you will
    be able to weigh in on, if you feel comfortable doing it. As we
    continue to have these discussions around being able to deploy
    cleaner energy platforms in order to deal with a lot of the
    carbon goals that we are trying to meet and trying to clean up
    our air and trying to clean up our atmosphere, do you think
    that there needs to be more to inform the public on this
    particular, you know, endeavor that we are sort of all on in
    order to try to make the planet cleaner?
        I mean, to me, there seems to be a huge sort of void there,
    and a lack of information that is out there as it pertains to
    this very difficult subject. When you are talking about trying
    to strengthen the grid, for instance, to make it more
    resilient, as more and more people, you know, do, you know,
    plug in cars or plug in phones, whatever it may happen to be,
    as we start moving more and more down that path, there does
    seem to be just a lot of confusion or a lot of uncertainty in
    the American public.
        Do you think that there is a role for you all to play in
    that area?
        Dr. Goff. Yes, I think we definitely should be able to
    communicate better. We can always improve our communications in
    that area, and we should be continuing to work with
    stakeholders along those lines.
        Mr. Veasey. Yes.
        Dr. Goff. I am happy right now that we have much more
    support and continue with growing support for nuclear energy,
    but we still need to make sure we do continue to provide
    information, and help people do understand how these--you know,
    the nuclear technology does need to work together with the
    other energy technologies to deploy to give us the most
    reliable, resilient grid that we can.
        So, yes, we should be continuing to try to improve our
    engagement to make sure people do fully understand that
    process.
        Mr. Veasey. Yes. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Duncan. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize the
    gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson, for his 5 minutes of
    questioning.
        Mr. Johnson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to
    all of our witnesses, both of you, for being here today. I have
    got a lot to cover, so I want to get right into it.
        My legislation, one of the bills being considered today,
    the Strengthening American Nuclear Competitiveness Act, has a
    number of very important reforms, one of which is the extension
    of Price-Anderson Act liability protections that both industry
    and regulators have agreed has been in existence, and is
    today--and is essential for the buildout of America's civilian
    nuclear industry ever since the 1950s.
        Mr. Goff, first, can you explain to our subcommittee your
    thoughts on the importance of Price-Anderson protections for
    maintaining and expanding America's nuclear industry?
        And can you explain why it would be important to extend
    these well into the future?
        Dr. Goff. Yes, I think it is very important to the nuclear
    industry to have that assurance as far as the coverage and
    indemnification for any----
        Mr. Johnson. Why is it important?
        Dr. Goff. Well, I should add it is important for both
    industry and for the Department of Energy too. Our work is also
    covered under Price-Anderson as well, to make sure, again, that
    we have appropriate coverage if there is some unthinkable
    accident that occurs in the future. Luckily, we have never had
    to--had that, you know--
        Mr. Johnson. Yes, just kind of in layman's terms, the
    original intent of Price-Anderson was because insurance
    companies didn't know how to set limits and liability on this
    stuff, right? And people were not--businesses, industry, they
    were not going to invest in nuclear programs without some
    assurance that they wouldn't just be wiped out in the
    unfortunate instance of an event, right?
        Dr. Goff. Yes, and I think that is still the case, is
    insurance companies don't necessarily know how to continue to
    handle that. I even know we have issues with countries
    necessarily----
        Mr. Johnson. OK.
        Dr. Goff [continuing]. Knowing how to handle that as well,
    so----
        Mr. Johnson. OK. Let me stay with you, Mr. Goff.
        In our hearing last month with the Nuclear Regulatory
    Commissioners, we discussed the portion of my legislation
    having to do with, in my view, outdated bans on commercial
    nuclear investment coming from entities in allied, friendly
    countries. My bill would end that prohibition, which currently
    would hold--could hold back critical investments that could
    move the U.S. nuclear industry forward.
        When I asked NRC Chairman Hanson about this last month, he
    said he thinks there is ``a real opportunity'' to perhaps make
    changes. Do you agree? What are your thoughts on this, from a
    DOE perspective?
        Dr. Goff. You are saying bans from our allied countries?
        Mr. Johnson. Yes. Mine lifts that ban. So he said he agrees
    that there may be time for change. What do you think?
        Dr. Goff. For us to export to certain countries?
        Mr. Johnson. No.
        Dr. Goff. Oh, OK.
        Mr. Johnson. For investments----
        Dr. Goff. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Johnson [continuing]. From allied--friendly allied
    countries in the United States.
        Dr. Goff. I think we--you know, we want to make sure we
    still have control of those assets in the United States and
    make sure they have appropriate control, but I think there is
    some potential opportunity to open up how much investment you
    can have----
        Mr. Johnson. OK.
        Dr. Goff [continuing]. In nuclear power plants.
        Mr. Johnson. All right. Now, Mr. Dorman, let me go to you.
    In my legislation there are a couple of provisions where we are
    looking for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to do a deep dive
    and report back to us here in Congress some of the unique
    licensing issues for some of the nuclear power applications of
    the future.
        I am particularly interested not only in advanced
    techniques for speeding up the manufacturing of small modular
    reactors and microreactors, but also the innovative uses for
    these reactors in manufacturing perhaps one day being used to
    heat and power huge industrial facilities, data centers, and
    other energy-intensive industries. So Mr. Dorman, is NRC
    looking into these things now?
        And how is the Commission preparing for the licensing
    process for new manufacturing techniques and nonelectric
    applications in the future?
        Mr. Dorman. Thank you, Congressman. We are looking at those
    issues.
        As you know, the X-energy application that we expect in the
    next year is anticipated to provide process heat for a Dow
    facility.
        We are also--the staff is looking at microreactors, and
    particularly the factory manufacture and transport of
    microreactors, and is developing a paper for the Commission on
    that subject. So we would be happy to also report to the
    committee.
        Mr. Johnson. Great. Well, as one that is very interested in
    America reasserting its leadership role in commercial civilian
    nuclear energy both here and abroad--because we know it has
    geopolitical implications--I am glad to hear the answers from
    both of you today.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Duncan. The gentleman yields back. I now go to Ms.
    Kuster for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Kuster. Chairman Duncan and Ranking Member DeGette,
    thank you so much for this hearing on nuclear energy.
        Nuclear power is a key piece of our electric system in the
    United States. There are 54 nuclear power plants in the United
    States, including in New Hampshire. These power plants provide
    nearly 20 percent of the electricity generated in our country.
        Preserving existing nuclear resources is an important part
    of meeting our carbon reduction goals. And as a recent MIT
    study found, if existing nuclear power plants were to close, we
    would see an increase in coal and natural gas production to
    make up for the lost power generation.
        To help our existing nuclear fleet remain operational,
    Congress included the civilian nuclear credit program in the
    Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and a production tax credit for
    existing nuclear generators in the Inflation Reduction Act.
        A question for Mr. Goff: Can you comment on how the program
    passed in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation
    Reduction Act are helping the existing nuclear fleet?
        Dr. Goff. Well, first, we very much appreciate, you know,
    Congress moving forward on those actions. I think they are very
    critical to make sure that we stem closures of nuclear power
    plants. We have had a number of closures, and, basically, any
    closure we need to be able to replace.
        So, yes, we had this Civil Nuclear Credit Program that
    moved forward first and has done their round of solicitations
    and was going forward potentially with one activity in that
    area.
        On the production tax credit, that has not been implemented
    yet, but we are, you know, anticipating getting it implemented
    over the next year or so.
        We should note we think that those are the very
    complementary programs. You know, we have looked at some on the
    civil nuclear credit. Will the production--would passage of the
    production tax credit eliminate the need for the civil nuclear
    credit? And the analysis that has been performed indicates
    that, no, there are still some plants that will have--you know,
    will still potentially need the civil nuclear credit in
    addition to, potentially, to the production tax credit. So we
    think those are very nice, complementary things, moving
    forward.
        Ms. Kuster. And I want to take a step back and ask you to
    think holistically. I know you had 30 years experience in the
    field, and a Ph.D. in nuclear engineering.
        It is clear from the slate of 15 bills that are subject to
    the hearing today that Congress is very interested in
    identifying ways to ensure that the United States is a leader,
    particularly in advanced nuclear energy, moving forward.
    Advanced nuclear reactors are designed to be safer and have
    fewer environmental externalities than traditional light-water
    reactors.
        If you were in Congress, Mr. Goff, what steps would you
    take to promote the United States' role as a leader in advanced
    nuclear energy, moving forward?
        Dr. Goff. Well, first, let me acknowledge what you are
    saying along that. I think we are the leaders in the
    innovation. We do have great companies and vendors that have
    developed the technology, the world-class technology. So I
    think we have the innovative technologies out there.
        We need to now make sure that we can effectively deploy
    those technologies and be able to export them as well. I mean,
    some of the key things that we need to do as far as on
    deployment, say, domestically is we need to make sure that we
    are derisking those deployments. These are big, capital-
    intensive projects. We in general--the country as a whole--we
    haven't always delivered well on large construction projects.
    We have got to make sure that we do deliver on the deployment
    of these reactors and make sure that we have systems that can
    derisk those, especially those first-of-a-kind deployments.
        That is why we are very appreciative of the funding from
    the Congress on the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Project and
    the Carbon Free Power Project. Us doing those public-private
    partnerships to derisk those initial deployments, I think, are
    very important so we can get additional reactors deployed.
        So focusing, again, on things that we can do to derisk
    those initial deployments, I think, is very important. And that
    will also then lead to being able to do exports, because I
    think, again, this is very critical that we are exporting these
    technologies as well.
        Ms. Kuster. I am going to try to squeeze in one quick one
    for Mr. Dorman.
        I share this enthusiasm for the advanced nuclear energy,
    but I am concerned about safety and derisking. Mr. Dorman, what
    resources does the NRC need to ensure advanced nuclear reactors
    are deployed safely?
        Twenty seconds.
        Mr. Dorman. Thank you, Congresswoman.
        I think we have included those resources in our budget
    requests, and we need to continue our hiring efforts to make
    sure that we are getting the critical skills that we need using
    the insights from our preapplication engagements with the
    developers.
        Ms. Kuster. And I think we need to be cautious about the
    deep cuts that have been proposed by our colleagues.
        So thank you, and I yield back.
        Mr. Duncan. The gentlelady yields back. I will now go to
    Michigan, Mr. Walberg, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
    Goff and Mr. Dorman, for being here.
        Nuclear energy provides the clean, reliable, affordable
    power this country needs. I know the importance of our nuclear
    sector firsthand, with nuclear plants on both Lake Michigan and
    Lake Erie shores in my district. But the current licensing and
    regulatory processes for new projects, upgrading current
    reactors, and maintaining and operating our existing fleet is
    just too onerous. We must update the Government's processes.
        Mr. Dorman, my draft legislation, the Nuclear Advisory
    Committee Reform Act, aims to speed up the licensing processes
    through reforms to the Advisory Committee on Reactor
    Safeguards. What is the role, first, of the Advisory Committee
    on Reactor Safeguards?
        And second, what kind of licensing actions do they
    participate in, and how often do they participate?
        Mr. Dorman. Congressman, the Advisory Committee on Reactor
    Safeguards is a group of independent experts hired by the
    Commission who report to the Commission, and they provide an
    independent review of the work that the staff does in its
    licensing. They generally participate in any new license,
    renewed license, and other significant licensing actions.
        Mr. Walberg. Significant work that they have to do, and
    needs to be done as well, but as efficiently as possible.
        As I mentioned before, the nuclear community has suggested
    that the NRC implement a more efficient process for reviewing
    the power uprate license amendment applications consistent with
    NRC practice as recently as a decade ago.
        Additionally, where nuclear operators are interested in
    pursuing multiple levels of uprate, the NRC should consider
    approaches to streamline the license amendment applications so
    that an operator can submit the necessary technical reviews
    once, instead of having to prepare redundant applications and
    costs.
        So, Mr. Dorman, with over 2 gigawatts of new clean-energy
    capacity available from potential uprates, what is the NRC
    doing to reverse the trend of longer and more costly uprate
    reviews?
        Mr. Dorman. Congressman, we have not had uprate reviews for
    a number of years. And so we know that, from the incentives in
    the Inflation Reduction Act, that the industry is actively
    looking at power uprate applications that we are expecting,
    based on the feedback we are getting, in late 2025 into 2026.
    So we are looking at our uprate processes, and looking at how
    we can gain efficiencies in those reviews as the----
        Mr. Walberg. Ways to streamline and----
        Mr. Dorman. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Walberg. Dr. Goff, a recent study by the University of
    Michigan found that the premature closure of the Palisades
    Nuclear Power Plant just north of my district will have an
    adverse economic impact on the region of more than $250 million
    annually. As I said before, it will also address the critical
    needs for baseload generation in our State.
        Republicans and Democrats came together in Michigan to fund
    reopening of the plant. And now the decision lies with the DOE.
    Do you have any updates on those efforts?
        This is a cone of silence in the room, as well, so be
    frank.
        [Laughter.]
        Dr. Goff. Well, first, I commend those efforts. We want to
    keep plants up and operational, online. This would be the first
    time we would, you know, restart a license on that. But those--
    we commend the actions that have been taken by--in Michigan on
    trying to move forward on that, and we are still assessing, I
    guess, what can be done as far as the different options out
    there.
        Mr. Walberg. Well, assess well, assess efficiently, and
    don't waste any time.
        Dr. Goff. Yes.
        Mr. Walberg. Energy is needed. And right now I think there
    is a bipartisan support level that we haven't seen before on
    nuclear power for all sorts of reasons, including climate,
    environmental concerns, et cetera. So thank you. We will keep
    watch.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Duncan. The gentleman yields back. I now go to Ms.
    Schrier for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking
    Member DeGette. And thank you, Dr. Goff and Mr. Dorman, for
    being here today.
        Uranium, obviously, is a critical fuel source for the
    United States, with nuclear power providing nearly 20 percent
    of our electricity and half of our carbon-free power. We also
    must eliminate our reliance on Russia for nuclear fuel and
    prevent U.S. dollars from flowing into the hands of Russian
    interests.
        This committee in May passed legislation to prohibit
    imports of uranium from the Russian Federation with safeguards
    to ensure that our nuclear fleet has access to the fuel that it
    needs to continue operating. This ban will provide the industry
    with certainty around need and demand, and the price-
    insensitive Russian uranium supply that in recent years has
    eroded U.S. capabilities.
        Today we are considering the Nuclear Fuel Security Act of
    2023, which is intended to expand our domestic capability to
    produce, convert, and enrich uranium, both for the existing
    fleet and for advanced nuclear reactors under development right
    now. I was wondering, Dr. Goff, how would this legislation,
    including an expanded strategic uranium reserve, work in tandem
    with uranium--with the Russian uranium import ban to restore
    domestic fuel cycle capabilities in the U.S. and give us
    national security?
        Dr. Goff. You know, we are very supportive of any
    activities, again, to be moving forward to incentivize being
    able to build out additional uranium enrichment and conversion-
    type activities in the United States.
        That, with the--and the American assured fuel supply, as
    far as authorizing that, I think that is something that is
    potentially very good as well. That is a critical component of
    us being able to address shortfalls of uranium, enriched
    uranium. So the ability to be able to enlarge that, you know,
    fuel supply there provides us more of a buffer if there is some
    type of interruption in the future.
        But again, you know, we very much support trying to see how
    we can work together to incentivize new capacity for enrichment
    in the United States to be able to work ourselves off--long-
    term, off the Russian supply of material.
        Ms. Schrier. Thank you. And I appreciate your working with
    this committee, too, because we want to do whatever you need,
    within reason, to be able to hasten that. I anticipate you will
    face many barriers along the way, and we want to work with you
    because of this need to convert to nonemitting sources.
        I was also wondering, because there were provisions in the
    bill that we passed, where else can we source uranium, say,
    from friendlier countries?
        Dr. Goff. Right now we do--you know, we use about 15
    million SWU. The unit for enrichment is this separative work
    unit. The commercial fleet every year uses about 15 million of
    those things. In the United States right now we only have about
    4.5 million SWUs. So we are buying right now a lot of our
    material already from Europe, primarily, that--there are, yes,
    various enrichment capacities in Europe.
        And then, like I say, right now we have--around 24 percent
    of our material comes from Russia. So we are working with our
    allies and partners for that material.
        Ms. Schrier. Where does Canada fit in that mix? My
    understanding is that we could significantly source from
    Canada.
        Dr. Goff. They do--they provide raw uranium material and
    conversion. They don't do enrichment. Their reactors don't
    require--in general, don't necessarily have to have a lot of
    enrichment. But they are a valuable partner for providing
    uranium and uranium conversion services that will feed into an
    enrichment process.
        Ms. Schrier. Thank you for that clarification.
        And I yield back.
        Mr. Duncan. The gentlelady yields back. I now go to
    Kentucky, to Mr. Guthrie. Five minutes.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. Welcome to Kentucky, the great
    Commonwealth.
        So the Commonwealth is a known energy-producing State, and
    we are trying to maintain our position as an energy-producing
    State. Our State and community leaders are looking at
    converting brownfield sites, and particularly where there were
    coal-fired plants that are no longer operating, into nuclear
    sites.
        And so, Dr. Goff--a question for both of you, but start
    with Dr. Goff--are siting and licensing decisions faster at
    brownfield sites, and particularly when there is already some
    critical infrastructure in place?
        And what is the Department of Energy doing to coordinate?
        So is that--can it be quicker, and then what are you guys
    doing to coordinate that?
        Dr. Goff. It has the potential to be quicker, as Mr. Dorman
    mentioned earlier, that you----
        Mr. Guthrie. I was in another hearing, I am sorry----
        Dr. Goff. No, no----
        Mr. Guthrie [continuing]. I apologize.
        Dr. Goff. There is a lot of characterization already for
    those existing sites. So you could rely on those to help
    support, you know, the environmental reviews on that as well.
        I mean, the Department is supportive of those type of
    activities. We did issue a report last year that really did a
    detailed look at trying to identify brownfield sites around the
    country, and look at, you know, what are--which ones are very
    potentially viable.
        The other real benefit that they have, though, is also--is
    you have an educated workforce in the energy sector, as well,
    so you have a workforce that can transition from a coal-fired
    plant to a nuclear plant. It actually looked at, again, how
    many of those jobs can transition over, which is, again, a very
    large fraction. So, yes, there is a lot of opportunity in
    trying to do that.
        And I will note one of our demonstrations that we are
    doing, the TerraPower demonstration in Wyoming, is going at a
    retiring coal-fired plant. So we will be learning a lot from
    that process and how much that can streamline the process.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you.
        And so then, Mr. Dorman, what is the NRC doing in that
    respect for guidance for those sites, particularly? Just kind
    of comment on that.
        Mr. Dorman. Yes, I agree with Dr. Goff that there are
    opportunities here. I think how recent and the data and methods
    are that characterize this site will impact how much benefit we
    get from streamlining the review in that regard.
        There's also unique issues at a coal site potentially, that
    the coal ash contains naturally occurring radioactive material
    that has been concentrated that needs to be characterized and
    considered in planning for a nuclear facility there, and
    ultimately for the closure of that facility and the cleanup of
    it. So there may be unique issues there.
        We have--you mentioned the TerraPower in Wyoming. We also
    have recently completed the staff safety evaluation for a
    demonstration reactor in Tennessee, which is on a former
    nuclear site, DOE. So again, we were able to take some of the
    insights there from the already-characterized site to help
    streamline our review.
        Mr. Guthrie. OK, thank you. Well, that concludes my
    question for this panel, if anybody needs time.
        Or Mr. Chair, if not, I will yield back.
        Mr. Duncan. The gentleman yields back. I will now go to
    Florida to Ms. Castor, I believe, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Chairman Duncan and Ranking
    Member DeGette, for organizing this important hearing on how we
    update our nuclear policies here in America. It is a good time
    to do that, because over the past couple of years Democrats and
    President Biden have made tremendous investments in the nuclear
    power industry. And it is critical for all of us to work
    together to build on that process.
        The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provided $6 billion for
    the Civil Nuclear Credit Program, funds that will ensure our
    already existing fleet of nuclear reactors stays safe and
    competitive. We have 93 reactors at 55 plants. They provide 46
    percent carbon--or they provide 20 percent of our electricity
    generation and 46 percent of our carbon-free power.
        Then add on the Inflation Reduction Act, Democrats created
    a tax credit of up to 1.8 cents per kilowatt hour for zero-
    emission nuclear energy and provided DOE with 700 million to
    invest in increasing the availability of next-generation
    nuclear fuel for advanced reactors. So like I said, this is a
    very good time to do this.
        Mr. Dorman, what is the oldest reactor in the U.S. that is
    operating currently?
        Mr. Dorman. I used to know that, but it closed. I think it
    is Dresden in Illinois----
        Ms. Castor. So how old?
        Mr. Dorman [continuing]. At this point.
        Ms. Castor [continuing]. As we extend the--we go through
    the safety review on extension of licenses, what is our oldest
    reactor? What do we need to be considering?
        Mr. Dorman. If I remember right, I think Dresden was
    licensed around the 1970 timeframe, so it would be 53 years-
    ish.
        Ms. Castor. As we go through this process of trying to
    safely extend the life of nuclear power plants, I am concerned
    with extreme events right now. And there is one plant in
    Florida, Turkey Creek, where it was built right there between
    Biscayne Bay and the Everglades. They had extended the life of
    that plant a few years ago, and then did a safety review, and
    they rolled it back.
        So I am curious, as we update our policies on review of the
    existing plants, do you have the authority to really look at
    the impacts of climate change, whether it is extreme heat or
    flash floods, hurricanes, you know--earthquakes are a
    different, or a little different. But I just--as we talk about
    streamlining and environmental reviews, I don't want us to lose
    sight of the increasingly unpredictable extreme events caused
    by climate change.
        Mr. Dorman. Yes. Thank you, Congresswoman.
        Following the Fukushima accident, we did a complete review
    of flooding and seismic issues for all the operating plants in
    the United States, and we also established what we call a
    process for ongoing assessment of natural hazards information.
    So that is a process where the staff is constantly looking to
    USGS for seismic, looking to NOAA for weather information,
    looking to the Corps of Engineers for dam reliability issues
    that could impact nuclear power plants.
        Where we have--where we would see any gap in the licensing
    basis of an existing plant based on new information, we have
    the authority we need to engage that licensee and bring about
    change to address that, such a gap, if it were to occur.
        Ms. Castor. Dr. Goff, do we need to--as we update policies,
    do we need to keep anything in mind in particular for extension
    of useful life, or the new sites for the small modular reactors
    when it comes to these--the shifting extreme events?
        Dr. Goff. Yes, we do need to take into account the climate
    and the river, the water usage.
        And I will note a lot of these plants, though, some of the
    advanced ones, can actually do more dry cooling too. So they
    have less water needs, which could be very important going
    forward--
        Ms. Castor. Because wasn't there recently an incident in
    France, where the water temperature to cool the reactor was at
    issue?
        Dr. Goff. You can at times downrate plants because of the--
    whatever their cooling water is. If it gets too high, they have
    to back off on the power level. That happens lots of times
    during the summer at a lot of different areas, and all is----
        Ms. Castor. So do you need--do the agencies need additional
    authorities, or do you have the authorities that exist now to
    conduct all of the necessary reviews?
        Dr. Goff. I believe we have the authorities right now to do
    those necessary reviews to assess--
        Ms. Castor. And would any of the legislation here
    counteract that, take authorities away that you need in this
    unpredictable world right now?
        Dr. Goff. Not that I am aware of, no.
        Mr. Dorman. Not that I am aware of.
        Ms. Castor. All right. Thank you very much. And----
        Mr. Duncan. The gentlelady yields back, and I will now go
    to Alabama.
        Mr. Palmer, 5 minutes.
        Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
    witnesses being here. I want to get a little more specific
    about what we could do going forward in terms of utilizing
    nuclear technology for generating power, but before I do that I
    want to get back to this issue about fuel. And long term, if we
    transition to advanced reactors that can recycle spent fuel
    rods, that could virtually eliminate reliance on any foreign
    supply chain for enriched uranium.
        Dr. Goff, I think you were talking about our reliance on
    Russia for uranium. We had the Director of the National Nuclear
    Laboratory in here from Idaho, and he made the point that if we
    went to the advanced reactors and started recycling the spent
    fuel rods, that we could operate our nuclear facilities for
    about 100 years. So I think that would address that issue--not
    totally, but it would address it in a very significant way.
        Mr. Dorman, you served on nuclear submarines. And one of
    the things that interests me is the safety and the power
    generation capacity of a nuclear submarine. It is about 150 to
    200 megawatts. Is that about right?
        Mr. Dorman. That sounds like the right ballpark. It has
    been about 30 years for me, but that sounds about right.
        Mr. Palmer. Yes. But the thing that interests me most about
    this is that they are a standard design. They are modular. They
    can be assembled somewhere else and then be installed in a
    submarine. I don't know that we have ever had to replace one.
    We may have, but they are designed such that they can fit
    pretty much any submarine that we operate.
        And if we were to go to the small modular reactors, I
    think, by definition, they can--a small modular reactor can
    produce up to 300 megawatts of power. Is that your
    understanding?
        Mr. Dorman. That is the range we are looking at for most of
    the applications we are anticipating. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Palmer. And one of the points I think that you raised
    was the problem with fitting things into the grid. It is a huge
    problem for renewables. That is one of the reasons why there is
    so much interest across the aisle for building out a new grid.
        But with a small modular reactor, an SMR, you could fit
    that in pretty much anywhere. That is one of the advantages of
    a small--of an SMR, is that it can be located in places where a
    larger nuclear reactor or renewables could not to meet the
    power needs of different communities. Is that a fair statement?
        Mr. Dorman. Yes. So we are focused on the safety and less
    on the grid compatibility piece, except for the reliable power
    back to the plant. But it sounds reasonable.
        Mr. Palmer. Well, that is--the safety factor is one of the
    real assets of the SMRs, is because they are standard design,
    they are modular, and you even have microreactors that the
    military is looking at using to power military bases but could
    also be used in--to meet power needs in emergency situations,
    whether it is post-disaster--is that a fair point as well?
        Mr. Dorman. Yes.
        Mr. Palmer. Well, here is part of what I think we need to
    be thinking about, Mr. Chairman, is that we have this emerging
    technology. We have got some that have been approved by the
    NRC. I think there's projects different places around the
    country, one I know in Utah. And this might be the way to go,
    because these can be manufactured and assembled, delivered on
    site in locations where we can't get turbine farms, solar
    farms, can't get a large nuclear reactor. And the permitting on
    this ought to be a considerably shorter duration than any of
    these other facilities that we are talking about.
        Mr. Goff, Mr. Dorman, either one of you, comment on that.
        Mr. Dorman. I think you hit a key principle there,
    Congressman, of standard design. You know, once we have gone
    through and approved a design, it should be very
    straightforward for us to do the safety review for that design
    in other locations. That has not been the experience in this
    country. We have 93 very different reactors, so the designs
    have evolved as it has come along.
        So I think getting a very standard design would be very
    helpful to a streamlined process.
        Mr. Palmer. I really appreciate the opportunity to raise
    these points. This is what France does with their nuclear
    reactors with standard design. I think it is a good direction
    for the United States.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Duncan. The gentleman yields back, and I will go to
    Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes.
        Mr. Sarbanes. Mr. Chairman, thanks very much, and thanks to
    you all.
        Obviously, based on the hearing today and some of the bills
    that we have been speaking of, we know that while nuclear
    energy is already a very significant force in our domestic
    energy production portfolio, there's opportunities to work in a
    bipartisan way to try to bring its constant, reliable, and
    carbon-free power to even more Americans. So it is a very
    exciting topic, actually, in the broad context of all the
    challenges we are facing on the energy front.
        So we know this will require licensing and deploying
    nuclear reactors, but another critical part of the domestic
    expansion of nuclear energy is going to be building and
    maintaining a robust Federal workforce--we have acknowledged
    that, I know others here have spoken to it--a workforce that we
    can count on every day to ensure safe and secure nuclear
    operations, as well as enable technological advancements.
        This is very important to the broad public, too. If the
    full promise of this resource is going to be realized, we know,
    looking historically, that the public needs to have confidence.
    That derives not just from the technology, but it derives from
    the experts that are administering and managing the technology.
    So I want to learn a little bit more about the current
    workforce at the NRC and the Department of Energy's Office of
    Nuclear Energy.
        Mr. Dorman, can you talk about the importance to the NRC of
    retaining current staff, people you have that are good and that
    we can rely on, while also obviously trying to recruit new
    staff both at early and midcareer levels? Because I imagine
    being able to pull people in who have got experience over years
    is an important part of the resource picture that you want to
    build.
        And then give me the flip side. If we can't adequately
    staff the NRC, what are the consequences that you can foresee
    there?
        Mr. Dorman. Thank you, Congressman.
        I think, as was touched on earlier in the conversation, we
    have--about a third of our workforce is currently eligible to
    retire. And so one of the blessings we have is that our
    workforce works well past their eligibility to retire, and that
    average number has actually been increasing in recent years. We
    have a very dedicated and committed workforce.
        But they are not going to be there forever, and so we are
    working hard to replenish the staff. We hired over 200 people
    last year, and we are on track to hire probably 250 to 300
    people this year, which means that about 15 to 20 percent of
    our workforce will be less than 2 years. So we are very focused
    on staff development, training, and qualification, getting
    those people up to speed in the work that we do so that they
    can continue to pick up that load.
        You mentioned the distribution. We have, over the last 3 or
    4 years, reinstituted our entry-level hiring program--we call
    it an apprenticeship network--to bring in people at the start
    of their career. But we are also very reliant on a significant
    portion of our external hiring being experienced people that we
    bring in with the knowledge and skills, and we just work with
    them on developing the regulatory tradecraft.
        Mr. Sarbanes. And Mr. Goff, could you talk about this in
    the context of the Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear
    Energy and the recruiting and retaining strategies you are
    using there?
        Dr. Goff. I think we have the similar challenges that were
    noted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. We have--a number
    of our staff could retire. In fact, over the last few years we
    have experienced a lot of attrition through the retirement.
        As far as on the Federal staff, we are much smaller than
    the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but we are responsible for
    the laboratories, which does a lot of our work. And we are
    seeing significant hiring increases in the laboratories,
    especially, I would say, at Idaho National Lab, the Office of
    Nuclear Energy's lab, we are, you know, seeing a 10 to 20
    percent increase in hiring.
        But you are getting a lot of turnover as well. There is a
    lot of competition with all these new vendors. So people are
    leaving, which--I support that, I want the vendors and all to
    be successful. But there is more turnover now within the
    industry----
        Mr. Sarbanes. Yes----
        Dr. Goff [continuing]. And more growth.
        Mr. Sarbanes. Let me follow on that in the time I have
    left. And I do just want to acknowledge, as I know has been
    done already, but Ranking Member DeGette has H.R. 4528, which
    is--would help significantly in terms of this recruitment and
    retention challenge.
        But talk about the competition with the vendors, because
    everybody's efforts to recruit and retain is derivative of a
    broader ecosystem in which we are seeing shortages, and every
    player that is looking for these people is competing. So what
    does that look like?
        Because it is sort of--every--you know, poaching, stealing,
    borrowing, whatever you want to call it, talk to that dynamic
    in 15 seconds, if you can.
        Mr. Duncan. The gentleman yields back. I will now go to
    the----
        Mr. Sarbanes. OK.
        Mr. Duncan [continuing]. Crossroads of America, Mr.
    Bucshon, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Sarbanes. Zero----
        Mr. Bucshon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have two hearings
    going at the same time, Health and this, so I apologize.
        I want to thank the witnesses, of course, for joining us
    today.
        America can and should be a leader in the advanced nuclear
    energy space. I was with Chairman Rodgers on the trip over to
    Europe, to Poland and Czech Republic, and we heard a lot about
    what they are doing over there, and we want to be leaders here.
        It is a valuable component to an all-of-the-above energy
    strategy. It helps with the goal of lower emissions, and it
    contributes immensely to a diverse and secure energy mix in the
    United States. I am interested in boosting the development and
    deployment of advanced nuclear energy technologies here in the
    United States, and there are a number of hurdles that companies
    may face when seeking to license advanced nuclear reactor
    technologies.
        Mr. Dorman, could you just--and I know you may have done
    some of this--could you just describe briefly the interactions
    a new application has with NRC, from preapplication meeting and
    planning to the acceptance review and through the actual
    licensing process? What are the steps?
        Mr. Dorman. Thank you, Congressman.
        So the preapplication is an entirely voluntary process, but
    we strongly encourage it, particularly with new and innovative
    technologies, because it gives the opportunity for the staff to
    learn the technology and be better prepared for the
    application, and for the applicant to understand what the
    agency is going to be looking for in a complete application. So
    it is--it can take several years, depending on what point in
    the development of the design the applicant engages.
        The license review, once the application comes in, will
    take about 60 days to look at the application against the
    regulatory requirements and determine that the application is
    complete. And then we will docket it for the staff's review and
    establish a schedule for that review based on the issues that
    arise in that licensing application.
        Mr. Bucshon. So do you know roughly how many hours of work
    would typically be charged?
        Because I have--one of the pieces of legislation we are
    talking about is the Advanced Reactor Fee Reduction Act, trying
    to reduce the cost of this process. Do you know roughly how
    many hours of work would typically be charged in fees for the
    process?
        Mr. Dorman. It is going to vary, depending on the
    innovations and the complexities in the design----
        Mr. Bucshon. Right, yes.
        Mr. Dorman [continuing]. Fixed number, but generally, I
    would say, on the order of the 10 to tens of thousands of staff
    hours.
        Mr. Bucshon. Yes, so a very costly process.
        Mr. Dorman. Yes.
        Mr. Bucshon. Do you know roughly what portion of these
    initial fees are mission-direct costs and what portion are
    indirect or administrative costs?
        Mr. Dorman. Roughly, I would say half. There is one hourly
    rate that the current----
        Mr. Bucshon. Right.
        Mr. Dorman [continuing]. That we currently calculate, and I
    think it is in the ballpark of half.
        Mr. Bucshon. Yes, $300 an hour, I think, final hour rate.
        Mr. Dorman. Right.
        Mr. Bucshon. Something along those lines.
        Mr. Dorman. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Bucshon. OK. In your opinion, would eliminating some of
    the costs for prelicensing activities encourage more
    applications and designs from smaller companies?
        Do you think that is a rate-limiting step?
        Mr. Dorman. I think it could. That is kind of out of my
    wheelhouse.
        Mr. Bucshon. Yes.
        Mr. Dorman. I think the predominant cost for the applicant
    is the development of their design and the research that they
    need to do to provide the technical basis to support it. But I
    am sure that reducing the cost of our review would be----
        Mr. Bucshon. Yes.
        Mr. Dorman [continuing]. Appealing.
        Mr. Bucshon. So--and this is for either. I have some time
    left, so either one of you all. If there were three key things
    that we could do that would make this process move along more
    quickly and keep America out front, what would it be, just
    broadly?
        And that can be, you know, regulatory reform. I mean, just
    in your experience, what are the rate-limiting steps?
        I mean, what is really holding us----
        Mr. Dorman. I think Dr. Goff touched on it earlier in the
    context of financing. You know, I think ultimately getting
    these products to market is a question of the financing.
        I think regulatory reform is an area that we are focused
    on, and that is our area, and we welcome the committee's
    thoughts on that.
        Mr. Bucshon. Yes, I mean, the longer it takes, right, the
    more costly it is. So it is kind of a vicious cycle, right? If
    it takes longer to review, it becomes--continues to be more
    costly. And we are seeing that now, right, in Georgia and other
    places. You know, we have seen it in the past.
        Also, I just want to make it clear we--the number-one focus
    is on safety, right, and doing this properly.
        Dr. Goff. Yes.
        Mr. Bucshon. Do you have a comment?
        Dr. Goff. Well, I will agree with that, yes, the number-one
    focus still is on safety. But yes, going back to your earlier
    question, I would agree, as well. I mean, one of the key issues
    is financing, you know, is----
        Mr. Bucshon. Yes, because we are going to have these small
    modular nuclear reactors probably in the next 5 to 10 years,
    maybe sooner.
        And, you know, every time we deploy one of these things,
    you know, we basically roll it up in a truck and connect it. We
    can't have a multimulti-year-long--we have to figure that out,
    I think, right, that we can't take 10 years when we have a
    product that--everybody knows the product, it is just a matter
    of, OK, now we are deploying it to here and we are going to
    replace an old coal-fired power plant, literally just plug it
    in there. We can't take 10 years to do that, right? So we have
    got to figure that out.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Duncan. Good points. The gentleman yields back. I now
    go to California, Mr. Cardenas. Five minutes.
        Mr. Cardenas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
    appreciate the leadership putting this hearing together.
        Over the last few months, this subcommittee has had the
    privilege of having the Nuclear Regulatory Commission testify
    before us multiple times. Throughout these conversations, the
    NRC--I have been vocal about my concerns relating to the life
    cycle of spent nuclear fuel. And during our last hearing with
    the Commission, Chairman Hanson identified that spent fuel
    storage and ultimate disposal remained key policy issues that
    we are still having to figure out how to contend with properly.
        I continue to believe that addressing the legacy of toxic
    waste associated with nuclear energy should be at the forefront
    of our conversations. Our biggest priority should be to protect
    public health and safety. And as such, it is also our shared
    responsibility to ensure that current and future nuclear fleets
    are licensed and operated safely. Luckily, data has indicated
    that the production of nuclear power in the United States is
    safe, largely due to the current processes and regulations in
    place.
        Of the 15 bills included in today's hearing, several reduce
    mandatory hearing and public notice requirements and change the
    environmental review process. Mr. Dorman, can you please
    explain what the current public notice and hearing processes
    look like?
        Mr. Dorman. Yes, sir. When a license application comes in
    and the staff has determined that it is complete and dockets
    it, the staff issues a notice in the Federal Register of an
    opportunity to comment and an opportunity for public hearing on
    that action.
        In addition, on the environmental review, we go out into
    the community and conduct what we call a scoping meeting, where
    we get the community's insights on the scope of issues at play
    in the environmental report for the site, and then for--the
    draft environmental impact statement is noticed for comment.
    And then there is comment resolution in the staff reaching to a
    final environmental impact statement.
        Mr. Cardenas. OK. Can you please explain or discuss why the
    process was established the way it is, and the importance of
    this process?
        Mr. Dorman. Well, I think part of it is governed by the
    Procedures Act. So there are legal requirements that we need to
    meet, as well as under NEPA. But I think, in the context of the
    Commission's strategic goals of strategic--building stakeholder
    confidence in the work that we do, we are very much engaged in
    the communities that may be impacted by our licensing decisions
    and making sure that they have the opportunity to hear and
    understand what we are doing to ensure that they are safe.
        Mr. Cardenas. I think at the root of that, that you just
    described, the real purpose is because we live in the United
    States of America, where every human being who lives here has
    the right to know what is going on to the left of them, to the
    right of them, what is going on in their community, whether or
    not it is going to be safe or endanger them, et cetera.
        I have been legislating for 27 years now, and I heard one
    of my colleagues give a ridiculous comment that in China, for
    example, they can build a dam darn near overnight. That is a
    silly comparison, because in China I don't think the people
    have the rights that we do in this country. And thank God we
    have the rights that we do in this country. And with that
    comes, unfortunately, processes that may cause complaint by
    those involved in the process.
        But at the end of the day, as was mentioned by Dr. Goff and
    you, Mr. Dorman, you agreed with one of my colleagues that
    public safety--safety--is at the root of everything that we
    should be concerned with and involved with in every step and
    every action that we take when it comes to nuclear facilities.
    Isn't that correct?
        Mr. Dorman. Yes, sir. Safety is our focus.
        Mr. Cardenas. OK. Safety for people, right?
        Mr. Dorman. Yes.
        Mr. Cardenas. Thank you. Can you similarly expand on what
    the current environmental review process looks like, its
    history, and the importance of each aspect of the process?
        Mr. Dorman. Well, I briefly touched on the sequence of
    events----
        Mr. Cardenas. Yes.
        Mr. Dorman [continuing]. Of the scoping and drafting, but
    there is--it actually starts with the applicant doing site
    characterization, and characterizing the environment of the
    site that they plan to work on and what they propose to do at
    that site, and exploration of alternatives. It includes an
    assessment of severe accident management alternatives, ways
    that, if something adverse did happen, it could be mitigated.
        So there is a very detailed process looking at the site,
    the potential impacts to the site, alternatives, and
    mitigations.
        Mr. Cardenas. And there are various levels of governments
    in the process, local governments, State governments, Federal
    Government, all these different processes.
        Mr. Dorman. Yes.
        Mr. Cardenas. Do you think there is a possibility that we
    could actually be more efficient by having more parallel tracks
    when and if--without compromising safety, without compromising
    informing the public--perhaps more parallel tracks?
        Mr. Dorman. Parallel tracks and, really, a thorough
    understanding of the stakeholder community so that we engage
    them very early in the process so that all the issues get
    raised early so that they can be addressed efficiently.
        Mr. Cardenas. Excellent. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I apologize, my time expired. I yield back.
        Mr. Duncan. The gentleman's time has expired. I will now go
    to the vice chair of the committee, Mr. Curtis, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate
    this hearing. This has been very interesting. I think it should
    be very encouraging to the American people to hear the vast
    amount of bipartisan enthusiasm for this.
        I think we have heard today about a world where we see
    hundreds of nuclear plants in--by the year 2050 and perhaps
    even beyond that. And yet I have watched the struggle to--in
    Utah we have a project by UAMPS, a--power cities. There is also
    one that you two have referred to as TerraPower. I prefer to
    refer to it as Pacificorp, because that brings it back to Utah,
    even though the plant will actually go in Wyoming. But strong
    Utah ties there.
        And in the case of Pacificorp, I think you see incredibly
    strong resources coming together to take every advantage of
    moving forward with permitting in a pretty powerful way. Yet in
    the example of UAMPS, you have a number of cities, some of
    which are in the tens of thousands of residents, not hundreds
    of thousands, very limited resources. And I have watched from
    the beginning of their project seeming impossible to cross this
    hurdle. So in my few minutes today I would like to talk about
    that barrier and how we lower that barrier to get to the
    hundreds of plants that we foresee.
        I have a bill. It is called the Advanced Nuclear Reactor
    Prize Act. It provides assistance to innovators that
    successfully license and deploy advanced reactors. Currently,
    first mover advanced reactors will have to expend significant
    financial resources. You both kind of called out finances as
    one of our most difficult barriers. My bill authorizes the
    Secretary of Energy to make targeted awards to cover regulatory
    costs to first technologies that are licensed and made
    operational in certain categories. The incentive of the award
    will help first movers to submit quality applications that
    allow the public to benefit from safe, reliable nuclear
    technology.
        Could you both briefly talk about this attempt to lower the
    barrier, if you see value in this?
        And then I would like to kind of probe other opportunities
    as well.
        Mr. Dorman, would you start first?
        Mr. Dorman. Yes, thank you, Congressman. The proposal that
    you mentioned, as I understand it, would provide the award
    after the completion of the regulatory review. And I think that
    that is important to us.
        And you mentioned the quality applications. Quality
    applications are going to be critical to our being able to do
    efficient reviews. So I think having an incentive that supports
    that outcome is consistent with what we need to get our job
    done the best possible way.
        Mr. Curtis. Thank you.
        Doctor?
        Dr. Goff. I agree strongly that, yes, helping to finance
    the licensing of those early movers is a very important
    incentive. We have already--we are doing that some already,
    like, say, through the UAMPS project. You know, we helped--you
    know, the--cost shared, the burden of doing the design
    certification for the U.S. was public-private partnership.
        Similarly with the Pacificorp reactor, as we will say
    there, similarly with that we are cost sharing as they are
    going through the licensing process. So I think that cost
    sharing is important as far as moving forward.
        I will even note that is what we did for the AP-1000 that
    was built in Georgia. That was a public-private partnership
    during the licensing process and the design certification. So I
    think having some public-private partnership to take care of
    some of that design certification cost is an important
    incentive.
        Mr. Curtis. You know, for reference, I was chair of UMPA,
    which is a sister agency to UAMPS, and so that is why I have
    watched them go through this process for a number of years. And
    I am amazed that they have been able to make it as far as they
    have. And I agree, without the help that is being provided,
    there is no way that they are able to plow through this.
        I have also seen, in my current role--earlier we talked
    with another Representative about the brownfield sites and this
    Pacificorp project. And I can tell you firsthand, as somebody
    who has a county called Carbon County in their district, how
    much enthusiasm and excitement there would be for this and how
    many more goals we would actually accomplish in addition to
    clean, reliable power, helping these communities that have been
    so devastated by a lot of this transition. So thank you for
    those efforts, and thank you for all you are doing.
        Maybe with 30 seconds left, let me just shout out you--the
    other thing that you mentioned was regulatory reform. Somehow,
    when the word ``regulatory reform'' is mentioned, all of us
    think of different things. I know some think of transmission,
    some are thinking of pipelines, right? And we don't have time
    to explore that, but I would just like to put out there that
    that is a place where we do need to come together as Congress
    and get broad consensus and move forward if we are going to
    lower this barrier.
        Thank you, gentlemen, for your time, and I yield.
        Mr. Duncan. It is now my pleasure to recognize, since I am
    an honorary Texan, the gentlelady from Texas, Mrs. Fletcher, 5
    minutes.
        Mrs. Fletcher. Well, thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I
    appreciate you holding this hearing today. And I really want to
    thank our witnesses too. This has been a really useful hearing,
    I think, for all of us. I appreciate your thoughts and
    insights. And as we are getting toward the end here, we have
    covered a lot of the topics that I had hoped to hear from you
    about, and I appreciate your insights and your answers.
        As we have discussed throughout the day, nuclear energy
    plays just an essential role in generating reliable, carbon-
    free baseload power. That is certainly something that we see in
    Texas, where I have visited our South Texas nuclear power
    plant. But we also know--and our work on sort of the next
    generation of nuclear technologies--and that is really
    important in sort of our path forward.
        So one of the things we have touched on a little bit today
    are the small modular nuclear reactors. And obviously, that
    offers a lot of potential advancements that are going to
    improve cost and efficiency and versatility for the grid, as
    well as addressing some of the concerns that people have raised
    over the years.
        And we know, and we talked a little bit about, you know,
    the process at NRC to review these advanced nuclear reactors.
    And I know that along the Texas Gulf Coast there are some
    active partnerships trying to bring this technology to light,
    and so I wanted to ask you, Mr. Dorman, because you touched on
    it a little bit in your opening, the work that the NRC is doing
    to address the bipartisan NEMA requirements.
        And I think that this is an area where I have heard a lot
    of concerns from folks that the draft rule that has been put
    together really just doesn't meet the requirements that
    Congress laid out, but also--and it is something we hear,
    unfortunately, a lot in this context--isn't workable. And so
    that is the big challenge, I think, in front of us.
        And so can you talk just a little bit more with the time
    that I have about what the NRC is doing to try to ensure that
    the part 53 rule will meet the requirements of NEMA, and
    specifically the new licensing framework that--to be both risk-
    informed and performance-based?
        I think that that is some of the tension. And if you could,
    just talk a little bit more about what you are doing.
        And I know you anticipated movement on the rule quickly. I
    know you said you are ahead of schedule, but those seem to be
    the concerns. And so I want to know how you are seeing them
    play out now and how you are addressing them as we move toward
    a final rule.
        Mr. Dorman. Thank you, Congresswoman. So I will speak to
    what the staff has done, because the rule is currently with the
    Commission.
        The staff had an extensive process over 2 years of
    iterative language development with significant stakeholder
    engagement. We did have areas where we took stakeholder
    feedback. We have, as you know, a two-framework rule before the
    Commission. The second framework was developed by the staff in
    response to stakeholder inputs. But there are a number of areas
    that we had stakeholder inputs that was contrary to where the
    staff was coming out.
        In presenting the rule to the Commission, the staff teed up
    four specific issues like that with what the basis for the
    staff's recommendation was, as well as other considerations
    that the Commission could evaluate. So that--the staff brought
    those issues to the Commission, and we are awaiting the
    Commission direction on that.
        As you noted, we are 2 years ahead of the NEMA schedule on
    that, so we have some leeway to take that direction and
    whatever direction we get from the Commission and work it
    forward.
        Mrs. Fletcher. Well, thanks. I appreciate that, because I
    do think there's still some outstanding concerns, and that is
    what I am, you know, continuing to hear.
        Mr. Dorman. Yes.
        Mrs. Fletcher. And I think the other concern that I just
    want to touch on--I have a little over a minute left--and this
    is, again, something you mentioned in your opening, but can you
    talk a little about what the NRC is doing to ensure that the
    licensing frameworks make sense for all reactors and not just
    the traditional light-water reactors that are part of our
    existing fleet, but sort of all reactors going forward?
        You have got about a minute for that.
        Mr. Dorman. Yes, thank you, Congresswoman.
        So the part 53 would be what we are trying to do that would
    be technology inclusive. The existing rules in part 50 and 52
    were designed for large, light-water reactors. We anticipate
    two applications for nonlight-water reactors in the next year
    under part 50 and 52. And so part of the preapplication
    engagement with those applicants is looking at those rules,
    applicability considerations of those rules, and any areas that
    are not applicable or may need exemptions from those
    requirements.
        So we are working with those applicants to work through and
    get through a coherent licensing process and sound conclusions
    under the existing framework.
        Mrs. Fletcher. Great. Well, thank you so much, Mr. Dorman,
    and thanks to both of you for your time and testimony today.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
        Mr. Duncan. The gentlelady yields back. I now go to the
    gentlelady that knows about the Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant,
    Mrs. Lesko, for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being
    here to both of you.
        Mr. Dorman, I was told, I don't know, probably about a year
    ago or so, that the NRC sends out additional inspectors to
    nuclear plants in addition to the on-site inspectors that are
    already at the plants. I was told that some of these additional
    inspectors sometimes do what they believe is outdated
    inspections, maybe duplicative inspections, and that the
    thought was that maybe the extra cost of this additional
    inspector doesn't always outweigh the benefits.
        And so, because of those concerns, I have introduced this
    one bill to try to come up with ideas or a report from the NRC.
    And my bill requires the NRC to produce three reports for this
    committee detailing how to improve regulatory oversight: the
    report 1 would discuss lessons learned from technologies used
    during the COVID crisis to see if they can be applied on a
    permanent basis, because I was told there was some that worked
    well; our report 2 would access specific elements of oversight
    and inspections that can be modified using technology, improved
    planning, and continually updated risk-informed performance-
    based assessment; and report 3 would review office and facility
    space requirements.
        Mr. Dorman, have you heard of any of the inspection
    concerns that I just talked about?
        Mr. Dorman. I think not in those terms. We have our
    resident inspectors, whose full-time duty station is at the
    nuclear power plant. And they are focused primarily on
    operations and maintenance issues and response to incidents
    that occur at the site.
        The staff in our respective regional offices are deployed
    as part of our baseline inspection program to do more focused
    inspections in areas like engineering, security, and emergency
    preparedness. So they are specialists, and they are focused in
    different areas of our baseline inspection program than what
    the--is done day to day by the resident inspectors. So that is
    what I am hearing that you describe.
        I think we are always open to improvements in our
    inspection program. The process that we have in place now was
    established a little over 20 years ago, and it establishes a
    baseline inspection program combined with objective performance
    indicators that are--that, combined, provide a minimum level of
    oversight to assure safety of the facility on an ongoing basis.
    And then there is a structured process if there's degradations
    in performance to--for escalation of additional inspection to
    ensure that causes are understood and fixed.
        But I think, in terms of your proposals, we are happy to
    work with the committee on those report areas. There are
    technology enhancements that occurred during the pandemic to
    support our mission effectiveness during the pandemic, and I
    think there are ways that we can apply some of those.
        We also have been working to put better tools in our
    inspectors' hands to make them more efficient in the field, in
    terms of technology. So I think there is definitely areas we
    can work with you on.
        Mrs. Lesko. Good. I would appreciate it. Mr. Dorman, it is
    also my understanding that the NRC staff--maybe about--I don't
    know how recently, I think within the last year--originally
    recommended conducting that--inspections every 3 years,
    instead--wait, let me back up.
        The Problem Identification and Resolution Program is part
    of the reactor oversight process, which follows up on how
    plants identify and resolve issues. As part of the overall
    efforts to enhance the reactor oversight process, this program
    was reviewed. One of the program's many inspection activities
    involves a large team inspection, which is conducted every 2
    years.
        Mr. Dorman, it is my understanding that the NRC staff
    originally recommended conducting that inspection every 3
    years, instead of every 2 years, but that recommendation was
    withdrawn. Can you tell me more about this, and why the
    recommendation was withdrawn?
        Mr. Dorman. The recommendation that went to the Commission
    originally went with a view expressed in the paper that the
    leadership in our regional offices who implement the program
    hadn't had a chance to fully digest this recommendation and
    were not on board with the recommendation.
        So the reason we withdrew the recommendation was to go back
    and further develop our--look at the whole problem
    identification resolution component, which consists of that 2-
    year inspection into the licensees program effectiveness as
    well as individual samples of discrete actions that the
    licensee identifies and resolves over the course of time.
        And having done that review, the staff did not see a net
    benefit in the change in the--went back to the Commission and
    reported out that we did not intend to change that from 2
    years.
        Mrs. Lesko. Thank you.
        And Mr. Chair, I may submit more questions because I have
    more questions with examples of--there is kind of an egregious
    example in 2017 how just changing two words of a corporate name
    was going to cost this nuclear plant--not the one that I am
    familiar with, but a nuclear plant, like, tons of money. And so
    I will submit it to you so you know what I am talking about.
        Mr. Dorman. OK, thank you.
        Mrs. Lesko. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Duncan. The gentlelady will submit questions, and her
    time is up. I now go to Ms. Matsui for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Nuclear energy has the potential to provide a reliable,
    carbon-free source of baseload energy. However, we cannot hold
    a hearing on the future of nuclear energy without addressing
    the 88,000-ton elephant in the room: nuclear waste. Before we
    build a new generation of reactors, we need to have a clear
    plan for how to dispose of spent fuel. The Rancho Seco Nuclear
    Power Plant in my district was shuttered over 30 years ago, and
    yet we are still dealing with the spent fuel.
        I am pleased to see the Department of Energy take this
    problem seriously with a consent-based siting approach. I have
    led efforts to support annual funding for this program at DOE,
    and I also lead the Store Nuclear Fuel Act, which would
    authorize an interim storage program at DOE.
        Dr. Goff, I was encouraged to see DOE's funding
    announcement in June to advance the conversation around
    consent-based siting for spent nuclear fuel. Dr. Goff, how will
    these 13 grants translate into the next stage of eventually
    siting a spent fuel storage facility?
        Dr. Goff. Thank you for the question, and thank you for the
    support in this activity. We are excited to be able to move
    forward on this consent-based siting for, potentially, a
    Federal interim storage facility. We are looking at this as
    being a three-phase process: this first phase that we are in
    right now with the consortium, the 13 different consortiums
    that were awarded, is really focused on planning and capacity
    building, you know, the next phase will be focused more on
    screening and assessments of siting; and then the final phase
    will be more toward negotiation and implementation.
        But right now, these 13 teams will be helping us be able
    to, you know, have capacity building within the different
    communities and within the different stakeholders. So those
    entities that are spread out across the country will be able to
    interface with different communities and stakeholders that want
    to learn and understand more about potentially siting one of
    these facilities. So they will be able to make awards from
    those consortium to, again, help them understand and be able to
    know how they want to move forward into the next process, and
    help inform us, as well, on how we need to take this into the
    next stage, as well, within the Department.
        Ms. Matsui. OK. In DOE's April report on the consent-based
    siting process, you state that, while DOE is focused on
    consolidated interim storage facilities, you are also pursuing
    a comprehensive integrated strategy for spent nuclear fuel, and
    you expect the siting of interim storage could inform the
    siting of permanent disposal.
        Dr. Goff, can you provide an update on where DOE is with
    developing a comprehensive strategy for siting long-term
    disposal of spent fuel?
        Dr. Goff. Yes, we do recognize that we need to go beyond
    interim storage, so we do need to have, again, kind of a three-
    phased approach. We need to have an integrated storage process,
    transportation process, and eventually geological disposal as
    well.
        We have talked about what we are doing in the integrated
    storage. We are continuing to do, you know, research and
    development-type activities to help us be able to move forward
    on both the transportation and the geological disposal as well.
    That will support whatever type activity and whatever type
    repository you go into. So the work we are doing on geological
    repository, we are doing R&D to assess a number of different
    type of geologies. On transportation we are working and have
    worked toward licensing a railcar to be able to transport this
    fuel as it leaves retired sites----
        Ms. Matsui. Right.
        Dr. Goff [continuing]. And all, as well. So we are doing a
    lot of activities to make sure that we are ready to implement
    as--implement those next stages, as well----
        Ms. Matsui. Sure.
        Dr. Goff [continuing]. Process.
        Ms. Matsui. Now, there are several international examples
    of countries successfully navigating the consent-based siting
    process for long-term geologic storage. Finland now hosts the
    world's first permanent site for high-level nuclear waste, and
    France and Switzerland have also proposed sites for long-term
    storage.
        How is DOE incorporating the lessons from other countries
    in how we approach long-term disposal?
        Dr. Goff. We are making sure that we are collaborating with
    all of those other countries, as well, either bilaterally--we
    are working with Finland and Canada, a number of different
    countries like that--to take their lessons learned--like I say,
    especially the Finns--on how they were able to site repository.
        But we are also working through multilateral organizations
    like the Nuclear Energy Alliance, as well, to, again, look at
    what the lessons learned around the world are so we can take
    those and apply them to our system and hopefully, also, then be
    ones in the future to talk about our lessons learned and how
    other countries can apply them as well.
        Ms. Matsui. OK, thank you. I know all of us really believe
    that that aspect of nuclear waste is really critical to moving
    forward.
        So thank you very much, and I yield back.
        Mr. Duncan. The gentlelady yields back. I now go to Mr.
    Balderson for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you both
    for being here today.
        Mr. Dorman, in your testimony you note that the industry is
    looking at using brownfield--and we talked a little bit about
    that today--sites such as former coal plants to use existing
    infrastructure and workforce. Have you received applications
    for new nuclear plants at these types of sites?
        Mr. Dorman. We have not to date. We are anticipating one in
    the next year.
        Mr. Balderson. Can you expand on how the NRC would leverage
    existing data about the sites to speed up any environmental
    reviews?
        Mr. Dorman. So the use of existing data is going to depend
    a little bit on the currency of the data and the methods used.
    But we would use any information that the licensee or the
    applicant provided from the historic characterization to gain
    efficiencies in our review.
        Mr. Balderson. OK, thank you. That is what we like to hear.
        In 2021--Mr. Dorman, again, I am sorry, sir--NRC ceased
    rulemaking efforts related to commercial reprocessing, citing a
    lack of interest from the industry. However, since that
    decision there have been a number of private-sector entities
    that have emerged with plans to pursue commercial reprocessing
    at various scales. Some of these companies have received
    substantial funding from DOE programs for R&D.
        Mr. Dorman, can you discuss what the NRC is doing to
    prepare for reviewing applications from such entities?
        Mr. Dorman. So, to my knowledge, we have one license plan
    for a company called Oklo to apply for a reprocessing facility.
    So we have begun what we call preapplication engagements with
    that licensee.
        We also, going back 15 years, we had 3 letters of intent
    for reprocessing facilities that--the applications never
    materialized, but we did considerable work at that time to
    prepare for those. So we are refreshing on that as we get ready
    to potentially get another application for reprocessing.
        Mr. Balderson. OK, thank you. Mr. Dorman, again--sorry, Dr.
    Goff--I would like to follow up on an issue that Chair Rodgers
    raised earlier during last month's hearing with the NRC
    Commissioners.
        Commissioner Caputo noted the need for enhanced performance
    indicators so the Commission and the public can track the
    duration and status for licensing reviews. On a slightly
    separate note, Mr. Dorman, I am curious how NRC measures staff
    performance today. And can you describe your performance
    indicators?
        Mr. Dorman. Yes, sir. I talked a little bit about it
    earlier. When the staff gets a license application in, when we
    have determined that it is appropriate for docketing, we look
    at the issues raised in the application, establish a review
    schedule and a level of staff effort associated with that
    review. And so we--I believe we communicate those to the
    applicant, and we track those internally to make sure we are
    meeting those.
        So I think one of the concerns that Commissioner Caputo
    raised is that may not be broadly visible to the public. I
    think we report out on those macroscopically, a rollup of how
    we are meeting those, in some of our reports to Congress. So
    there are--I think part of the concern that I hear there is we
    could do better in public-facing indicators of performance in
    that regard.
        Mr. Balderson. OK, thank you very much.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Duncan. The gentleman yields back. I now go to Mr.
    Pfluger for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Pfluger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate you
    holding this important hearing. Thank you to the witnesses for
    being here.
        I am concerned just overall about where the administration
    is going when it comes to the production of electricity in this
    country and, you know, the different sources.
        I think nuclear is exactly where we should be putting our
    resources, our innovation, and our time to enhance that. You
    know, recently leading a trip to South America, you see where
    the CCP and their influence is everywhere. It is in Africa. You
    know, I think my first question--I am just going to start with
    Mr. Dorman--how far behind are we when it comes to exporting
    our technology, getting nuclear technology to other countries?
    How far behind the CCP are we?
        Mr. Dorman. I am not sure I have a good measure for that. I
    think they clearly have an agenda to get into all parts of the
    world and have an influence.
        We have recently had the agreements in Poland, and they are
    planning to build U.S. technology. I think the--we are seeing
    from our regulatory counterparts a high degree of interest in
    U.S. technology and support from the NRC to enable them to be
    ready to license those.
        Mr. Pfluger. One of the issues--we recently passed
    legislation about the NEPA process. Can you tell me how the NRC
    is going to implement----
        Mr. Dorman. So----
        Mr. Pfluger [continuing]. Those changes to reduce the
    timelines and to get to a realistic timeline for impact
    statements or analyses?
        Mr. Dorman. Yes, thank you, Congressman. So we are
    digesting that legislation, but we have a number of similar
    initiatives ongoing to reduce the magnitude of the
    documentation that we produce in our NEPA process to reduce our
    costs and time in producing the sound decisions consistent with
    NEPA.
        There are a number of other areas that we are focused on.
    You know, I think that is probably--if we can get standard
    reactors, I think that NEPA process is going to be the area
    that will be most important for gaining efficiencies. But in
    terms of your specific legislation, we are still analyzing
    that.
        Mr. Pfluger. I use the term ``moving at the speed of
    relevancy,'' and we need the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to
    move at the speed of relevancy in order to not just get to an
    export--that was my first question--but also to domestically
    produce. And can either of you tell me how much,
    percentagewise, how much electricity is produced annually from
    nuclear power?
        Mr. Dorman. In the U.S. about 20 percent of the electricity
    is from nuclear.
        Mr. Pfluger. Wow, you guys are the first ones that have had
    a clue about electricity source generation.
        And Dr. Goff, you mentioned something about a carbon-free
    electrical grid. I am interested to know what that looks like.
    I mean, what do you think the demand in U.S. electricity is
    going to be if the administration gets to just an EV mandate
    that they are pushing for by about 2032?
        I mean, where are we going in the country, and how is
    nuclear going to play a role in that? What would that 20
    percent have to look like in order to service the demand?
        Dr. Goff. I think that 20 percent will have to go up. But I
    think--well, we put out a report looking--the technology
    liftoff report, commercialization liftoff report, from the
    Department of Energy. In that we are projecting that we need on
    the order of 200 gigawatts of nuclear capacity between now and
    2050, you know, where we have roughly 100 gigawatts, so roughly
    3 times the build-out of what we have. And that is assuming
    what we have continues operating.
        So it is a significant amount of new nuclear, but it is
    also a significant amount of renewables and, you know, fossil
    with sequestration. There is a lot of new capacity that needs
    to be out there as you go to that decarbonization, and nuclear
    has to play a major role in that.
        Mr. Pfluger. And it has to play a major role. And, as you
    guys know, renewables are not baseload providers. So when we
    are talking about baseload capacity--and thank you for doing
    the math on it--I would encourage you to please share this with
    Department of Energy, because they have not done the math. They
    have sat right here, and the Secretary of Energy does not know
    how much electricity the United States uses annually. That is
    shocking.
        And so my last question: Dr. Goff, can we source all of the
    uranium and other materials from the United States of America?
    If we were to be able to permit appropriately, can we source
    what we need from this country?
        Dr. Goff. Right now we are not providing a lot of the
    uranium resources, the ore. We are not mining a lot. We do have
    resources in the country, but we also have resources in Canada
    and other trusted allies as well--Canada, Australia. So there
    is--we can trust--we can provide it from trusted allies. And we
    do have, like I say, reasonable reserves here, as well, so----
        Mr. Pfluger. Thank you. My time is expired. I yield back.
        Mr. Duncan. The gentleman yields back. I will now go to Mr.
    Armstrong from North Dakota.
        Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Dorman, the NRC has more than 50 years of experience in
    the licensing and regulatory space. Given the time, process,
    and subject matter expertise, it would normally be safe to
    assume that nuclear review time should shrink, and costs should
    decrease as agency efficiencies increase. But despite decades
    of working in this space, review cost and time have both
    increased. What actions is the NRC taking to increase
    efficiencies during the review process?
        Mr. Dorman. Thank you, Congressman. Several things I
    mentioned earlier, specifically on subsequent license renewal.
        We recognize that the costs have gone up, and we are taking
    a look at how we can better use risk insights to focus our
    review. I think, in general, in our licensing reviews we are
    looking to apply risk insights at the outset of our process to
    make sure we are focused on the right things. And as I
    mentioned earlier, we are laying out the cost and time
    estimates at the outset of a review and holding ourselves
    accountable to those estimates as we go through reviews.
        So we are trying to be more focused on the most significant
    issues and effectively--more effectively managing our
    processes.
        Mr. Armstrong. Under its current framework, is the NRC
    capable of managing new workload in the advanced reactor space?
        Mr. Dorman. Within the framework, we are capable of
    managing the workload we have in the next couple of years. I
    think if we get through several demonstrations and start to see
    that workload significantly increase, I think we will need to
    adjust our resources concomitantly.
        I think, as I have mentioned earlier in this hearing, if we
    get standard designs where we truly are getting nth of a kind
    of the same thing that we have already reviewed, we should be
    able to get very substantial efficiencies in the process.
        Mr. Armstrong. So you said the NRC is streamlining the
    licensing review process, and that includes, like,
    preapplication interactions, enhancing communication with
    applicants and licensees, and early engagement with the NRC
    advisory committee. Does this include environmental reviews?
        Mr. Dorman. It does include the environmental reviews, yes.
        Mr. Armstrong. OK. And earlier in the hearing you mentioned
    that there is a substantial amount of information available to
    the public today that was not available in, say, like, the
    1950s, particularly the public participation in contested
    hearings. Can you just further explain how the public
    engagement process works and why the public should have
    confidence in the existing structure without an additional
    Office of Public Participation?
        Mr. Dorman. So the--if I go back just 30 years, for the
    public to get information on what the NRC was doing, they had
    to get into a local library, navigate a microfiche system to
    find documents. Today those documents are all available on the
    internet. They have Google-type search engines to have ready
    access to all of our record activities.
        In all of our licensing processes there are notice and
    comment. We go out into the community, engage. We engage
    through their State and local governments. So there are a
    number of ways that we very intentionally engage people in the
    process to make sure that they are aware that an action has
    been proposed in their community, that they have the
    opportunity to hear from us of how we are going to make sure
    that it is done safely, and to ask us questions.
        Mr. Armstrong. And I don't mean to trivialize this in any
    way, because we have to have 100 percent on safety. It is
    nuclear, we all understand that, both for the danger, the--
    like, minor, minor chances, but extreme problems it raises, but
    also for public confidence in the energy source. But I make a
    joke with my staff quite a bit that we have way too many
    meetings that could have been an email, and I think an
    uncontested hearing is--kind of fits into that mold,
    particularly when you are talking about the advancements in how
    we communicate the information available.
        So I appreciate your guys' attempts in trying to do this,
    and we have to figure out how to speed it up. We are coming to
    a crisis point on grid resiliency and reliability, and we need
    more molecules on the grid, not less. And nuclear is going to
    be a big part of that, moving forward. So I appreciate your
    time here today.
        And with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Duncan. The gentleman yields back, and I will now go to
    Mr. Carter from Georgia.
        Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
    giving me an opportunity to waive on this. This is extremely
    important. As you know, we have two reactors that are under
    construction now and--well, one of them we thought was up but
    got delayed a little bit. But still, we are very committed to
    nuclear power in the State of Georgia, and very proud of that.
        Today what we are doing is, of course, looking at bills
    that will support the U.S. nuclear industry. But it is
    important that we understand--and I am sure you would agree
    that we need to be looking at other nations, as well, and what
    they are doing, particularly our adversaries, Russia and China.
        We understand that together they account for nearly 70
    percent of the reactors that are either under construction or
    being planned right now. In fact, Russia, I think, has the
    most, with 19, and has a strong, very strong influence in
    global nuclear power. Russia is building plants in Turkey,
    Egypt, and I think they are discussing one in Hungary as well.
        And then China, we know what they are doing. They are
    pursuing Pakistan, Argentina, and talks with Saudi Arabia and
    other countries as well. In fact, this is a big part of China's
    Belt and Road Initiative. And that, you know, that alone should
    be enough to get our attention, much less the fact that we need
    reliable baseload power here in America, and we all understand
    how important that is.
        But that is why I have got a bill that I--if you can
    imagine that, that is why I am here--I have got a bill that I
    want to talk about. It is the Global Nuclear Energy Assessment
    and Cooperation Act. And what it does is to take a multipronged
    approach to promoting nuclear energy around the world.
        First of all, it will prohibit us here in the United States
    from importing nuclear fuel assemblies from hostile foreign
    nations like Russia and China. That will encourage energy
    independence, and that is important as well.
        Secondly, it will introduce a program, the International
    Nuclear Reactor Export and Innovation Branch at the NRC, that
    will focus our international nuclear efforts, including
    training and sharing our expertise with allies.
        Dr. Goff, you just made a comment a few minutes ago about
    how we have got natural resources here and in Canada and our
    allies, and that is very important. We need to really foster
    those relationships and share with our allies and work together
    with them. That is extremely important.
        I want to ask you--I will start with you, Mr. Goff--what
    are your concerns with Russia and Chinese dominance in the
    nuclear energy space globally?
        Dr. Goff. Well, like I say, Russia's invasion of Ukraine
    has demonstrated that they are not a reliable energy partner.
    So, you know, we can't rely on them for fuel, and I don't think
    other of our allies should be relying on them for new builds as
    well. We need to be looking at instead providing us--our allied
    resources there.
        I would say similar things about China, as well, that we
    would rather have us or our allies doing those builds and all.
    So we do need to take this opportunity to focus on how can we
    replace those builds and how can we turn around more U.S.
    builds. You know, we have had some success now in Central
    Europe, and we need to, you know, continue our efforts to focus
    on how we can export U.S. technology----
        Mr. Carter. Right.
        Dr. Goff [continuing]. Because we want to make sure the
    U.S. is setting the standards for safety, security, and
    nonproliferation around the world. And the way we do that is to
    have the U.S. technology--
        Mr. Carter. And China is an open book. I mean, they have
    said through their Belt and Road Initiative what their
    intentions are. So they are just following through on their
    intentions. It is pretty obvious what they are doing.
        Mr. Dorman, let me ask you, do you agree? Do you think it
    is important for the U.S. to be a leader in setting standards
    globally and sharing our best practices with our allies?
        Mr. Dorman. Yes, Congressman, and we have a longstanding
    role at the NRC working with other regulators to ensure they
    have the capacity to take on these responsibilities,
    particularly these countries that are looking to embark on
    nuclear power programs.
        Mr. Carter. Good. Well, I hope you will look at this bill,
    because it is a bipartisan bill. Scott Peters is the Democrat
    who--on this committee--who is the other cosponsor of it. But
    it is, I think, a good approach at how we should be looking at
    nuclear power and positioning ourselves in the United States
    along with our allies to make sure we are a leader in nuclear
    power.
        Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for giving me the
    opportunity to waive on and to get a plug in for what I think
    is a very, very productive bill. And I will yield back.
        Mr. Duncan. The gentleman yields back, and this concludes
    the question-and-answer portion of this panel. So I want to
    thank the witnesses for being here.
        I thought it was excellent testimony and answers to the
    questions, a lot of information was provided. So thank you once
    again.
        And we are going to go ahead and change over and seat the
    next panel in the essence of time, because votes are going to
    be called. We are going to try to get through at least the
    testimony beforehand.
        But thank you, Dr. Goff and Mr. Dorman, very much.
        [Pause.]
        Mr. Duncan. All right. While you are being seated, I want
    to go ahead and thank you for being here today and taking time
    to testify before the subcommittee.
        Each witness will have an opportunity to give an opening
    statement, followed by a round of questions from Members.
        The second panel consists of Mr. Ted Nordhaus, founder and
    executive director of Breakthrough Institute; Ms. Maria
    Korsnick, president and CEO of Nuclear Energy Institute; Ms.
    Jackie Toth--did I pronounce that right, ``Tath''? ``Tath''?
    OK--deputy director of the Good Energy Collective; and the
    Honorable Jeffrey Merrifield, chairman of the Advanced Nuclear
    Working Group at the U.S. Nuclear Industry Council, former NRC
    Commissioner.
        So we appreciate you being here. I will now recognize Mr.
    Nordhaus for 5 minutes to give an opening statement.

    STATEMENTS OF TED NORDHAUS, FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE
      BREAKTHROUGH INSTITUTE; MARIA KORSNICK, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
       EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE; JACKIE TOTH,
        DEPUTY DIRECTOR, GOOD ENERGY COLLECTIVE; AND JEFFREY S.
      MERRIFIELD, CHAIRMAN, ADVANCED NUCLEAR WORKING GROUP, U.S.
                        NUCLEAR INDUSTRY COUNCIL

                       STATEMENT OF TED NORDHAUS

        Mr. Nordhaus. Thank you for inviting me to testify. My name
    is Ted Nordhaus. I am the founder and executive director of the
    Breakthrough Institute. We are an independent global research
    center based in Berkeley, California, that identifies and
    promotes technological solutions to environmental and human
    development challenges.
        It is a particular honor to me to testify before this
    committee because my father, Bob Nordhaus, served as general
    counsel to the Commerce Committee in the early 1970s and played
    a major role in drafting much of the foundational Federal
    energy and environmental law enacted by this committee during
    that era, most notably, for purposes of this hearing, the
    Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, which created the Nuclear
    Regulatory Commission.
        Today the United States faces far different environmental
    and energy security challenges from the ones that these laws
    were enacted to address in the early 1970s. In no area is that
    more clearly the case than America's profoundly outdated
    approach to the regulation of nuclear energy.
        Over the 70-year history of commercial operation, nuclear
    energy has proven to be a remarkably safe and reliable energy
    technology. Accidents are exceedingly rare, public exposure to
    radiation vanishingly small, and public health consequences
    nonexistent. Yet the NRC continues to regulate nuclear energy
    as if it represented an exceptional threat to America's public
    health.
        Moreover, despite a clear mandate from Congress, the NRC
    appears unprepared to efficiently license a new generation of
    small advanced reactors appropriate for reactor technologies
    that are typically smaller, simpler, and safer than today's
    extremely safe light-water reactors.
        If there is one critical point that I hope that this
    committee will take away from my testimony today, it is that we
    are not going to develop an innovative, advanced nuclear sector
    capable of meeting our energy security and climate objectives
    if we don't fix the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
        There are other critical challenges that the sector faces,
    but the development of a rational and efficient framework for
    regulating advanced reactors grounded in up-to-date public
    health data and science is a precondition for solving any of
    those further challenges. Critically, I would urge this
    committee to consider the following steps.
        First, clarify the mission of the NRC. In both the Atomic
    Energy Act and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, Congress
    clearly recognized the importance of nuclear energy to the
    Nation's general welfare and common defense and security.
    Nonetheless, the NRC has interpreted its mission far more
    narrowly, limiting its regulatory activities to consideration
    of potential negative public health impacts of using nuclear
    energy.
        To assure that NRC is prepared to license and regulate
    advanced reactors consistent with the national interest,
    Congress should amend section 201 of the Energy Reorganization
    Act to make clear that the NRC's legal mandate is consistent
    with the overall objective of the Act, and amend that mandate
    to clearly include the goals of reducing the overall public
    health burden of the electrical system and its carbon
    intensity.
        Second, ground NRC public health standards in
    epidemiologically observable metrics, and harmonize them with
    EPA air toxics standards. The NRC has long enforced
    radiological health standards that are so low as to be entirely
    theoretical and are far stricter than those enforced for
    pollutants associated with similar energy production and
    industrial activities by the Environmental Protection Agency.
    The failure to harmonize environmental health standards across
    highly substitutable energy sources has resulted in significant
    excess mortality and illness over recent decades.
        Third, clarify congressional intent with regard to NEMA
    implementation. A bipartisan letter sent yesterday from over 60
    members of the House and Senate, including a majority of this
    committee, makes it clear that the intent of Congress in NEMA
    was to establish an efficient, technologically inclusive, and
    risk-informed framework for licensing advanced reactors.
        In my written testimony I suggest a number of other further
    steps that this committee might take. So hopefully, we can get
    into some of that in the conversation.
        But thank you very much for considering my testimony today.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Nordhaus follows:]
       [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Duncan. Mr. Nordhaus, thank you so much.
        I will now recognize Ms. Korsnick.

                      STATEMENT OF MARIA KORSNICK

        Ms. Korsnick. Well, thank you and good afternoon. I am
    president and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute, representing
    more than 340 organizations in an industry that directly
    employs nearly 100,000 people throughout the United States.
        I really appreciate the opportunity to testify, and I thank
    Chairman Duncan, Ranking Member DeGette, and the subcommittee,
    as well as Chair Rodgers and Ranking Member Pallone, for
    continuing to recognize the critical need for nuclear energy
    for our Nation's energy security and decarbonization goals.
        Congress has passed historic legislation that will preserve
    our existing nuclear generation and accelerate future
    deployment. I thank Congress for these important actions and
    urge you to protect the tax credits and other provisions that
    will enable continued U.S. leadership in nuclear technology.
    Federal support is a catalyst for action we are seeing in State
    capitals, private investment portfolios, and public utility
    partnerships in places with retired coal plants and new
    hydrogen facilities.
        Demand for nuclear defines the current moment. Our member
    utilities expect to add enough new nuclear to double current
    output by the 2050s. And because nuclear is not only necessary
    for decarbonizing the electric sector but the entire economy,
    the Department of Energy predicts U.S. nuclear capacity has the
    potential to triple by 2050.
        My written testimony outlines several policy proposals and
    will help us meet this demand, but I want to highlight three
    crucial points.
        First, we must modernize the regulatory process. If we are
    serious about decarbonizing and meeting our climate and energy
    security goals, the NRC must get serious about modernizing its
    processes to be much faster without sacrificing safety. And let
    me be clear: Those two things can coexist. Without NRC
    modernization, regulatory inefficiency leads to excessive cost
    and lack of predictability, which will hinder deployment.
        Our analysis of the NRC's own data demonstrates that,
    instead of the agency's reviews becoming faster and more
    efficient, they are taking longer and requiring more resources.
    For example, the staff resources applied to second license
    renewal review for plants that have safely operated for more
    than 5 decades--so you would assume it would be faster--are now
    50 percent greater than the first license renewal.
        DOE has projected that we will need to begin the ramp-up of
    advanced nuclear deployments in the next decade, which means
    the NRC will be asked to process a significant number of permit
    applications. So now is the time to take meaningful steps to
    ensure that the regulatory approvals do not slow progress.
        Second, we need a competitive domestic nuclear fuel supply.
    Russia provides roughly half of the world's commercial
    enrichment capacity and is the only commercial supplier of the
    high-assay, low-enriched uranium needed by most advanced
    reactor designs. The U.S. commercial nuclear industry is
    committed to eliminating the import of uranium and related
    conversion and enrichment services from Russia. However,
    Federal support is essential to establishing a secure supply in
    the U.S. so that we can move away from Russia fuel imports just
    as soon as possible. Accelerating investments aimed at
    competitive enrichment and conversion in the U.S. will support
    both near-term and long-term national security interests.
        And finally, we need to deploy new technology at home now
    to support U.S. technology exports abroad. Governments around
    the world recognize that, by making nuclear the centerpiece of
    their energy systems, they can decarbonize their electric grid
    and strengthen their energy independence, because energy
    security is national security. Countries in Asia, South
    America, Central Europe, and Africa are committing to new
    nuclear, large and small. Although some countries have already
    made commitments to import U.S. technologies, it is a very
    competitive marketplace.
        If we cannot be competitive in the global market, countries
    can turn to Russia and Chinese state-owned enterprises and
    they, not us, will build 100-year relationships throughout the
    globe. It is already happening today. And despite our superior
    technology, their nuclear programs are positioning themselves
    as very attractive options.
        The U.S. must assign strategic value to nuclear energy
    exports, act to open markets to our industry, and back U.S.
    companies with the tools needed to compete.
        The industry I represent looks forward to working with you
    to ensure our Nation can take full advantage of all that
    nuclear energy has to offer. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Korsnick follows:]
        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Ms. Korsnick.
        Ms. Toth is recognized for 5 minutes.

                        STATEMENT OF JACKIE TOTH

        Ms. Toth. Chairman Duncan, Ranking Member DeGette,
    honorable members of the subcommittee. My name is Jackie Toth,
    deputy director of Good Energy Collective. Thank you for the
    opportunity to testify today on behalf of my organization, a
    progressive nuclear energy policy nonprofit that develops
    community-centered, social-science-informed policies to enable
    the adoption of advanced nuclear energy and promote equitable
    energy outcomes in a climate-constrained world.
        As an energy journalist covering Capitol Hill from 2016 to
    2020, I observed regular bipartisan collaboration on laws that
    have jump-started domestic nuclear energy innovation and
    reinvigorated U.S. global nuclear leadership.
        I want to thank congressional Democrats, including ones on
    this subcommittee, for the key role you continue to play in
    supporting our Nation's largest source of carbon-free
    electricity.
        Among these bipartisan statutes was the Nuclear Energy
    Innovation and Modernization Act, or NEMA, which the House
    passed under suspension of the rules in 2018 on an
    overwhelmingly favorable vote of 361 to 10. NEMA directed the
    U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to develop the licensing
    frameworks and evaluation strategies to enable predictable,
    efficient, and timely approvals for the use of advanced
    reactors.
        These regulatory activities reflect a dual imperative to
    provide communities with reliable, emission-free power, and the
    urgency to address climate change. It is in these contexts, the
    need to uplift communities and to meet the climate challenge,
    that Good Energy Collective is interested in ensuring that
    Congress build upon NEMA and equip the NRC with the necessary
    direction and resources to facilitate the successful adoption
    of advanced nuclear while preserving the public's ability to
    learn about and participate in the NRC's work.
        Several bill texts before the subcommittee today advance
    that goal. H.R. 4530, the NRC Office of Public Engagement and
    Participation Act introduced by Representative Levin, would
    ensure that, as the NRC's workload grows, the agency can
    undertake more proactive and effective engagements with the
    public to share information about NRC activities and provide
    technical assistance.
        Another of our independent energy regulators, the Federal
    Energy Regulatory Commission, established in 2021 its own
    Office of Public Participation, which is now stakeholders' one-
    stop shop for receiving support in navigating matters before
    FERC. Establishing a similar office at the NRC would not only
    streamline engagement opportunities and address public
    hesitations about the use of nuclear, but also support
    licensing efficiency by bringing communities into the siting
    and licensing process early on and supplementing industry's own
    engagement efforts. Developing these capacities aligns with
    reactor developers' growing recognition that to ensure the
    timely success of their projects they will need to increase
    early-stage public engagement.
        We can build new energy infrastructure both quickly and
    justly. In fact, we must.
        The NRC demonstrably struggles with employee satisfaction
    and retention. H.R. 4528, the Strengthening the NRC Workforce
    Act from Representative DeGette, would begin to address NRC
    staff hiring and attrition issues by ensuring the agency can
    attract and reward skilled employees.
        Good Energy Collective further approves of policies
    supporting our international allies with nuclear energy and
    fuels, and with the development of strong safety regimes. H.R.
    995, the Global Nuclear Energy Assessment and Cooperation Act
    from Representatives Carter and Peters, and the discussion
    draft of the Strengthening American Nuclear Competitiveness Act
    include useful measures to bolster U.S. climate leadership
    through nuclear energy exports.
        I maintain reservations regarding some of the other draft
    legislation under discussion today. Any proposal to alter the
    mission of the NRC such as in the NRC Mission Alignment Act
    must be weighed against the risk of frightening the public that
    its trusted nuclear regulator is operating with a new purpose
    at the very moment that the Commission undertakes an historic
    scaling of certification reviews and licensing activities.
        The cultural changes at the Commission that may be
    necessary to meet this moment and increase the timeliness and
    efficiency of its activities will depend more on the resonance
    and strength of Commission leadership and the availability of
    resources for staff than on a change in mission. Likewise,
    proposals before the subcommittee to reduce mandatory hearing
    requirements and public notice regardless of the novelty of
    reactor design or to streamline environmental reviews without
    providing additional resources for public engagement and
    outreach may weaken the NRC's responsiveness to the public that
    it serves, first and foremost.
        Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Toth follows:]
        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Johnson [presiding]. The gentlelady yields back.
        The Chair now goes to Honorable Merrifield for your 5
    minutes.

                   STATEMENT OF JEFFREY S. MERRIFIELD

        Mr. Merrifield. Chair, Ranking Member DeGette, and members
    of the subcommittee, it is an honor to testify before you today
    on the role that nuclear power can play in securing the clean,
    reliable, and resilient energy that we need to power our
    Nation's electric grid and decarbonize critical industrial
    capabilities.
        I am here today in my role as the chairman of the Advanced
    Nuclear Working Group of the U.S. Nuclear Industry Council,
    although my full-time occupation is as a partner in the nuclear
    energy practice at Pillsbury Law Firm. I served as an NRC
    Commissioner from 1998 to 2000, and in the time I spent at the
    agency it remains one of the most satisfying periods of my
    career. To this day I embrace the motto of the agency,
    ``Protecting people and the environment,'' a tagline I helped
    craft.
        I believe the agency is staffed and led by talented,
    bright, well-meaning, and dedicated civil servants, and I
    firmly believe in the mission of the agency and the value of
    its independence. With that preface, I believe the agency has
    lost sight of its role. I fervently hope that the NRC can
    become a more efficient, effective, risk-informed, timely, and
    technically adept regulator.
        Title 1, chapter 1, section 1 of the Atomic Energy Act of
    1954 outlines the vision of Congress that it is the policy of
    the United States that atomic energy shall be deployed to
    ``promote world peace, improve the general welfare, increase
    the standard of living, and strengthen free competition in
    private enterprise.'' While those words were passed into law in
    1954, they ring true and remain the law of the land.
        In a time when global climate change is real and present--
    is a real and present threat to our common defense and
    security, and given that nuclear energy is the only major low-
    carbon, proven energy system that can reliably dispatch 24/7
    energy, enabling nuclear energy safe usage is an obligation of
    the NRC under the Atomic Energy Act and the Energy
    Reorganization Act.
        In my opinion, the NRC of 2023 fails to fully recognize the
    positive encouragement of nuclear energy that the Atomic Energy
    Act put into place that frames its licensing and oversight
    activities for the safe use of nuclear energy in our country.
    Instead, it is overly conservative and does not consistently
    apply commonsense principles in regulating the technologies it
    oversees. The current impasse on creating a new regulatory
    framework for advanced reactors under part 53 is the most
    recent example of this gap.
        There are a variety of reasons that underline the behavior
    of the agency which are outlined in a speech I gave at the
    American Nuclear Society annual meeting on June 13 of this
    year, and I would ask these remarks be included in the record
    of this hearing.
        I have heard from many licensees that the NRC staff states
    that it is limited in what it can say to applicants seeking
    clarification of agency rules and guidance, as the NRC cannot
    ``promote'' nuclear energy or act as a ``consultant,'' due to
    its independent safety mission. I believe this is an incorrect
    reading of the agency's legal mission, and I believe the agency
    can and should do more to enable the deployment of advanced
    nuclear technologies while maintaining its ability to
    independently assess the safety of the same.
        There is absolutely nothing wrong with the agency providing
    clarifications and assistance to licensees who are attempting
    to understand and meet the complex, difficult, and sometimes
    inscrutable guidance and rules of the NRC. Responding to
    questions and engaging with licensed entities and the public
    with direct and fulsome responses is the responsibility of the
    agency, and the NRC should not hide behind its role as an
    independent safety regulator.
        I believe Congress needs to address the ability of the NRC
    to have the resources to attract capable and experienced staff,
    and I believe the NRC needs to be provided flexibility such has
    been provided to agencies like the Securities and Exchange
    Commission and FDIC to pay above the standard Government pay
    structure.
        Recently, Pillsbury partnered with the Nuclear Innovation
    Alliance to assess the current role of the Advisory Committee
    on Reactor Safeguards and issued a report with a series of
    recommendations to modernize the role of ACRS. I respectfully
    request that a copy of our report and recommendations also be
    included in the record of today's hearing.
        In sum, I believe the Act should be updated to focus the
    role of ACRS on reviewing unique and difficult nuclear
    technologies, and we generally support the ACRS language
    included in the Nuclear Advisory Committee Reform Act.
        U.S. NIC has reviewed the 15 bills that make up this
    legislative hearing. As a general matter, U.S. NIC is
    supportive of most of the legislation in its current form, and
    we have made comments about a handful of the bills in our
    written remarks. I am prepared to answer any questions you may
    have about my remarks, the bills under consideration, other
    matters associated with the NRC.
        The advanced nuclear technologies that are under deployment
    are putting our country in a position to address its future
    energy demands while also allowing the U.S. to regain its
    leading position in nuclear exports. I am thankful for the hard
    work undertaken by the members and staff of this committee in
    support of this vital technology.
        Thank you for allowing me to testify on behalf of the U.S.
    Nuclear Industry Council and its 80 members on this important
    subject.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Merrifield follows:]
        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Duncan [presiding]. I ask unanimous consent to allow
    the documents Mr. Merrifield referenced be entered into the
    record.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Duncan. So now we are going to get the question-and-
    answer, and we will try to get through at least a few here. Let
    me raise the same question I raised on the first panel. I
    recognize myself for 5 minutes.
        As many of us have made clear, a goal of our nuclear policy
    work is to align and restore agency alignment with the policy
    goals of the Atomic Energy Act. These policies helped the
    United States for several decades lead the world in nuclear
    technology to spread peaceful benefits of nuclear.
        So to the panel, beginning with Mr. Nordhaus, would you
    each speak briefly to the value of making sure NRC's mission is
    more in line with the mission goals of the Atomic Energy Act?
        Mr. Nordhaus.
        Mr. Nordhaus. I am happy to. I think both the Atomic Energy
    Act and the goals of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974,
    which created the NRC, actually very clearly establish that the
    NRC has a responsibility to account for the benefits that
    nuclear energy brings, as well as assure public safety from
    radiological exposure.
        And as I kind of make fairly clear in our--in my written
    testimony, the focus on limiting the NRC's public safety focus
    purely to operations at the plant level actually is propagating
    public health risk, it is not reducing it. And that is because
    we don't consistently regulate these risks across different
    exposures.
        So EPA's regulations for similar facilities that combust
    fossil fuels are an order of magnitude less strict than the
    NRC's, and that results in actually increased public health
    risk. It results in increased mortality associated with the
    operations of the electrical system.
        So for that reason we would argue that, you know, not only
    do we need to get back to the original goals but that we
    actually need to add--further, that the NRC needs to consider
    the overall consequences in terms of public health and also in
    terms of carbon intensity of the electrical grid when it is
    making licensing and regulatory determinations.
        Mr. Duncan. That is good. Ms. Korsnick?
        Ms. Korsnick. Yes, thank you. Yes, I would just maybe state
    directly what it does say in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
    which states not only does the NRC--or ``should this industry
    be guided and provided adequate protection from public health
    and safety, but also to achieve the policy goal of making sure
    that nuclear energy make the maximum contribution to the
    general welfare.'' And so we believe that in the actual reading
    of the current Act, the NRC needs to embrace that mission.
        Mr. Duncan. Thank you.
        Ms. Toth.
        Ms. Toth. Thank you, Chairman. Yes, I want to be clear I
    don't dispute that the Atomic Energy Act or the Energy
    Reorganization Act of 1974 don't leave room for the
    consideration of the public welfare as part of the NRC's
    activities. But you know, ultimately, the agency mission is as
    much about optics as it is about setting direction. And setting
    direction is something that agency leadership can do just as
    easily.
        I would caution the committee that, you know, any effort to
    alter the mission be weighed against the potential of
    increasing or welcoming litigation risk by the public. For
    example, if consideration of the general welfare is added to
    the mission, one could foresee public concerns and litigation
    over whether or not they think the Commission had met that
    benchmark, whatever that benchmark may be.
        And likewise, we heard from the Executive Director Dorman
    on the previous panel that the NRC is currently performing
    important functions in supporting our international partners in
    other countries and standing up strong safety regimes for their
    own regulatory infrastructure, and certainly would not want to
    raise any concerns among our international allies that the gold
    standard of U.S. nuclear regulatory--regulation and safety was
    being changed in any way at this important juncture.
        Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Ms. Toth.
        Mr. Merrifield.
        Mr. Merrifield. Yes, the foundation of the Atomic Energy
    Act remains the same as it was in 1954. It is a determination
    that we want nuclear power to be deployed in the United States
    for beneficial purposes.
        The agency, the NRC, is to evaluate those technologies. As
    long as they can determine that they are safe, they have to
    license them. That is the--that is built into the legislation.
    And so the NRC utilizes its authority to determine if
    reasonable assurance of adequate protection has been
    demonstrated by the applicant. And if so, it has to license it.
    That hasn't changed. That was the way it was when I was a
    Commissioner back in 1999. It is not different today.
        I just think the agency needs to be reminded of that to a
    greater degree, because I think some of the impediments it has
    put into place, including what I think is an inappropriate
    framework under part 53, go against that.
        Mr. Duncan. Thank you all for that. I have some additional
    questions I will submit for the record.
        I now recognize the ranking member, Ms. DeGette, for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        So as all of you know, I have got one of the bills in this
    hearing today about workforce. And I talked to our Government
    witnesses about the workforce issues. They are not just limited
    to the safety concerns but also to the NRC's ability to process
    applications. So I am curious to know what our panelists think
    about this.
        I will start with you, Ms. Toth. In your view, how will the
    NRC's workforce challenges impact the industry?
        Ms. Toth. Sure. Thank you for the question. Absolutely.
        As we heard from the previous panel, there is 100 percent a
    shortage of--right now of nuclear engineers across all of the
    different hiring functions for these roles, from the
    development community, our national labs, the Energy
    Department, and the NRC. So certainly, the Strengthening the
    NRC Workforce Act could go a really long way toward ensuring
    that the NRC has the capacity to hire top talent, which it is
    certainly going to need as part of its workforce continues to
    retire and as competition from other nuclear sectors continues
    to grow.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you. I guess I would like to ask the
    rest of the panel too.
        Outside of the regulatory workforce, what steps do you
    think we need to do to bolster the nuclear workforce that will
    help us meet anticipated growth in nuclear and ensure the
    highest levels of safety?
        Mr. Nordhaus, do you have any thoughts on that?
        Mr. Nordhaus. I think that the--you know, I think there is
    clearly--we are seeing these problems across the economy, and
    not just nuclear, from sort of qualified STEM talent to, you
    know, electricians who can sort of build the infrastructure,
    install the infrastructure that we are talking about,
    particularly in this sort of post-IRA with significant
    incentives to sort of scale up these technologies. And I think
    nuclear is sort of, basically----
        Ms. DeGette. So do you think significant incentives is an
    answer?
        Mr. Nordhaus. Yes, correct.
        Ms. DeGette. Ms. Korsnick?
        Ms. Korsnick. Yes, thank you.
        Well, for one, I think we can redeploy some of the talent
    that we have on the fossil fuel side of the house. We did an
    analysis--or an analysis was done on using workforce that are
    currently at coal plants, and it demonstrated that 75 percent
    of the folks that work in coal facilities could work at nuclear
    facilities. And so I think there is a wonderful, synergistic
    effect as we are closing down some of the fossil fuel plants to
    redeploy that talent and save a lot of towns that depend on
    that talent.
        Also, we can create partnerships with unions. We have a
    wonderful relationship with the unions who have fantastic
    apprenticeship programs. So we don't just need nuclear
    engineers, we need workers across the board, and I think
    partnering with the unions is a great opportunity for us as
    well.
        And it is not just 4-year degrees. You know, we need 2-year
    degrees. We can take people right out of high school. So I just
    want people to appreciate the breadth of attention that we can
    be using for the whole energy sector.
        Ms. DeGette. That is exactly right.
        Chairman Merrifield?
        Mr. Merrifield. Yes, I think the point of your legislation,
    to provide tools to the NRC, is one that we appreciate and
    agree with the general intent.
        As I mentioned in my testimony, I actually think perhaps
    having it focused more along the lines of the Securities and
    Exchange Commission rather than the FERC legislation would be--
    would probably be my recommendation.
        A couple other things in the legislation. It vests the
    authority solely in the Chairman of the NRC to make those
    determinations, and as a former Commissioner I would say policy
    decisions of that size and scope really need to be decisions of
    the Commission as a whole. So that would be an area we would
    certainly want to talk to the committee about.
        Ms. DeGette. Great.
        Mr. Merrifield. There is a duration of time on which the
    authority applies. Given the nature of the competition that the
    NRC faces today for workforce, I think addressing this in a
    longer term than perhaps 5 year--the 5-year limitation included
    in the draft bill would be appropriate.
        Ms. DeGette. Great.
        Mr. Merrifield. But we certainly----
        Ms. DeGette. If you don't mind, I have one more question
    for Ms. Toth.
        Mr. Merrifield. Absolutely.
        Ms. DeGette. And I have 40 seconds. I wanted to ask you,
    Ms. Toth, if you could elaborate on the concerns you mentioned
    with respect to the Efficient Nuclear Licensing Hearings Act,
    and in particular whether you think these hearings are a
    critical tool for ensuring public health and safety.
        Ms. Toth. Certainly. Thank you, Ranking Member. I think it
    is super important that, as we move forward here with the
    licensing of new reactor designs, we continue to maintain that
    level of Commission oversight and the mandatory hearings.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Duncan. The gentlelady yields back. I will now go to
    Dr. Burgess for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Burgess. I thank the Chair.
        Ms. Korsnick, I really liked your answer to Representative
    DeGette's question about helping people who are in the--in a 2-
    year or 4-year degree, and even providing a paid internship
    perhaps to someone in high school. We really do need to move
    away from a system where kids amass so much student debt that
    they are never able to pay it off, and yet at the same time you
    need workforce. And if there were a way to incorporate a learn-
    on-the-job trajectory, it just seems like that could be so
    powerful.
        And right now, again, there is no one who comes in here and
    talks to us in any committee that doesn't identify workforce as
    a central thesis that they are having to deal with
    consistently. But if there were a way to make it easier for the
    workers of tomorrow to begin to integrate into the program--
    and, again, even during the high school years, I don't think
    that is too early--and to be able to offset the cost of their
    higher education with loans and grants from industry itself,
    not from the government. We do enough. But really, it is on you
    all to be able to bring that next wave of the workforce into
    being.
        Ms. Korsnick. Yes, I would just agree with you, and to say
    that, you know, the industry is eager. And I can just speak
    from my past, as a chief nuclear officer and as a site vice
    president, we created partnerships with local community
    colleges and, you know, worked on students. Again, maybe they
    just wanted a 2-year degree, and then they could work as
    chemistry technicians or other technicians in the plant.
        Sure, we will take people with full college degrees. They
    can also be put to work. But we--as we look ahead, there is a
    wide spectrum. You know, you need electricians and plumbers and
    pipefitters. And again, I am just going to give a plug to our
    union craft. You know, they have a wonderful apprenticeship
    program, and we are also working with them to figure out how
    best to lay the groundwork for what we hope to be a very
    thriving industry over the next 10 to 20 years.
        Mr. Burgess. Well, I think that is wonderful. You don't
    always need a Federal program to provide for workforce when it
    can be developed internally.
        Let me just ask you a question about, in the NRC, the
    operating plant budget that is derived by fees. It is up a
    significant amount, 64 percent since fiscal year 2018. There
    does seem to be a growing disparity between fee-for-service
    collections and overhead.
        The most recent NRC fee rule indicates that operating
    plants will each be required to pay approximately $5.5 million
    in annual fees, which is a 22 percent increase since fiscal
    year 2017. But there are less operating plants. Do we need to
    be concerned about this trend?
        Ms. Korsnick. Yes, right? So I think, across the board, we
    are looking for a level of efficiency for the regulator. You
    have heard it from several different ways. The example I gave
    in my opening remarks was about subsequent license renewal and
    how it is taking even longer in the subsequent license renewal,
    even though they have done it more and they should be getting
    more efficient in the same way that--what you are suggesting,
    we have now fewer plants, plants have shut down, and yet the
    cost burden is increasing.
        And in addition, they carry over from fiscal year to fiscal
    year. And even with that carryover, still the burden on the
    operating plants is increasing. And so I do think that we need
    to take a hard look at that, and just provide pressure for an
    internal drive for efficiency. There is no sense in hiring more
    people to an agency that is already operating inefficiently.
    You will just create more people working inefficiently. So the
    drive needs to be to get efficient.
        Mr. Merrifield. Congressman, I completely agree with Maria.
    When I was a Commissioner, we really had a focus on
    effectiveness, efficiency, and alignment with the staff to
    achieve that goal. I think Congress needs to hold the
    Commission's feet to the fire to get there.
        Mr. Burgess. Yes, it does seem like the operating reactors
    are the cash source for the NRC, when they should be licensing
    new projects to continue building, rather than just bleeding
    what is already available.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back. I know there
    are votes on.
        Mr. Duncan. The gentleman yields back. I am going to try
    one more. I will go to Bill Johnson for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Johnson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
    continue--and thanks to our second panel for being with us this
    afternoon--I want to build off my questioning that I began in
    the first panel.
        My legislation, the Strengthening American Nuclear
    Competitiveness Act, directs the NRC to submit a report on
    licensing requirements for nonelectric applications and
    advanced manufacturing. Mr. Merrifield, can you please explain
    why preparing for licensing of advanced nuclear for nonelectric
    applications is a good use of the agency's time?
        Mr. Merrifield. There is going to be a significant wave of
    nonutilities who are going to seek advanced reactor
    technologies to decarbonize difficult-to-deal issues such as
    steelmaking, aluminum, chemical manufacturing. We have seen
    this with announcements with companies like Nucor and Dow
    seeking to evaluate advanced reactor technologies. So this is
    an area I think the agency is going to have to spend some time.
    I think it can do it effectively, and I think that these types
    of technologies can be appropriately deployed in support of
    those efforts.
        I would want to make one note about your bill, section 3--I
    am sorry, section 4, regarding removing some of the
    prohibitions on the Atomic Energy Act regarding foreign
    ownership. I testified in front of this committee as a
    Commissioner back in the 2000s in support of that type of
    change, and certainly would want to reinforce that in what you
    are trying to do.
        Mr. Johnson. OK. Well, thank you. And next, my legislation
    seeks to strengthen U.S. global competitiveness by reviewing
    our current export capabilities, improving export processes,
    and encouraging coordination with our allies to increase
    deployment of new commercial nuclear energy technologies.
        So again, Mr. Merrifield and Ms. Korsnick, I would like to
    hear from both of you on this. Ms. Korsnick, I would let you go
    first.
        How important is it to the global nuclear market that the
    United States works with its allies?
        And also, with countries like China and Russia rushing to
    deploy civilian nuclear around the globe, giving them a
    centurylong foothold in a given area, why is it important for
    the U.S. to be able to export its own civilian commercial
    nuclear technology abroad?
        Ms. Korsnick, you go first.
        Ms. Korsnick. Well, it is critical to our national
    security, I would argue, that we absolutely want to be
    supporting countries around the globe and helping and support
    them with their energy supply.
        I think we have all watched Russia cut off gas to Europe
    and watched how they manage when they are in control of your
    energy supply. And I think we should take strong note of that.
    And it wouldn't be any different if they had built a nuclear
    plant in some of these countries----
        Mr. Johnson. Right.
        Ms. Korsnick [continuing]. And they would be also able to
    turn that off. And so I think doing business with the United
    States, with our allies, is precious. And I think it is very
    important that we take that leadership role.
        I would point out that a Russian reactor just started up in
    Egypt. I believe one just started up in Pakistan. So when we
    say that there is this potential, it is not a potential, it is
    happening.
        Mr. Johnson. Yes, it----
        Ms. Korsnick. And that is why we need the United States to
    really be very relevant and support our allies.
        Mr. Johnson. I agree. And I think most people don't
    understand that when a country like Russia or China gets their
    foot in the door in another country providing nuclear
    capability, they are in there for upwards of 100 years. I mean,
    they got to build a plant, they got to operate it, they got to
    maintain it, they got to update it, and they are there to stay.
        Mr. Merrifield, do you want to comment----
        Mr. Merrifield. Yes, Congressman, you put your finger on
    it. These are 100-year relationships----
        Mr. Johnson. Yes.
        Mr. Merrifield [continuing]. Build, and so it is vital that
    we be there and have an alternative.
        I think the advanced reactor technologies that we are
    talking about today provide us an opportunity to retake that
    lead. We have some game-changing technologies that we are going
    to be deploying, and those are going to really allow us to take
    that flag abroad.
        Mr. Johnson. OK.
        Mr. Merrifield. Having said that, I think we also need to
    talk about our Canadian and UK friends who can be
    collaborative. This is an international arena. None of the
    plants that we build today can be built with entirely U.S.
    parts. But I think we need to be focused on our allies and
    working to try to win more market share.
        Mr. Johnson. And let me move quickly. I have got one more
    question. I want to address my legislation's extension of
    Price-Anderson out to 2065.
        Again, Ms. Korsnick, I will start with you. Can you explain
    why Price-Anderson has been important to America's nuclear
    industry and why it would be important to extend it 40 more
    years, especially with advanced reactors and small modular
    reactors on the way?
        Ms. Korsnick. Absolutely. It is very critical. I would just
    say, in straightforward terms, it provides a framework within
    the--insurance companies can work to allow us to appropriately
    insure.
        The second place is it then requires the rest of the
    nuclear energy industry to contribute. So it creates an
    indemnification framework that allows us to manage risk. And
    without one, you wouldn't have the industry that you have
    today. And we just need to continue this framework--you
    mentioned--for a length of time. I would love a lifetime
    extension. So yes, it is just--it is absolutely critical.
        Mr. Johnson. It is going to be almost as hard as getting
    insurance on an electric vehicle, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Duncan. Yes, I am seeing that.
        Mr. Johnson. Chairman----
        Mr. Duncan. The gentleman's time is expired, and we are
    going to have to go vote. So we are going to stand in recess,
    pending the call of the Chair. I ask witnesses just to hang
    out, use the restroom, whatever you need to do, and we will be
    back as soon as we can.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Duncan. I am going to call the meeting back to order.
        There is a lot of hearings going on today, there is a lot
    of work going on, so we are back in order, and I will now
    recognize--as she gets her computer going--Mrs. Lesko for 5
    minutes.
        We will start the clock when you are ready.
        Mrs. Lesko. Almost there.
        Mr. Duncan. OK, the gentlelady from Arizona is recognized
    for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Lesko. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
    you for being here all these hours and testifying. I appreciate
    it.
        Ms. Korsnick, can you explain the use of on-site inspectors
    versus inspectors that come from off-site to nuclear plants?
        And do you believe the benefit from these extra inspectors
    is worth it?
        Ms. Korsnick. Absolutely. So the on-site inspectors are
    called resident inspectors, and these are inspectors that are
    always at the plant, 7/24, if you will, whenever they want to
    be there or not be there. They have full access to the plant.
        And then the extra inspectors that you talk about, there
    are certain inspections that they will plan and schedule, and
    they will bring other resources to the plant to conduct those.
    PI&R inspection, problem identification and resolution, is an
    example of one where you know it is going to be a pretty
    extensive amount of time, and they will send extra people to
    your plant.
        So I do think that there is value, because they have
    additional background and additional expertise. I think that is
    helpful.
        But I would like to add--perhaps where you are going with
    this question--is that during COVID they were also able to
    conduct a lot of these inspections with a lot fewer inspectors
    on site. So they used technology. They used other ways to get
    the information without having to send a bunch of inspectors to
    the site.
        And so what we would like is some of the improvements and
    some of the synergies that they were able to put in place when
    they were under more restrictive conditions. They still
    conducted their inspections very effectively, and I think that
    can be leveraged.
        Mrs. Lesko. And so then, do you think that my piece of
    legislation that is being considered or will be voted on soon
    out of this committee would be beneficial?
        Because part of my legislation basically asks the NRC to
    look at what they did during COVID and see if some of those
    practices that were more efficient could be used permanently.
        Ms. Korsnick. Absolutely. Spot on.
        Mrs. Lesko. Thank you. Ms. Korsnick, I would appreciate
    your perspectives on other areas we should focus on to improve
    the effectiveness of NRC's oversight of the operating reactor
    fleet.
        Ms. Korsnick. Thank you. Yes, I do think there's
    opportunities for improved oversight, and I know we sent in a
    letter with some of our suggestions, and I would be happy to
    work with you to provide some additional examples for improving
    oversight of the regulator.
        But at the heart of it, it goes to, in general, just how
    can we be more efficient with the oversight of the fleet. And
    one of the things that we are very passionate about is what we
    call risk informing.
        In other words, whatever it is that you are working on,
    understand what the ultimate risk to safety is. And if there is
    very, very low risk, then spend less time on it, and so that it
    helps you decide where to put your time, energy, and effort.
    And we think that there's improvements that could be made there
    on things of very low safety consequence and significance.
        Mrs. Lesko. I am going to another committee hearing
    upstairs, Oversight Subcommittee, but it is dealing with energy
    infrastructure and cybersecurity and physical threats.
        But one of the things that has come up is, actually, EMPs,
    electromagnetic pulses. And do the nuclear plants ever talk
    about that risk, and if they are prepared, protected against
    any EMP attacks?
        Ms. Korsnick. Yes. And actually, we worked with EPRI, the
    Electric Power Research Institute, to do testing on EMPs and
    what parts would be impacted by that, like large transformers,
    for example. So I do know that quite a bit of work was done
    relative to EMP to better understand the risk of it.
        Mrs. Lesko. And do you think that there is any way for the
    plants to protect themselves against EMPs, or is it just, like,
    everything just shut down?
        Ms. Korsnick. No, there are--yes, there are some things,
    some hardware modifications that can be put in place to make
    some of the equipment that you are counting on to be more
    resilient in case of an EMP threat.
        Mrs. Lesko. All right. And are the plants doing those
    things currently?
        Ms. Korsnick. Yes. I don't know the complete status of the
    whole industry. It comes a little bit more from the
    transmission and distribution side in terms of the grid being
    resilient, if you will. I think the plants were evaluated to be
    relatively resilient, but the grid, I believe, was the weak
    point. And I know that they have looked at specific
    modifications that could be done to protect the grid. I don't
    know the status in terms of how far along they are, though.
        Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, and I yield back.
        Mr. Latta [presiding]. The gentlelady's time has expired
    and yields back. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
    New York for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        In the past, the Environment Subcommittee has done great
    bipartisan work to support remediation and redevelopment of our
    Nation's brownfields. EPA's brownfields program has been
    tremendously successful in reducing pollution, creating jobs,
    and getting vacant properties back on local governments' tax
    rolls. So I was very interested to see the Nuclear for
    Brownfields Site Preparation Act.
        Former coal plants and other brownfield sites often have
    great characteristics that can be assets in their
    redevelopment. They may be near existing transmission
    infrastructure, have access to water and rail infrastructure,
    and have preexisting security infrastructure. So the notion of
    reusing these sites for advanced nuclear or other clean energy
    projects could provide a great opportunity for local
    communities to bring back high-quality jobs to their given
    region.
        So Ms. Toth, how can new nuclear projects create jobs and
    support economic revitalization in former energy communities?
        Ms. Toth. Thank you, Congressman, for the question, and we
    are very supportive of the Nuclear for Brownfield Site
    Preparation Act.
        Good Energy Collective takes a particular interest in
    ensuring that we advance enabling policies so that nuclear
    energy can support communities facing the retirements of their
    coal generators in the next, you know, 10 years as part of a
    just energy transition.
        Like you mentioned, there are a lot of opportunities to
    reuse existing infrastructure on site transmission, road and
    rail access, water, the heat sink. But more importantly, and
    what Good Energy Collective has started to analyze, are what
    are the community-level benefits of these transitions? And
    there are many to be able to support these communities with
    good-paying jobs that they are losing when these coal plants
    close, with the tax revenues for the local community.
        So we see this legislation up on the docket today as
    important and enabling policy on the regulatory side when
    Congress last year passed the Vision for the Future Act,
    enabling DOE to support technical assistance for R&D for coal--
    the revitalization of coal plant infrastructure with nuclear
    energy.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
        And Ms. Korsnick, what are your thoughts? What are the
    opportunities to reuse these former power plant sites for new
    nuclear projects?
        Ms. Korsnick. I think there is a wonderful opportunity. A
    study was done about the plants that--coal plant workers, and
    how they could be transitioned to work at a nuclear plant, and
    I think the study suggested that 75 percent of the jobs at coal
    plants could be repurposed to nuclear plants. Personally, I
    think it is probably even larger than that, but that just gives
    you an early idea of just how much synergy there is.
        You know, from being a site vice president and running a
    previous nuclear plant, I would tell you that we would bring
    the coal plant and fossil fuel folks down to work our refueling
    outages. There is a natural synergy. We might boil water
    differently in nuclear, but after that you need mechanics, and
    electricians, and I&C techs, and, you know, the same skill set
    that you are working and using at that coal facility. So I am
    incredibly optimistic of the synergy.
        And I think it is beautiful, as she mentioned, you know,
    some of these plants--or the towns are going to be devastated
    by the closing of a fossil fuel plant, and there is no need for
    it. We can absolutely repurpose all of those jobs and keep that
    community alive and thriving.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you. I am supportive of trying to
    redevelop formerly used fossil fuel sites for productive,
    cleaner uses, and that seems to be the intent of this draft.
        Mr. Chair, I would like to raise an issue that I hope the
    committee staff can further investigate before this proposal
    moves to a markup. The draft uses the CERCLA definition of
    brownfield site, which explicitly excludes numerous types of
    facilities, including facilities that had permits under RCRA,
    the Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act. So I am
    worried that many former coal plants may not meet this
    definition of a brownfield site, and the Commission may not
    include them in their evaluation.
        CERCLA included these statutory exclusions for good reason,
    so that polluters could not gain access to limited brownfield
    funds in order to carry out remediation otherwise required by
    their permits. That is still a good reason to maintain the
    exclusion within the EPA Brownfields Program. I am not sure if
    it should be the litmus test for a brownfield site under this
    proposal, so I hope the majority and minority staffs can
    receive technical assistance from the Commission and EPA to
    ensure that this language does not accidentally exclude some of
    the intended beneficiaries by taking too narrow of a definition
    of brownfield site.
        And with that I thank you, Mr. Chair, and yield back.
        Mr. Duncan [presiding]. The gentleman yields back. I now go
    to Mr. Latta from Ohio for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
    for--our witnesses for appearing today. We appreciate your
    knowledge, and we also appreciate your feedback on the
    legislation before us today.
        Commissioner Merrifield, many new reactor technologies
    require access to HALEU to fuel their operations. Russia's
    invasion of the Ukraine has made the only commercial source of
    that fuel inaccessible and has also negatively impacted the LEU
    market, which is used to fuel our existing fleet.
        My bill, the Nuclear Fuel Security Act, aims to reduce our
    reliance on Russia. And as we heard in the previous testimony
    of our first panel today, about 24 percent coming from Russia
    and 2 of the--Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, adding up to all over
    50 percent, then, that is not good. So we need to increase the
    United States' global leadership.
        Could you expand on the current state of our nuclear fuel
    security?
        Mr. Merrifield. Yes. We, obviously, have significant
    dependance on the import of Russian material that makes up at
    least 20, if not more, percent of the fuel used in the U.S. We
    do not currently have the capability to produce high-assay,
    low-enriched uranium, which we are working toward. DOE has a
    series of programs--there was an announcement yesterday--with
    Centrus and TerraPower that they are engaging on a program to
    do some of that.
        So I think Congress and the legislation you have are
    working to try to improve this, both in the supply of uranium,
    in the supply of low-enriched uranium, and ultimately in the
    supply of HALEU. So I think these efforts in your legislation
    are beneficial, and I think U.S. NIC is supportive of them.
        One thing in your legislation I would also want to point
    out, which I think is positive, you do establish in the--it
    would establish in the U.S. Treasury a revolving loan fund for
    the revenues received by the Secretary from the sale and
    transfer of feed material. We think that is a very logical
    step, and one that certainly we would support.
        Mr. Latta. You know, what role can NRC play in quickly
    establishing a robust domestic nuclear fuel supply chain?
        Mr. Merrifield. The NRC does need to take a look at the
    methods it uses to review and approve new fuel facilities, and
    I think that is an area that could get some additional
    attention.
        There will be a series of centrifuge facilities that will
    need to be built in order to make up for the loss of fuel
    capabilities from outside of the United States. That is an area
    I think additional attention by Congress would be very
    beneficial.
        One thing I would also note, I think we need to think about
    this not just in terms of the United States. We also do need to
    be thinking about Canada. As mentioned earlier in the hearing,
    Canada is a critically important source of uranium, but there
    is no enrichment capability in Canada at all, despite the fact
    that they will be deploying low-enriched uranium reactors by GE
    Hitachi. The Ontario power generation is committed to doing
    that, and there are a series of other advanced reactors that
    would use highly-enriched--or high-assay, low-enriched uranium
    in their production.
        So I think there is a great utility in having enhanced
    U.S.-Canadian cooperation in this area.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you.
        Ms. Korsnick, just this week we heard the announcement that
    the company TerraPower would be entering into a memorandum of
    understanding with Centrus Energy Corporation, which operates a
    HALEU enrichment facility in Piketon, Ohio. This is a sign that
    private capital is already--is ready to invest in our--in the
    domestic nuclear industry, and DOE needs to step up its support
    and quickly implement programs to establish--established in the
    Energy Act of 2020.
        How important is it for the industry to have DOE fully
    implement the HALEU availability program?
        Ms. Korsnick. Yes, we think it is critical for the DOE to
    engage on the high-assay LEU program, and that is because the
    market is not yet established, right? These are advanced
    reactors that are going to be built, but there is not an
    established supply right now of the high-assay LEU, and that is
    where it is very important that our Government, through the
    Department of Energy, help get that sort of moving and going.
    And significant investment--they did recently put out a request
    for proposal that was mentioned earlier today.
        Just a point of note, as the industry reviewed that, we
    were very dissatisfied with the request for proposal, and put
    comments to that effect, which I appreciate the DOE is looking
    at now.
        Mr. Latta. Well, Mr. Chairman, my time is about to expire,
    and I appreciate the testimony from our witnesses today because
    we want to make sure that we are leading in the world and we
    have everything we have to have, especially from the uranium
    and the enriched uranium in this country.
        So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
    time.
        Mr. Duncan. The gentleman yields back. I will now go to
    Washington for Ms. Schrier for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking
    Member DeGette, and thank you to our witnesses today.
        My understanding is that, for every gigawatt of nuclear
    capacity constructed, some 200,000 job years of employment are
    created. And as we increase the mix of nuclear energy in the
    U.S. energy grid, many more very skilled workers will be needed
    to construct and operate and maintain and also guard these
    facilities.
        We heard from my colleagues and witnesses in the earlier
    panel about the workforce shortages and our Federal Government,
    and what we must do to meet--to manage the workforce to meet
    the need for nuclear power in the coming decades. But ensuring
    that we develop and support workers within the private sector
    is also important, not just the public sector.
        In fact, in Washington State we have a long history of
    nuclear power with hundreds of companies participating.
    Terrapower is actually one of them. But universities with
    Ph.D.s, we have PNNL, which is a powerhouse of research in this
    area.
        I was just a few minutes ago so heartened by your comments,
    Ms. Korsnick, about how the coal industry jobs can translate so
    well into nuclear industry jobs, because that is one of the
    things that we have really worried about, is that we don't want
    to be pie in the sky about making sure that everybody can
    transition to a clean energy job. And so what you said meant a
    lot, I think, to all of us. And I think that facts should weigh
    heavily in decisions about where to site nuclear power plants
    so that we can have those same people doing the work.
        I wanted to direct this question, really, to the entire
    panel, just for your thoughts. And it is about workforce. I
    would like to start with you, Ms. Korsnick, because you touched
    on the significance of nuclear power and job creation. Can you
    just expand on ways you have seen the private sector
    thoughtfully approach workforce development, where partnerships
    have been made, what lessons we can learn on the Government
    side, and how we should prepare the next generation of leaders
    and thinkers in the nuclear industry?
        Ms. Korsnick. Sure, I am happy to begin, and my colleagues,
    obviously, can jump in and add.
        I think a recent DOE report came out as they looked ahead
    at potentially having 3 times the amount of nuclear power by
    2050, and they estimated that we would need 375,000 additional
    workers. So just to give a sort of a volume, it is very
    significant.
        But these aren't all nuclear engineers, right? These are--
    they run the whole gamut. Some of them are engineers,
    mechanical, electrical, et cetera. But they are also, you know,
    plumbers and pipefitters and electricians and I&C techs. And
    they are also, you know, folks that maybe have just a 2-year
    degree, a chemistry technician, for example. There are some
    people right out of high school.
        And so I think what we need to really look at from a
    workforce perspective is literally K through 12, you know, and
    on. Like, don't just start at secondary education, you know,
    start from the very beginning. I know we have teamed several
    years ago--I want to give credit to the American Nuclear
    Society, where they have built in programs about nuclear energy
    into K through 12 programs, because I think it starts that
    young that you get people sort of interested and engaged. And
    my hat is off to American Nuclear Society. They worked with the
    Department of Energy to get this established, and they are
    continuing to grow it.
        When I was a site vice president back in the earlier age,
    maybe 2008, 2010 timeframe, there was the conversation around a
    nuclear renaissance. And what it caused the industry to do is
    partner with community colleges and partner with others to
    begin to get that supply chain of people, if you will, ready.
    And so I think that is really what needs to happen again today.
        If there is this clear signal that we are absolutely
    focused on making nuclear thrive, then, if you will, a machine
    begins within the industry itself that says we want to invest
    in these people, we want a team with people that have fossil
    fuel workers and encourage them to come over to nuclear. We
    want a team with universities. We want a team with high schools
    to have a natural pipeline. We work very well with the unions.
    They have fantastic apprenticeship programs. We are all in.
        Mr. Merrifield. Yes, I would like to reinforce that
    comment, and I chair an organization called E4 Carolinas, which
    is a North and South Carolina energy association--plumbers,
    electricians, pipefitters, welders.
        We identified a long time ago having nuclear-grade welders
    is going to be critically important. That is an area we are
    already challenged in the existing nuclear industry, let alone
    having the workforce available for these advanced reactors
    going forward.
        We talked a lot about the issue of the bow wave of
    retirement at the NRC. It is the same in the nuclear industry,
    and particularly with the trades. So, you know, I think
    colleges and universities will respond to having the engineers
    that we need, but it is really the trades that are going to
    need more help, both from unions and otherwise.
        Ms. Schrier. Thank you. I appreciate those comments,
    particularly touching on apprenticeship programs.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Duncan. The gentlelady yields back. Thanks for
    mentioning the Carolinas and what we are doing.
        I will now go to Kentucky and recognize Mr. Guthrie.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. Welcome to Kentucky again. Thank
    you. And I am sorry I missed some of the discussion. We have
    three subcommittee hearings going on today, so we are all kind
    of bouncing around. And I really wanted to be part of this
    discussion, but I was chairing one, so I couldn't be. So I will
    say that and get right to my point.
        You know, Kentucky has been an energy-producing State. We
    are very famous for good Kentucky coal. And what we have seen
    is some of our coal plants, obviously, go out of existence and
    move forward. So, you know, my big concern and one of the
    things I would like to see and we are going to work on is
    turning these brownfield sites, the old coal plants, into
    nuclear sites. We are trying to continue our leadership, and
    our local--State and local leaders.
        So I guess my question--and I know I used to work in
    transportation stuff when I was in previous committees, and
    building in a right-of-way is a lot simpler when you have
    already done a lot of the work beforehand than just building a
    greenfield site. I know there's differences between--it is not
    just completely 100--you are not just adding an extra lane.
    There are some differences between nuclear and other power
    generation, but there are a lot of similarities.
        And so my question to each of you, if you kind of address
    them--we will just start left and go right--what are your views
    about the potential use of brownfield sites?
        And then, can we use these sites to help expedite? Do you
    think it would make it quicker using a site that already
    existed for energy producing to make it quicker?
        Mr. Nordhaus, if you will, start and--
        Mr. Nordhaus. Yes, I mean, there--obviously, I think we
    have--a number of conversations we have had already here, it is
    clear that there is huge potential there. I think that we will
    need to expedite and do any of that quickly. I think we are
    going to kind of need to take a hard look at a set of the
    existing rules and regulations associated with exclusion zones,
    emergency planning, a variety of other issues. I think the
    Commission has already stumbled a bit on that issue and sort of
    trying to reset those rules already.
        And, you know, obviously, when you are talking about a very
    different kind of advanced nuclear plant, often smaller that
    you are talking to sort of dropping into an existing coal site
    that is smaller than the historic, large, you know, 10-mile
    exclusion zones we have had around large light-water plants,
    there is going to be a need to make pretty significant changes
    in the regulatory frameworks. Those changes are appropriate,
    given the differences in the technology, but that is just one
    example of the sort of kind of change that is going to have to
    happen. It is going to have to happen quickly in terms of
    modernizing regulation.
        I think, you know, I see kind of a pretty broad bipartisan
    desire to kind of turn these sites into sites for nuclear
    generation. But that literally can't happen without pretty
    significant changes in how the NRC approaches a set of these
    questions around regulating sites.
        Mr. Guthrie. All right, thank you.
        Ms. Korsnick?
        Ms. Korsnick. I think it is a wonderful idea, and I think
    we should challenge the regulator to make it happen
    efficiently. These are a fantastic way to keep that workforce
    employed. Many towns are built, literally, around a fossil fuel
    plant. There is no reason for that town to go out of business
    just because that coal plant needs to transition to another
    source of energy. And nuclear is a wonderful opportunity.
        I mentioned in answer to a previous question a study was
    done. We could use 75 percent of the workforce. I challenge it.
    I think it can be even more of a percentage of the workforce. I
    have worked at nuclear plants before. We brought coal folks
    down to help us with our refueling outages. We work hand in
    glove. It is a match made in heaven.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you.
        Ms. Toth?
        Ms. Toth. Yes, thank you, Congressman.
        So Good Energy Collective, you know, we have looked, we
    have started to look at quantifying some of the community-level
    benefits through our report, ``Opportunities for Coal Closure
    Communities through Nuclear Energy,'' and, you know, this year
    we will be conducting some on-the-ground engagements with
    prospective host communities facing coal plant retirements
    over, you know, what are your questions about nuclear? Maybe
    you have worked on some of the plants before to help with
    refueling outages.
        But we anticipate that, you know, communities that are
    familiar with hosting large energy infrastructure like a coal
    facility may be among the most interested in hosting new
    nuclear, and we should be facilitating that as part of a just
    energy transition.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you.
        And Mr. Merrifield?
        Mr. Merrifield. Yes, I think coal facilities, for all the
    reasons mentioned, make excellent sites for nuclear power
    plants. Much of the infrastructure can be reused.
        I would say the same for other fossil plants that are
    retiring--combined cycle gas units, for example--or other
    brownfield communities. I think Congressman Tonko made some
    good points about the expansion there.
        One thing I would say, you know, the NRC right now requires
    there to be an analysis of a need for power in the
    environmental impact statement process. That seems to be pretty
    redundant, if you are talking about repowering a coal plant.
        In addition, this requirement is really typically covered
    by State public utility commissions in terms of the need for
    power, or has been evaluated by the applicant itself.
        So I think the NRC's--I know in the context of the
    modernization of Nuclear Reactor Environmental Reviews Act, one
    of the areas of strengthening, I would--I believe, would be to
    drop the requirement for the NRC to do a need for power. It is
    one of the largest pieces of their review. Frankly, I think it
    is completely unnecessary.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thanks, I appreciate that.
        And my time has expired, so I will yield back.
        Mr. Duncan. The gentleman's time has expired. I now go to
    Mr. Veasey from Texas for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Veasey. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And it is
    great that during this hearing that we are considering, in
    conjunction with--just how important good jobs are as it
    relates to some of the improvements that the NRC's licensing of
    nuclear technologies are.
        I know that, combined with targeted funding, that we can
    truly make nuclear energy a component of our cleaner energy
    plans. And so I am just--great that we are here talking about
    this, because I really do think that we need to get this out
    more in front of the public.
        One of the things that I am really--I think is a really
    great project that is going on right now in Texas as it relates
    to nuclear technologies--and I have mentioned it before in a
    previous committee hearing--is that Abilene Christian
    University is experimenting with a nuclear energy experimental
    testing lab in conjunction with University of Texas and Texas
    A&M to experiment using molten salts rather than water as a
    coolant for nuclear reactors. And potential new additions of
    safe, reliable, affordable, and cleaner nuclear power like
    those at Abilene Christian, I think, are going to be very
    essential to the U.S. energy security and deployment of new
    advanced nuclear reactor technology that is going to be crucial
    for our ability to compete with China and Russia in the global
    nuclear industry.
        For new nuclear technology to get to these goals, these
    reactors will need to be licensed quickly by the NRC at scale,
    and be eligible for targeted Federal funding. That is clearly
    in our national interest. And on the latter point, I was
    pleased to hear that the CHIP Act established a new program for
    new university research reactors, and last year's NDAA provided
    important access to fuel service for such new reactors.
        Commissioner Merrifield, I know that you are helping at
    Abilene Christian and that you are advising them on its
    research reactor project. Can you please describe how important
    it is that we ensure a steady funding stream to eligible new
    research reactor projects in the same way we have supported
    existing research reactors?
        Mr. Merrifield. Yes, thank you very much, Congressman, for
    that question.
        And the Abilene Christian University program, with its
    partner, Natura, is an important one, and one that I think is
    very exciting. It is going to allow the development and
    deployment of a molten salt reactor for university research
    purposes. It will be the first new research reactor to be built
    in the United States for several decades.
        And I think, if you go back to the early days of the Atomic
    Energy Act, research reactors were really the leading technique
    used by the Eisenhower Administration in its Atoms for Peace
    program. So I think having a new, U.S.-based, designed research
    reactor could be a potential item that could be exported to
    countries that are seeking to get into the nuclear energy
    programs. So I think it is very exciting there.
        The CHIPS Act, the recent legislation, was very helpful in
    that regard. The NDAA, there is still some appropriations
    language out there that says, you know, the appropriators don't
    want to build new research reactors. I think this is something
    there needs to be further dialogue. It is important for us to
    have a new generation of these reactors, to have a new
    generation of individuals who can be trained on them, and
    certainly appreciate your support and that of other Members of
    Congress to enable that activity.
        Mr. Veasey. Yes. No, thank you very much, and work with me
    a little bit on this question. It is more of a--getting your
    opinion on something, but do you think that there is actually
    some benefit for people to be able to go to someplace like west
    Texas and see so much traditional fossil fuel energy being
    produced, then also see the country's leader when it comes to
    cleaner technologies like wind and solar, and then see this
    nuclear project, and kind of see it all come together in one
    space? How important is that for the public?
        Mr. Merrifield. I think it is important for a couple of
    different reasons.
        Number one, we do not have a university-based molten salt
    reactor in the United States. So it would be a leader in that
    regard and would draw people from all over the world to look at
    it. It is a consortium made up of four universities, three of
    which are in Texas, one of which is in Georgia. So it is a very
    collaborative, interactive program.
        The other thing I think is important--and I can't talk in
    detail--but as a law firm we have talked with a number of folks
    in Texas and in west Texas who are really looking at trying to
    decarbonize various parts of the upstream part of oil
    production through the use of microreactors and other advanced
    reactor technologies. So this is really an area Texas could
    take a lead, and we certainly think that Abilene and Natura
    could be part of that.
        Mr. Veasey. Yes, thank you very much. I appreciate that.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Duncan. The gentleman yields back. We should talk about
    U-233 sometime.
        I now go to the chairwoman of the full committee, Mrs.
    Rodgers, for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        On the first panel I raised concerns about the NRC's
    handling of its part 53 regulatory development--so this is for
    the advanced nuclear reactors, some exciting technology in
    Washington State, too--as outlined in the letter Members of
    Congress just sent to the Commission. And I believe all of you
    do not think that the current proposal is workable. I also
    believe many of you expressed this repeatedly to NRC staff.
        So to Ms. Korsnick, Mr. Merrifield, Mr. Nordhaus, my first
    question is, How do you instill within NRC a results-oriented
    culture, a culture that measures its work, shows progress,
    works to adhere to the laws that Congress has passed?
        And I am going to start with Ms. Korsnick.
        Ms. Korsnick. Thank you very much. Thanks for the question.
        It has to start with leadership, honestly. If you want the
    organization to change, it has to be important to leadership.
    They have to talk about it.
        And, you know, we have had previous working relationships
    with the NRC that have been very helpful, and have solved
    problems, and we have worked through things. Part 53 was not
    that experience. It has been one of the most frustrating
    interactions, I think, between the industry and the regulator
    that I have been associated with, and I have 35 years with this
    industry.
        And again, to change that, I think it has to come from
    leadership. It is not about holding meetings, it is about
    listening to the feedback. They held a lot of meetings. They
    didn't listen.
        Mrs. Rodgers. OK, thank you.
        Mr. Merrifield. I concur with Maria. As a former
    Commissioner, I have to say this has been very disappointing to
    see how this has all panned out. I sat in a lot of those
    meetings, and I will tell you there wasn't a whole lot of--
    there was listening, but there wasn't engagement. And I think
    some of it was a bit of a kabuki dance, frankly.
        I think the--what they have come up with in terms of part
    53 is not useful. I don't think it will be used. And frankly,
    they could do a whole lot better. The agency has been around
    for 50 years. They have got a lot of knowledge. They ought to
    be able to put together an efficient and streamlined licensing
    process for advanced reactors. And what we got is completely
    opposite of that.
        Ultimately, when I was a Commissioner we got held
    accountable by Congress. Former Senator Pete Domenici called us
    to the carpet. We had a similar situation that happened with
    the earlier iteration of part 52, the 2-step licensing process,
    and the Commission at that--1-step licensing process. And the
    Commission at that point went back to the staff and told them
    to start from scratch.
        This piece in part 53 isn't workable, it is not going to be
    helpful, and it certainly is not what Congress intended by
    passing the law.
        Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
        Mr. Nordhaus?
        Mr. Nordhaus. I will just agree with both of the prior
    comments. You know, just--there is--I don't think that this
    happens without greater leadership both from Congress and from
    the Commission itself.
        And until, you know--and as I mentioned in my opening
    comments, you know, it was very heartening to see 60 Members of
    Congress, bipartisan, saying, you know, to the Commission that
    this part 53 rule, we need to go back to the drawing board, it
    needs substantial changes, and being pretty explicit about a
    set of the major problems that need to be addressed before that
    rule moves forward.
        I think that the Commission and the Commissioners need to
    sort of take up that challenge and send that message very
    clearly to the staff, that they need to go back to the drawing
    board. They need to go back and look at, you know--as our
    organization, which was, I think, certainly on the sort of NGO,
    nongovernmental, side, attended more of these meetings,
    submitted more extensive public comment than sort of almost
    anyone else participating, very little of it was actually kind
    of taken up. And I think that was generally the stakeholder
    experience.
        So I think until Congress, you know, makes it very clear
    that we need a substantially modernized and different framework
    for licensing advanced reactors, and then I think we need to
    expect that the Commissioners kind of follow through on that--
    --
        Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
        Mr. Nordhaus [continuing]. And demand that of the staff.
        Mrs. Rodgers. Great, OK, thank you.
        And to that point, Mr. Merrifield, you mentioned that there
    were lots of meetings. I wanted to ask, do you think the NRC
    licensing staff, in interactions with applicants, should not
    act as a consultant on agency rules and guidance, as they have
    been telling applicants I----
        Mr. Merrifield. I think what the agency staff can do is
    engage. They can have workshops where they actually engage in
    back-and-forth conversation to try to drive better
    understanding of where the licensees are coming from and where
    the agency positions are. Many of the meetings were not much
    more than listening sessions, where the utilities and other
    advanced reactor developers would explain their concerns, which
    were met with, ``Thank you very much, we will consider it.''
        At the end of the day--Dan Dorman was here earlier. Dan
    Dorman and his senior team are perfectly satisfied with the
    package they delivered to the Commission on part 53. That is
    troubling to me. Despite all of the concerns that have been
    raised by Congress and by folks on this side of the table, they
    have no--they believe that they are completely in the right.
        I think that there is--and I put this into my--the speech I
    gave at ANS earlier this year--I think there is some
    fundamental issues at the agency. One of them is technical
    depth. I am a little concerned whether they have the technical
    capability to come back with a better product.
        Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. It is very helpful for you all to
    be here and to tell us, from your perspective, what is going
    on. We are going to work on this with bipartisan support. Thank
    you.
        Mr. Duncan. The gentlelady yields back. I now go to Mr.
    Cardenas for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Cardenas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
    Member. I appreciate this opportunity for--to have this
    hearing, and thank you to the witnesses for giving us your
    perspectives and expertise.
        While the NRC considers public opinion in their nuclear
    regulatory decisions, proceedings are often inaccessible and
    difficult to understand. Creating better, more accessible
    opportunities for public participation are necessary out of
    respect for potentially impacted communities, to rebuild trust
    with the public, and because it will lead to better outcomes
    down the line. That is why I am pleased to see Congressman
    Levin's bill, H.R. 4530, which would establish the Office of
    Public Engagement and Participation within NRC included in
    today's hearing.
        Ms. Toth, is that how you say your name? ``Toeth,'' OK,
    thank you. Can you discuss how an Office of Public Engagement
    and Participation at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would
    help communities better navigate proceedings before the
    Commission?
        Ms. Toth. Certainly. Thank you, Congressman.
        As the ranking member of the full committee, Representative
    Pallone, mentioned on the previous panel, from 2021 to '22, the
    NRC undertook a systematic assessment of how it addresses
    environmental justice across all of its programs and
    activities. And that review process revealed a lot of learnings
    about how the Commission can be doing better that extend beyond
    just how it implements environmental justice practices across
    the agency.
        The staff made many recommendations to the Commission that
    are still sitting with the Commission for action. One of these,
    referencing the NRC's existing 1995 EJ strategy, flagged that
    the NRC has a goal to inspire stakeholder confidence through
    more comprehensive public outreach, engaging more
    transparently, providing information up front. And certainly,
    the staff had identified that, currently, NRC stakeholder
    outreach is very infrequent and often only ever takes place
    when there is already a pending activity within the community.
        Also that in its engagements with Tribal and EJ
    communities, but also writ large, the NRC--it is often
    incumbent on an individual project manager to take the
    initiative to conduct effective local engagement and outreach.
    And there is a lot of variability among the project management
    of how they, you know, undertake that work.
        So we see OPEP as potentially playing an important function
    not only in externally making itself accessible to the public
    and answering questions but also internally, potentially being
    able to train project managers in effective strategies for
    public engagement.
        Mr. Cardenas. So an office of public engagement, do you
    think it potentially could help both project sponsors and
    potentially impacted communities, as well?
        Ms. Toth. Yes, absolutely. As I mentioned in my opening
    remarks, the OPEP would establish more capabilities to enable
    the public to engage with the regulator, which is an important
    democratizing function of any Federal agency.
        But critically, having that office in place, the OPEP would
    also be able to engage with some of the developers, as well, or
    with communities where there is conversation around potentially
    hosting new nuclear infrastructure, and bringing those
    communities into the process early on to answer a lot of
    questions that they might have, bring them into the process.
    Because as we know, a lot of times, even with environmental
    reviews under NEPA, some of the delays that are experienced are
    because of issues or concerns that the public has that aren't
    unearthed until much later in the infrastructure siting
    process. So OPEP could start to detangle that concern to the
    benefit of industry.
        Mr. Cardenas. I am the kind of average American before I
    got elected. Now I am just kind of messed up. I have been doing
    this for 27 years. I am in the inside looking out.
        But before I got elected I had never gone to a community
    meeting when it came to the environmental issues impacting my
    community, the Northeast Valley, where I was born and raised.
    But when I got elected, it was brought to my attention that we
    had more dump sites and more particulate matter issues
    emanating out of our community that were actually coming from
    all over LA County, the largest populated county in the
    country.
        And it wasn't until I became an elected official that I
    realized that somebody needed to do something to actually
    listen to the people who are affected by these things, not just
    look at it from the vantage point of somebody investing $1
    million, $100 million, $1 billion into a facility. It is about
    balance, about making sure that we listen to all sides.
        And so with that, can you talk about how the NRC Office of
    Public Engagement and Participation Act would build on the
    NRC's environmental justice review team's recommendations?
        Ms. Toth. Yes, certainly, Congressman.
        You know, with the systematic assessment of EJ that the
    Commission has identified, they held a lot of both public and
    private community meetings to understand how the public felt
    about the NRC's engagements, certainly found things like
    improvements in translation services, providing longer notice
    ahead of public meetings, the kinds of learnings that an Office
    of Public Participation could learn and convey to NRC
    Commission staff to implement--to improve that--those
    functions.
        Mr. Cardenas. Thank you very much.
        My time having expired, I yield back. Thank you very much,
    Mr.----
        Mr. Duncan. The gentleman yields back. I now go to Mr.
    Walberg from Michigan. Five minutes.
        Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our
    second panel. It has been a long wait for you.
        Mr. Merrifield, it is good to see you again since COP 27.
        Mr. Merrifield. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Walberg. It is about as warm here as it was back then.
        Mr. Merrifield. Indeed.
        Mr. Walberg. Yes. I spoke to the first panel about my draft
    legislation, the Nuclear Advisory Committee Reform Act. Could
    you talk to us about why the reforms laid out in this
    legislation are needed?
        And along with that, would these changes actually produce
    better outcomes because the Advisory Committee on Reactor
    Safeguards will be focused on new and novel projects?
        Mr. Merrifield. Yes, thank you very much for that question.
    And this is an issue I have been thinking about since the late
    1990s, when I was a Commissioner.
        I interacted with the ACRS, and I engaged with them and
    used their work product in helping to make determinations as
    Commissioner. I engaged--and I had it read into the record--
    with the Nuclear Innovation Alliance in a study of ACRS. We
    interviewed over 40 individuals, most of them former NRC
    Commissioners, senior staff, ACRS members, and others, and came
    up with a series of recommendations not to get rid of ACRS, not
    to take away from the work it does on behalf of the Commission
    and the public, but to really target them to the most important
    things that they needed to be doing in order to enable the
    Commissioners to make sound decisions about the technologies
    that we are moving forward with, and to do so in a manner that
    was going to be efficient and effective.
        And the recommendations that you have included in your
    legislation are consistent with what that attempted to achieve.
    We certainly--you know, I certainly support the work that you
    are doing there. We would certainly be committed to working
    with the committee to see if there are some additional
    improvements to your legislation we could make.
        But at the end of the day, I think the Commission needs to
    be granted the authority, which it currently doesn't have under
    the Atomic Energy Act, to have some flexibility about how it
    deploys the ACRS to really look at the most technically
    difficult issues and free up some time for them to focus on
    that, and remove the current requirement that they have to
    review, in some cases, relatively mundane licensing areas that
    don't--where they don't, frankly, add value.
        Mr. Walberg. Good tools used by the right body ultimately
    help make the project work, doesn't it? Or we hope that is the
    case.
        In addition to making sure that the NRC's regulatory
    requirements are appropriate, the right staff must be in place
    to do the work. There are some proposals to improve the NRC's
    ability to hire the right people, including one bill today, the
    Strengthening the NRC Workforce Act of 2023. However, I am
    concerned that we need a fix that provides certainty to
    companies that they would be working with a competent regulator
    in the long term.
        And so, Mr. Merrifield, your testimony discusses this
    legislation as well as the need for the NRC to have qualified
    staff and leadership. Can you expand on that?
        And then, secondarily, how can the NRC incorporate some of
    the best practices of private industry to attract the right
    staff?
        Mr. Merrifield. The NRC--thank you--the NRC is challenged
    right now. They have a retiring workforce. Frankly, as I
    mentioned, I think they have lost some of their technical
    capabilities as a result of that. And so having greater tools
    to make sure that they have got the right workforce makes
    sense.
        I have looked at the Securities and Exchange Commission,
    FDIC, and others. There are other financial institutions which
    have been given greater flexibility to hire their workforce not
    simply at the entry level, but all the way up through senior
    management, to make sure that there is an appropriate workforce
    that is encouraged and employed. I think it is very important
    that they have diversity in that group, not just simply--I
    think they ought to be considering people who do have industry
    experience, who do have experience in other departments and
    agencies, because that was the kind of diversity we had when I
    was a Commissioner, and I think, frankly, the NRC needs more of
    it.
        I do have a few concerns. I agree with the intent of the
    Strengthening the NRC Workforce Act. I am a little concerned
    about the authority is vested solely in the Chairman. I think
    those decisions should be with the Commission as a whole.
        The limitations on the timing of that authority is somewhat
    limited. There may be reasons of which I am not aware. Maybe
    budgetary. I think those authorities should be given to the NRC
    for a longer period of time.
        And I think, certainly, it would probably be worth
    considering having the Government Accountability Office and
    perhaps OMB engaged in dialogue about other tools that might be
    useful to enhance the ability of the agency to have what they
    need to attract a talented and capable workforce.
        Mr. Walberg. OK. Thank you.
        My time is expired. I yield back.
        Mr. Duncan. The gentleman yields back. I now go to Mr.
    Palmer for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        In the previous panel we had a discussion about the fact
    that the U.S. needs to decouple from China and Russia and other
    foreign sources for nuclear fuel. And one of the things that I
    have really been pushing is the conversion to advanced nuclear,
    but specifically following the model utilized by France with
    their standard design, but more specifically the model of what
    we would use with our nuclear fleet, our submarines and
    aircraft carriers.
        And Mr. Merrifield, I just--I want to ask you, what is
    your--what are your thoughts about the ability to--for the NRC
    to expeditiously permit small modular nuclear reactors?
        Mr. Merrifield. I have a couple of different views. The
    first one is, as we discussed, I don't think the part 53
    process that you are coming up with is going to be helpful and
    useful. Having said that, I think there is an identification
    that the existing 2-step process in part 50 and the 1-step
    process that can be used under part 52 can be used to deploy
    these reactor designs.
        What I think is going to be important going forward is
    having a framework that the agency can deploy in which, after
    they have reviewed the first version of that design--whether it
    is TerraPower, X-energy, Terrestrial, Oklo, or others--that
    the--that what is required to deploy the next version of that
    same design should really be only focused on site-specific
    factors, and make it as speedy as possible.
        Mr. Palmer. But isn't that one of the advantages of the
    small modular reactors, is that because they can be constructed
    outside fabricated parts, that site location--it is much easier
    to locate one of these than it is the traditional nuclear
    reactor?
        Plus, they will fit into the grid where you have got all
    kind of grid issues with renewables and with the traditional
    nuclear. Isn't that----
        Mr. Merrifield. That is completely the case. I used to be--
    I used to work in the construction industry. We sold combined
    cycle gas units. Once you have got that design down, a nuclear
    reactor design down and licensed, it should be a very similar
    process.
        In the 2000s we put in about 1,000 gigawatts of gas, either
    combined cycle, simple cycle, or other combustion units. The
    goal ought to be able to get to a point where we can deploy
    nuclear reactors, advanced nuclear reactors, in a similar,
    efficient way.
        Mr. Palmer. You also use a lot less land space than you do
    with the renewables and the--and what we normally have with
    traditional nuclear.
        And the other thing I want to point out is--because I keep
    hearing concerns about the use of nuclear with the--these are
    almost exactly the same. They have a little more generating
    capacity than a reactor on an aircraft carrier or a nuclear
    submarine, but the U.S. Navy has got 6,200 reactor years--that
    is over a 50-year period--with no accidents. This should be
    what, I think, the public should be pushing us toward. No
    emissions. These are modular units that are fabricated and
    located on a site connecting with the grid. It seems to me, in
    terms of eliminating emissions or reducing emissions, this is
    the best course to follow.
        And the last thing is being able to recycle what we have
    always considered spent fuel rods, because my understanding
    is--again, going back somewhat to the French design, but what
    we could design with these--we could recover about 96 percent
    of the recoverable material from spent fuel rods. And that
    would decouple us to a certain extent from foreign supply.
        Mr. Merrifield. Yes. To your point, Congressman, we
    regularly park two aircraft carriers in San Diego, each of
    which contains two nuclear reactors. The public lives
    immediately in proximity to those reactors, and nobody thinks
    anything about it because of their safety. And that is the goal
    that, in my view, we can have for advanced nuclear
    technologies.
        On your second point, advanced reactors do bring with them
    the promise of reutilizing what is considered now a waste, used
    nuclear fuel, and making it into a resource. And there are,
    from my count, probably at least four or five different
    companies out there today evaluating the potential of
    reutilizing that fuel, and I think that is a very exciting
    thing going forward.
        Mr. Palmer. Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate the
    opportunity to have hearings like this. I think it is extremely
    helpful. And hopefully, if the public is paying attention to
    this, they got to--they should get a sense that we have a good
    idea of where we need to go.
        With that, I yield back.
        Mr. Duncan. The gentleman yields back. And now Mr.
    Balderson of Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all
    for being here today.
        Mr. Merrifield, before I get to my questions, would you
    like to respond to some of the earlier comments regarding
    public participation?
        Mary Martin from the committee just came back and asked me,
    ``Mr. Merrifield, would you like to make some points?'' Would
    you like to have any response to that, or----
        Mr. Merrifield. Yes, I just--I am firmly--a firm believer
    that the NRC can do--can and should do--a better job of
    engaging with the public in two-way communication and should
    also be leaning forward to provide information to communities
    that may host nuclear facilities. I fully agree with that,
    fully agree that more resources should be added there, fully
    agree that the agency staff should be more engaging with
    members of the public, should be providing them information
    about what is going on. All of that I am fully in agreement
    with.
        I do have concerns about the creation of a new office in
    equal standing to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation but
    with a mandate that will assist in submitting contentions and
    hearing requests which are ultimately a challenge to the NRC
    staff licensing process. Challenges could--would then be funded
    by taxpayer dollars, such that the NRC staff could essentially
    use taxpayer dollars to come up with new and creative ways to
    legally challenge its own licensing decisions, potentially
    delaying those decisions in the process.
        So I agree that the agency needs to be--do more on
    engagement. I think that element of the agency funding a
    contentious process is not one I would support.
        Mr. Balderson. Thank you. I will follow up with some of my
    other questions.
        As you know, the nuclear industry requires a predictable
    licensing process in order to secure financial support from
    investors to commercialize their technologies. Regulatory
    predictability allows financiers to estimate timelines and cost
    accurately. Draft bills such as the Nuclear Licensing
    Efficiency Act seek to address this. Mr. Merrifield, what are
    your thoughts on the approach taken by these bills?
        Mr. Merrifield. As a general matter, I think many of the
    bills that are before this committee today are beneficial. I
    think I would include within that the Nuclear Licensing
    Efficiency Act. The U.S. NIC is supportive of the expedited
    review timelines contained in the legislation, and we would
    certainly be pleased to continue to work with the committee to
    enhance the legislation.
        Mr. Balderson. What else can be done to strengthen these
    bills to support more of these new technologies?
        Mr. Merrifield. I am sorry, Congressman.
        Mr. Balderson. I am sorry. What else can be done to
    strengthen these bills to support the commercialization of the
    new technologies?
        Mr. Merrifield. I think, well, frankly, one of the areas
    that was talked about earlier today was the process that is
    used to--the fee-based process used to apply to these reactor
    designs. And I do think that whole process was driven by the
    Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation Act, which created the NRC as
    a fee-based agency. The current fleet of reactors did not have
    to go through that process. They had to pay a fee for
    licensing, but it was relatively modest in comparison.
        I think there ought to be put into place some guidelines
    that would perhaps have a cost share requirement for advanced
    reactor developers--you know, 80 percent of the regulatory
    costs paid for by the Federal Government, 20 percent by the
    licensee, ability to perhaps waive fee requirements until after
    the reactors are built. I think there is a variety of things
    that could happen there that would be helpful.
        I think also the agency should be held--you know, once it
    has accepted the application for review, it should be held to
    the timeline and perhaps be held to the amount of hours that it
    would spend on reviewing that application. And if it went
    beyond that time or beyond those hours, those would be borne by
    the Federal Fisc, rather than imposing those on an advanced
    reactor developer.
        Mr. Balderson. OK. I would also like your thoughts, Ms.
    Korsnick and Mr. Nordhaus, on this particular subject. Would
    you like to add anything to that? What else can be done to
    strengthen the bills to support the commercialization of some
    of these technologies?
        Ms. Korsnick. Yes, I--earlier I think there was some
    conversation around maybe additional metrics that could be put
    in place, and I think that would allow for some of the
    transparency for how long is it taking to review some of this
    information, et cetera, so that you could see a pattern of
    improvement as they do more of these reviews, instead of a
    pattern of additional resources and more time, for example.
        So I think some interesting metrics that would have to be
    reported back to Congress would be interesting.
        Mr. Balderson. OK. Mr. Nordhaus, sir.
        Mr. Nordhaus. I would agree. I think that, you know, I will
    just sort of connect this a little bit to some of the
    discussion around staffing and workforce issues----
        Mr. Balderson. OK.
        Mr. Nordhaus [continuing]. Which is I think there is
    reasonable concern that, if you don't have an accountable,
    streamlined, performance-based licensing process and you add
    additional staff, that you don't actually get additional
    efficiencies. So I think that the staffing and workforce issues
    at the NRC need to be much more explicitly tied to expectations
    of expeditious review, and----
        Mr. Balderson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield
    back.
        Mr. Duncan. The gentleman yields back. Now Mr. Pfluger is
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Pfluger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the
    witnesses for being here.
        You know, one of the things that we keep talking about in
    this committee is just the speed of relevancy, doing things in
    the regulatory process that allow us to compete. And, you know,
    nobody knows bureaucratic red tape better than this panel of
    witnesses. We appreciate you helping us push back on that.
        And I also appreciate my colleague from Texas bringing up
    Abilene Christian and the work that they are doing. This is the
    kind of innovation that we, as the government, we set the
    conditions and then get out of the way. And let's let either
    private industry or these partnerships or universities do what
    they do best.
        Ms. Korsnick, one thing that you brought up--and I
    appreciate it--is a need for a--not an interim storage but a
    permanent repository. And so I couldn't agree more. And we
    actually have been pushing back fervently in Andrews, Texas,
    against an interim storage facility that--you know, we have got
    Yucca Mountain. It is the law of the land. And how do we, in
    your opinion, get to that permanent facility there, and what
    needs to be done either by the NRC or by Congress in order to
    get to that point?
        Ms. Korsnick. Well, thank you, and thanks for the question.
        You know, I guess I would just step back for a minute and
    just recognize that the industry and ratepayers have done their
    part in establishing a fund to establish a long-term repository
    or a durable fuel solution. There is over $40 billion in that
    fund today. And it is really--the Government needs to get to
    yes on this. We need a long-term geologic repository. Whether
    or not we reprocess, whether or not we have, you know, interim
    storage, all of those can be pieces and parts. But at the end
    of the day, you are going to have to have a long-term
    repository, regardless.
        You know, we can look around the world and say, well, let's
    see, Finland is doing it, Sweden is doing it, Switzerland is
    doing it, France is doing something, Canada is making some
    progress, so is the UK. I have a high level of confidence in
    the United States of America that we can figure this out. It is
    not a technical challenge.
        We just need to move forward with it and, at the end of the
    day, act as we should and come up with a long-term repository.
    Because then things like interim storage, they make sense. They
    make sense because people understand there is a long-term
    answer, and people have a view of being interim. OK, I know I
    am interim because there is something long term. It is much
    harder to convince somebody they are interim when there is
    nothing else around.
        Mr. Pfluger. What a great point.
        And I would like to thank the chairman for his leadership
    on this particular subject, which is helping get us--get the
    Government to yes. And there are many of us who are pushing for
    that. So thank you for your testimony there.
        Mr. Nordhaus, I enjoyed your commentary on the
    modernization of our environmental review, NEPA process, and
    how we can get to--have the speed of relevancy. And maybe can
    you spend a couple of minutes expanding on other areas outside
    of the EA, the EIS, the analysis and impact statement, about
    how we can actually compete and innovate and build and get to
    where we need to. Because I am worried about competing with
    China right now and other countries, that we are not doing
    things at the speed of relevancy.
        Mr. Merrifield. Was that----
        Mr. Pfluger. Sorry, I am looking at you, Mr. Merrifield,
    but I mean Mr. Nordhaus.
        Mr. Merrifield. OK.
        Mr. Pfluger. Very confusing when you--Mr. Merrifield is
    looking at me going, ``Is that for me?''
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Nordhaus. I was a little--could you briefly restate the
    question?
        Mr. Pfluger. Yes, just looking at environmental impact
    statements and analyses, the recent legislation that we passed
    to modernize those, to shorten them, to bring them into the
    speed of relevancy, can you just comment and summarize----
        Mr. Nordhaus. Yes----
        Mr. Pfluger [continuing]. What needs to be done, either
    outside of that or in addition to that?
        Mr. Nordhaus. Well, you know, again, I think, you know, in
    your role providing oversight and accountability over the NRC,
    I mean, I think it needs to be clear that the NRC needs to move
    sort of quickly to comply with the new requirements in the
    Fiscal Responsibility Act.
        I think that the NRC could also sort of remove new reactors
    as an automatic sort of trigger for EIS, for an EIS project.
    Our view is that it should be sort of based on whether there is
    significant impact associated. You know, a small, factory-
    manufactured reactor shouldn't necessarily automatically have
    to kind of comply with an EIS in the way that we have
    historically required large reactors to do so.
        So those are two things that I think would sort of make a
    big difference.
        Mr. Pfluger. Mr. Chairman, may I have 30 seconds for my
    snafu?
        So what is the threat if we don't comply with the Fiscal
    Responsibility Act, if we don't actually implement what the
    reforms to NEPA have stated for us? What is the real threat to
    the country?
        Mr. Nordhaus. I just think we are likely to sort of end up
    what we have sort of had to date, which is just a lot more sort
    of automatic sort of deferral to an EIS process when it is not
    necessarily needed. So----
        Mr. Pfluger. So thank you very much.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Voice. Mr. Chairman, can I just----
        Mr. Duncan. The gentleman yields back, and I now go to Mr.
    Carter for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for
    being here. I know it has been a long day for you, but we
    appreciate it because this is extremely important.
        You know, according to the Department of Energy Strategy to
    Restore American Nuclear Energy Leadership--and that is a
    mouthful--but according to this group, the U.S. is missing out
    on a nuclear reactor market that is valued between 500 and 750
    billion dollars a year--over the next 10 years, I should say. I
    mean, economically, just economically speaking--and never mind
    that we are talking about baseload, reliable, clean energy--
    just from an economic perspective, we ought to be pursuing
    this.
        Not only that, but looking at it from a worldview, and
    looking at it from our allies, from our adversaries--and I know
    this is preaching to the choir here, I know you all know this,
    but it is important that I repeat this because we know that
    China is providing over 80 percent of the financing for its
    nuclear power plants, and we know why they are doing it. We
    know that they are, in some places, even 85 percent. I mean,
    that is practically giving it away. But what you have to take
    along with that, as we all know, is something that I think a
    lot of these countries, particularly these developing
    countries, are going to find out is very difficult.
        But we have had some successes here in America too. In
    fact, Romania canceled its plans to work on a--work with China
    on a nuclear plant and instead is working with a U.S. group.
    That is good news.
        Also, Westinghouse building in Poland and the Czech
    Republic, and excluded Russia and Chinese from bidding on
    these. So we have got the ability, we have got the knowledge,
    we have got everything we need, we just need to utilize it and
    we need to take it.
        I want to ask you this question. I will start with you, Ms.
    Korsnick. Did I get it right? OK.
        Let me ask you: With China and Russia rapidly expanding
    their nuclear reach around the globe, have we already ceded
    that opportunity to our adversaries?
        Ms. Korsnick. Well, thanks for the question. I think we
    should be incredibly proud of the innovation that we do here in
    the United States. And our innovation pipeline is chockablock
    full, ready to come out with several different designs.
        So, no, I don't think we have ceded our leadership. I think
    China and Russia--and Russia, specifically, with their bad
    behavior in Ukraine--I think have given a lot of people an
    opportunity to stand up and take notice. We have watched them
    cut off the gas supply to Europe, and so they wouldn't do
    anything different if you--if they owned all the nuclear
    plants. They would shut them down, too, right?
        Mr. Carter. Absolutely.
        Ms. Korsnick. So it matters who you do business with. It
    matters who you want to form a 100-year relationship with.
        Mr. Carter. And it matters that we should be pursuing that.
        Ms. Korsnick. Absolutely. It should be a strategic
    imperative of this country----
        Mr. Carter. Absolutely, thank you.
        Ms. Korsnick [continuing]. To absolutely want to make sure
    that this happens.
        Mr. Carter. Mr. Merrifield, do you want to comment on that?
        Mr. Merrifield. Yes, I want to give kudos. I think the Ex-
    Im Bank has been working hard to partner with Westinghouse and
    others to allow those to be deployed. I concur with Maria. We
    have got the technologies. We have the ability to get out there
    and win those markets.
        I would say the Development Finance Corporation has been
    given tools to do more, including having some authorities in
    equity participation. I think that needs to be encouraged. I
    think DFC has got to do more in that area.
        I would also say it is appalling, as the largest
    contributor to the World Bank, the United States nonetheless is
    burdened with the fact, as are others, that a small number of
    antinuclear countries, including Germany, Austria, and Ireland,
    are keeping us from allowing to tap into World Bank funding to
    enable these technologies to deploy to countries in Africa and
    elsewhere. That is appalling to me, and I think the United
    States Government----
        Mr. Carter. That is a great point. I had the opportunity to
    visit Europe with the Conservative Climate Caucus, and I will
    tell you that they have allowed--particularly in Germany, they
    have allowed their policies to get ahead of their innovation,
    and closing all their nuclear plants, relying on wind and
    solar, and now they are having to go back to fire--to coal
    power. And that is just inexcusable.
        Now, granted, some of it was due to what happened in
    Ukraine and Russia, but still, it was shortsighted on their
    part.
        Nevertheless, we understand our natural allies, that we can
    have some success with them. What about the developing
    countries? What can we do to better position ourselves with
    those countries?
        Mr. Merrifield. We engage a lot as a law firm with
    countries in Africa and in Asia that are developing.
        Mr. Carter. But they are just looking for the cheapest
    thing.
        Mr. Merrifield. They----
        Mr. Carter. They just want energy, period.
        Mr. Merrifield. I will tell you, they--and when it comes to
    nuclear, given their choices, they know what the situation is
    with China. They know what the situation is with Russia. They
    would prefer to have U.S. technologies. We, as a government,
    need to find the tools to help them achieve that choice.
        Mr. Carter. Great. Thank you. Thank you all again.
        And I yield back.
        Mr. Duncan. I thank the gentleman, his time has expired. I
    will go to--now to Mr. Allen for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Allen. Thank you, Chair Duncan. This is an important
    hearing.
        Our energy demand is continuing to grow across the world.
    We saw that play out last winter, and particularly in Germany,
    where they, unfortunately, had a lot of folks that, you know,
    didn't have heat, and a lot of lives were lost.
        I want to thank you all for being here today and talking
    about this process. Advancing nuclear energy legislation in our
    country is critical, in my mind, not only for energy security,
    but national security. And we should continue to dominate this
    market.
        You know, we talked, I think, a lot about China today and
    what they are doing. In my district Plant Vogtle, home to units
    3 and 4, will be the first two nuclear power plants built to
    come online in the United States in over three decades. Unit 3
    is projected to be in service at the end of this month, and
    unit 4 is projected to be in service the first of the year. You
    know, this is--and I have been through this with Southern
    Company, and it has been a tremendous accomplishment. Lots of
    things, there were lots of headwinds, regulatory changes and
    things like that, which they experienced on 1 and 2.
        But, you know, they persevered, and the accomplishment also
    highlights the importance of investing in critical
    infrastructure to enable the next generation of nuclear
    technologies. What I was told is, you know, these are the new
    Westinghouse units. There was a learning curve. But guess what?
    We have the people now that know how to build these things.
        And so what I would like to get to here today is to find
    out how do we go--I know there is the new module reactors and
    things like that, but it is going to be a while for those to--
    you know, because once you get these things built, it costs
    very little to operate them. And it is still less than a penny
    a kilowatt hour. But as we look forward, you know, what can we
    do?
        And I know that, you know, it is part of the
    administration. And, of course, you know, Congress has its role
    in this. But as Congressman Carter mentioned, it gets to the
    point where you can't afford to build these things. I mean, it
    is just too much risk. And even on units 3 and 4, the
    government had to back those bonds and--which changed a lot of
    how it was constructed.
        But I am proud to work on a version of the Nuclear
    Licensing Efficiency Act.
        And I would say--I would ask this question to Mr. Nordhaus
    and Mr. Merrifield and Ms. Korsnick. Could you share your
    thoughts on this and the--and, you know, what do we need to do
    to, one--I mean, you see countries like France developing these
    technologies. What have we got to do here in our Nation to
    understand nuclear and use it to our benefit?
        Mr. Merrifield. I think Congress has taken a number of
    steps over the last several years to incentivize the deployment
    of advanced nuclear, whether it is through changes such as
    envisioned in this legislation to improve the licensing
    process, or certain funding.
        To deploy those internationally, I think the AP-1000 is a
    good example. Lessons have been learned. We have got potential
    markets in Poland, Ukraine, Czech Republic, and others in
    Eastern Europe, and I think having the Government tools used by
    Ex-Im Bank, Development Finance Corporation, and others could
    be very helpful in getting those designs deployed.
        Similarly, GE, TerraPower, other--X-energy, other designs
    which are out there certainly could use those same tools as
    well.
        Ms. Korsnick. I guess I would add quickly that we need to
    build it here first. And I really commend the work that has
    happened at Plant Vogtle, and I commend the fact that the
    companies, you know, stuck to it even when times got tough. I
    know that was hard, but we should be very proud of that
    advanced technology that is now going to be in operation here
    in the United States.
        And in that same way, we have to build the SMRs and build
    the microreactors, because if you are going to build it in
    Romania and Poland and Ghana and all these other places, you
    know what? They want to see it here first. They want to see
    that you built it. They want to know that you did it well. They
    want to know that your regulator approved it.
        And so, you know, I look at this and say, oh, my gosh, we
    just have to move quickly--not only quickly to help ourselves,
    we need to move quickly so we can demonstrate to our allies
    that we can build it in their place too.
        Mr. Allen. OK. I am out of time. But, sir, would you like--
    Mr. Nordhaus, would you like to comment?
        Mr. Nordhaus. I will just say that the advantage of the
    smaller reactors is that I think there is more likelihood that
    we can do it with project finance without these huge sort of
    government backstops. And it doesn't sort of require the same
    kind of huge, you know, 60-year, $20 billion----
        Mr. Allen. Right.
        Mr. Nordhaus [continuing]. Bet on future electricity
    production that a big plant like the Vogtle plant costs.
        So hopefully, we start to see some AP-300s and some NuScale
    reactors, and some TerraPower reactors, and some smaller
    reactors, where we can sort of start to scale and get some of
    that learning without necessarily needing to make the same kind
    of one-off sort of bet the farm on a gigawatt scale reactor.
        Mr. Allen. OK, Mr. Chairman, I apologize, I am over my
    time.
        Mr. Duncan. That is OK.
        Mr. Allen. But I yield back.
        Mr. Duncan. You were at the end, and we needed to hear the
    answer.
        I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today.
    You all have been great. Both panels, really.
        Members have additional written questions for you, I am
    sure. I do, as well. And I will remind Members they have 10
    business days to submit additional questions for the record. I
    ask the witnesses do their best to submit responses within 10
    business days upon receipt of the questions.
        I ask unanimous consent to insert in the record documents
    included on the staff hearing document list, other documents
    that were provided today.
        Without objection, that will be the order.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Duncan. And without objection, the subcommittee will be
    adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]