[Senate Hearing 118-69]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




                                                         S. Hrg. 118-69

                      HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF
   JEFFERY BARAN TO BE A MEMBER OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

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

                                HEARING

                               before the

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________


                              MAY 10, 2023

                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works





                 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]




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


                               ______
                                 

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

53-151 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2023














               COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                  THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman
          SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia, Ranking Member

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
MARK KELLY, Arizona                  DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
ALEX PADILLA, California             LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania

               Courtney Taylor, Democratic Staff Director
               Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director









                            C O N T E N T S

                               ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                              MAY 10, 2023

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware..     4
Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore, U.S. Senator from the State of West 
  Virginia.......................................................     5

                               WITNESSES

Beyer, Hon. Donald S., Jr., U.S. Representative from the State of 
  Virginia.......................................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     3
Baran, Hon. Jeffery Martin, nominee to be a Member of the Nuclear 
  Regulatory Commission..........................................     6
    Prepared statement...........................................     9
    Responses to additional questions from Senator Capito........    11

                          ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

Letter to President Joseph R. Biden from the International 
  Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, February 6, 2023............    57
Letter to Senators Carper and Capito from the:
    Fusion Industry Association, May 25, 2023....................    59
    Breakthrough Institute et al., June 12, 2023.................    61
    Good Energy Collective, May 23, 2023.........................    66
    Nuclear Innovation Alliance, May 22, 2023....................    68









 
                   HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF
   JEFFERY BARAN TO BE A MEMBER OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, MAY 10, 2023

                                       U.S. Senate,
                 Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m. in 
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper 
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
    Present: Senators Carper, Capito, Cardin, Markey, Kelly, 
Cramer, Lummis, Sullivan, Mullin, and Ricketts.
    Senator Carper. Good morning, everyone. I am pleased to 
call this hearing to order, and doubly pleased because of the 
person who is sitting right here in front of us to introduce 
our witness, our nominee.
    Maybe before I give my opening statement, I am going to 
yield to Don Beyer, a longtime friend. I grew up in Virginia 
and have admired his family from afar. I just wish I could buy 
a car from them; they are auto dealers, probably still do as 
far as I know. We have had the privilege of knowing Don and his 
wife for a number of years.
    Why don't we just turn it over to you for whatever comments 
you want to make, and then I will take it from there? Welcome.

            STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD S. BEYER, JR., 
         U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA

    Representative Beyer. Senator, thank you very much. It is 
an incredible honor for a humble House member to come over and 
testify before a Senate panel.
    My fearless leader, Senator Carper, who has taken me all 
over the world on some wonderful trips.
    And Senator Cramer, so nice to see a House member do well 
and rise to this auspicious body. One day I am going to get to 
North Dakota.
    Senator Capito, when I ran for Governor many years ago, 26 
years ago, part of my promise was that if elected I would send 
in the National Guard and take back the rest of our State.
    [Laughter.]
    Representative Beyer. However, I lost.
    But I love West Virginia. It is a wonderful, wonderful 
place.
    I have the incredible honor of introducing Commissioner 
Jeff Baran to this esteemed Committee on the momentous occasion 
of his fourth nomination for a fourth term to sit on the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I am honored to be Commissioner 
Baran's Representative, and I am glad that he has been 
nominated to again represent all of our best interests in 
nuclear regulatory policy, as he has done since 2014.
    Jeff got his start at Ohio University with a bachelor's and 
a master's degree in political science, and then earned a law 
degree at some little place in Boston called Harvard Law 
School. He then made a choice that all of us in the room 
resonate with, instead of going to the big New York law firm, 
he set his sights on Capitol Hill. He worked in the House of 
Representatives for over 11 years, first as counsel to the 
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and then in 
the House Energy and Commerce Committee for over 11 years.
    In the Energy and Commerce Committee, he pulled together 
bills around energy efficiency, supporting renewable energy, 
bolstering the electric grid, and pipeline and nuclear safety, 
and really impactful projects like the cleanup of nuclear waste 
in and around the Navajo Nation. Additionally, during his time 
on the Committee, he oversaw many of the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission's activities, preparing him directly for his current 
role as Commissioner.
    He was then nominated to the NRC in 2014 by President 
Obama, and approved by the Senate. During his time at the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Jeff and the other commissioners 
have served diligently, making strides in approving and 
regulating cutting edge technologies like small modular nuclear 
reactors.
    And my personal favorite, just a few weeks ago, a landmark 
decision, setting a framework for how to regulate fusion energy 
once it moves into power plant readiness. And I hope you saw, 
there was an announcement already this morning that Microsoft 
has a deal with Helion to provide 15 megawatts of nuclear power 
in 2028, which is 17 years ahead of the ITER project. It is 
remarkable. But it is only possible because of what 
Commissioner Baran and his colleagues have done.
    These areas have kept our nuclear power stores safe and 
operational, while continuing to promote innovation by giving 
engineers the freedom to find more efficient ways to create and 
store energy. Jeff's work has also made significant strides 
toward creating a cleaner and more reliable grid.
    I look back with pride on Jeff's work as a Nuclear 
Regulatory Commissioner, and look forward to the ways in which 
he will continue to serve our country if you approve him again.
    Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.
    [The prepared statement of Representative Beyer follows:]
    
    
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 
            U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

    Senator Carper. We are delighted to see you here. I 
remember when they were just getting started, nobody had ever 
heard of them. Now they are like a big deal, it is something. 
You just never know. Fusion has been a long time coming, but I 
think it is here now. It is exciting for us.
    Thanks, great to see you, Don. Our best to your family. 
Thank you for joining us.
    Let me add a few words if I can, then turn it over to 
Senator Capito, to say a couple of words about Commissioner 
Baran.
    It is my privilege to say a few words about our nominee and 
the important role that a well functioning NRC has in ensuring 
that we continue to safely and reliably power our Nation into 
the future. As we all know, nuclear power plays a critical role 
in our efforts to address the climate crisis and strengthen our 
Nation's energy security, while also creating economic 
opportunity.
    Nuclear energy is currently the largest source of reliable, 
clean energy in our country; I will say that again. Nuclear 
energy is currently the largest source of reliable, clean 
energy in our country. I think 50 percent of the carbon free 
electricity being generated today comes from our nuclear 
plants. It provides a lot of energy for us, and it is clean.
    Meeting our Nation's ambitious climate goals will most 
certainly involve nuclear power, including the development and 
deployment of new technologies, as we have just been talking 
about here with Don, and nuclear reactors.
    As we discussed with the full Commission during last 
month's NRC budget hearing, we must ensure that the agency has 
the resources that it needs to effectively maintain not only 
the safety but the security of our Nation's nuclear facilities 
and materials. A well resourced and fully staffed NRC is 
essential to maintaining the safe operation of our Nation's 
current fleet of reactors while also preparing for the next 
generation of technologies.
    In addition to sufficient funding, the NRC must have a 
complete leadership team in place. A vacancy on the Commission 
at this critical moment could delay important decisions and 
slow down the deployment of new nuclear reactors.
    At the end of June, when Commissioner Baran's current term 
ends, one of the five seats on the Commission will become 
vacant. Fortunately, the President has nominated Commissioner 
Baran to serve another term on the NRC.
    Jeff Baran is a dedicated public servant who has served as 
a Commissioner of the NRC since 2014. Throughout his time on 
the Commission, the NRC has maintained its status as the 
world's gold standard for nuclear regulatory agencies. This 
level of excellence is due in no small part to Commissioner 
Baran's leadership. We are grateful for that.
    In his time on the NRC, Commissioner Baran has focused on 
the need to serve the public and provide opportunities for 
engagement and input from all stakeholders, especially those in 
disadvantaged and underserved communities. He has brought a 
welcome perspective to the NRC about its role in promoting 
environmental justice.
    It is clear that Commissioner Baran also understands that 
the NRC's work is critical in our fight against climate change. 
Commissioner Baran has demonstrated this commitment to 
addressing climate change through the Commission's work to 
establish the right regulatory framework for the safe licensing 
and the operation of new technologies like the next generation 
of nuclear reactors and fusion energy systems.
    Before beginning his service on the NRC, Jeff worked as a 
staff member, as we have heard, for the House Committee on 
Energy and Commerce. During that time, oversight of the NRC was 
one of his primary areas of responsibility. In addition, he has 
successfully worked to coordinate between relevant Federal 
agencies and two Native American tribes to clean up uranium 
contamination in and around the Navajo Nation.
    As I mentioned, maintaining a full slate of commissioners 
will help the NRC continue to carry out its important 
responsibilities and do so effectively and efficiently. That is 
why I hope to work with all of our members of this Committee to 
expeditiously move Commissioner Baran through the confirmation 
process to ensure that this impending vacancy is filled.
    With that, I am pleased to turn it over to Senator Capito.
    Senator.

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

    Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, Commissioner Baran, for being here with us 
today.
    Nuclear power is necessary to meet our energy and national 
security priorities, provide for a reliable electric grid, and 
achieve our environmental goals.
    Congress established our Nation's policy on the peaceful 
use of nuclear technology in the Atomic Energy Act. That policy 
remains as important and relevant today as it was when it was 
enshrined into law generations ago. The Atomic Energy Act 
states that the use of nuclear energy shall be directed to make 
the maximum contribution to the common defense and security, 
improve the general welfare, and increase the standard of 
living.
    To help achieve those goals, Congress provided the 
fundamental nuclear regulatory standard, called the reasonable 
assurance of adequate protection. This reasonable assurance 
standard guides how the Nuclear Regulatory Commission asserts 
its authority to regulate the civilian use of radioactive 
materials. It provides the guideposts by which the NRC meets 
the agency's mission to improve the general welfare and protect 
public health and the environment.
    This morning, we will examine how Commissioner Baran's 
record aligns with those dual pillars, the Nation's long 
established nuclear energy policy goals, and the regulatory 
standards under which those goals are met. This is Commissioner 
Baran's third nomination hearing before this Committee to serve 
on the NRC.
    As I have reviewed his record from his long tenure as a 
commissioner, I see a regulatory philosophy of an unjustifiably 
increasing regulatory burdens, and reducing regulatory 
predictability and adding costs. This policy approach of 
stifling innovation and squeezing the industry is unacceptable 
at the best of times.
    But it is especially unacceptable at a time of transition 
in the nuclear fleet, which we have talked a lot about in this 
Committee, increased demand for reliable and zero emission 
sources of baseload energy electric generation, and cutthroat 
international competition in the sector.
    I am concerned that this cumulative record, Commissioner 
Baran's votes, and the policies he has supported, may not align 
with what Congress expects, and the Nation needs and deserves, 
with respect to nuclear power. I look forward to hearing his 
responses to questions about past decisions.
    Continuing down a path that would seem to follow from that 
past record will unnecessarily limit the deployment of safe 
nuclear energy and threaten America's security and economic 
competitiveness. Congress has consistently provided significant 
support with strong bipartisan majorities to keep operating our 
nuclear power plants online while developing and deploying 
modern, advanced nuclear technologies.
    New policies recently approved by Congress are in place to 
incentivize today's nuclear power plants to increase power 
output and pursue license extensions. Policies are also set to 
facilitate the major private capital investments necessary to 
license, construct, and operate our new reactors. The success 
of these policies will depend on how they are implemented in 
the next 5 years, the same timeframe as the term for which 
Commissioner Baran is nominated.
    I am concerned his past record shows that when multiple 
regulatory options exist, Commissioner Baran has consistently 
supported the more burdensome pathway and deviated from the 
reasonable assurance standard. He has voted to overturn 
previous Commission decisions with no new information to 
justify such a relook. In vote after vote, Commissioner Baran 
took positions that support the ratcheting up of regulations, 
and by extension compliance costs, to no useful end.
    This record, if continued, will severely curtail the 
outlook for nuclear energy in our future, cede international 
markets to Russia and China, and limit the Commission's ability 
to deliver upon the vision set out by Congress at the dawn of 
the nuclear age. I will have some questions for the 
Commissioner on how he plans to correct course on these matters 
to reestablish America's leadership in nuclear energy.
    I yield back.
    Senator Carper. Thanks, Senator Capito.
    Commissioner Baran, we are delighted to see you again. 
Thank you for your service; thank you for your willingness to 
serve further.
    You are recognized for your opening statement.

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFFERY MARTIN BARAN, NOMINEE TO BE A MEMBER 
              OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

    Mr. Baran. Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Capito, and 
members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 
appear before you today.
    I am honored to have been nominated to continue my service 
on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for another term.
    Thank you, Congressman Beyer, for taking the time to 
introduce me. I appreciate it.
    I have been reflecting on the changes in the nuclear energy 
landscape since I joined the Commission in 2014. A lot has 
changed. We have seen major shifts in NRC's workload, budget, 
staff size, hiring, and overall outlook for the future.
    When I arrived on the Commission, these factors were all on 
a downward slope. Our workload was shrinking. Our staff and 
budget were shrinking. We had the Project AIM effort to reduce 
costs, narrowly avoided layoffs, and essentially had a hiring 
freeze. Nuclear power plants were shutting down.
    Back then, there was little talk of new construction beyond 
Vogtle. There was some interest in small modular reactors, but 
almost no real discussion of advanced, non-light water 
reactors.
    Today, we are in a very different situation. Policymakers 
and the public are increasingly focused on climate change and 
on energy security. The urgency and scale of the climate 
challenge have led to a growing consensus that meeting 
ambitious climate goals will involve nuclear power, including 
new reactors.
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure legislation and the Inflation 
Reduction Act make large investments to drive this expansion, 
including through the Clean Electricity Production Tax Credit 
and funding for a domestic high assay low enriched uranium 
supply chain. Few, if any, nuclear power plants are expected to 
close anytime soon.
    With more potential applications for advanced reactors, 
small modular reactors, subsequent license renewal, new fuel 
designs, power uprates, and risk informed programs expected, 
NRC's overall workload is increasing. We are hiring again, and 
our budget requests are stabilizing, or even growing a bit, to 
allow us to do this new work. The outlook for nuclear has 
markedly changed, and it is an exciting time to be doing our 
important work.
    NRC has a key role to play in addressing climate change and 
energy security. It is our job to ensure the safety and 
security of nuclear power in the U.S. energy mix. And that 
means we need to be ready. When utilities and vendors tell us 
that we should expect numerous new designs and reactor 
applications, we need to be ready with sufficient resources and 
the right expertise to review them, and an efficient and 
effective licensing process that can handle every application 
that comes our way. That is an important NRC responsibility. In 
this period of change, NRC also needs to be open to, and ready 
for, new technologies that could improve safety.
    When I arrived at NRC, I committed to bring an open minded 
and collegial approach to the issues that come before the 
Commission. And I believe I have met that commitment. My focus 
has been on crafting thoughtful, balanced, and timely votes 
after hearing from a broad range of stakeholders.
    I value the relationships I have formed with my Commission 
colleagues, the NRC staff, licensees, unions, States, Tribes, 
and public interest organizations, and have benefited greatly 
from their ideas and input. My frequent visits to nuclear power 
plants and other NRC regulated facilities not only give me an 
opportunity to view equipment and technologies first hand; they 
also give me the chance to hear directly from NRC's resident 
inspectors, as well as the workers and managers at the sites, 
about their priorities and concerns. If confirmed, I look 
forward to maintaining my open door approach.
    Several key initiatives are underway at NRC, and I am eager 
to see them through to their conclusion. If I am confirmed for 
another term, I will continue to focus on these efforts, 
including establishing the framework for advanced reactors and 
small modular reactors, standing up the framework for fusion, 
and finalizing the decommissioning rulemaking and source 
security rulemaking.
    I also want to see the agency make real progress on our 
environmental justice efforts. Ensuring that the agency has the 
talented and engaged work force to succeed is another top 
priority for me. I am happy to discuss these or any other 
issues of interest to members of the Committee in greater 
detail today or in the future.
    Prior to my service on the Commission, I had the privilege 
of working for Congress for more than a decade. I have a deep 
respect for the importance and value of congressional 
oversight. If confirmed, I will continue to do everything I can 
to ensure that the Committee has the information it needs to 
meet its oversight responsibilities.
    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Baran follows:]


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    Senator Carper. Thank you. And thank you again for joining 
us today.
    Senator Capito and I have agreed to one round of 5 minute 
questions, with additional rounds at the discretion of yours 
truly.
    To begin, this Committee has three standing yes or no 
questions that we ask of all nominees, as you may recall. Let 
me just ask, if I may, the first question is, do you agree to 
appear before this Committee or designated members of this 
Committee and other appropriate Members of the Congress and 
provide information subject to appropriate and necessary 
security protections with respect to your responsibilities? Do 
you?
    Mr. Baran. Yes.
    Senator Carper. Second question. Do you agree to ensure 
that testimony, briefings, documents, and electronic and other 
forms of communication and information are provided to this 
Committee and its staff and other appropriate committees in a 
timely manner? Do you?
    Mr. Baran. Yes.
    Senator Carper. And my third question is, do you know of 
any matters which you may or may not have disclosed that might 
place you in a conflict of interest if you are confirmed? Do 
you?
    Mr. Baran. No.
    Senator Carper. All right.
    I have some prepared questions I was going to ask, but I 
think I will instead, we heard some concerns raised by our 
Ranking Member that I take seriously. She is a great partner on 
this Committee, and I am privileged to serve with her and the 
other members.
    She has raised some concerns, and if I were in your shoes, 
I would want to respond to them. And why don't you do that at 
this time.
    Mr. Baran. Sure. I take our NRC safety and security mission 
very seriously, but I also take our licensing mission very 
seriously. It is an important responsibility for NRC to have an 
efficient and effective process.
    When I think about the next 5 years, I agree with what 
Senator Capito said, it is going to be a critical time in the 
energy sector, and I think in particular for the nuclear 
sector. We are going to see an increasing number of 
applications come in for new designs, for new reactors, for 
additional investments at the reactors we have, for extended 
licensing terms for the existing fleet.
    I think all that is critical. I agree with the comments 
that both you and Senator Capito made about how critical the 
existing fleet and future reactors are going to be to achieving 
our climate goals and our energy security goals. And I want to 
make sure NRC is doing its part in all of that. That means 
maintaining strong standards and rigorous oversight. I think 
everyone wants that. But also to make sure we have a process 
that is going to be able to review effectively and efficiently 
a large number of applications that we are expecting.
    When we look at the applicants or the pre-applicants, 
potential applicants already in discussions with NRC, we are 
talking about 20 applications in the next few years. That is a 
lot more than we have seen in recent times. And readiness, 
building our readiness for that, and it has multiple elements, 
but building our readiness for that I think is really going to 
be a key issue, a key challenge for the agency.
    Senator Carper. All right, thank you.
    The NRC is considered, as I have already mentioned, to be 
the world's gold standard for nuclear regulatory agencies. I am 
proud of that; I think every member of this Committee is proud 
of that, and I am sure the Commissioners are as well. A strong 
leadership is especially important at the NRC, and we need 
individuals to serve there who are dedicated to the critical, 
independent role that the agency plays in ensuring that our 
Nation's nuclear power facilities continue to be not just among 
the safest in the world, but the safest in the world.
    My question is, if we ultimately confirm you for another 
term, how do you plan to build on your experience on the 
Commission to continue to serve NRC and our country with 
respect to this mission?
    Mr. Baran. Well, after being on the Commission for several 
years, I think I have a good sense of what the agency does 
well, and where we need to improve. The staff has incredible 
technical expertise, is very good at conducting thorough 
licensing reviews and providing that rigorous independent 
oversight that we need.
    As an agency, I think we are getting better at being open 
to new technologies and new approaches. I think that is a work 
in progress. And it is critical. We need to get there and 
continue the progress.
    As I mentioned, the biggest challenge we face is readiness 
to review a large volume of expected applications. If I am 
confirmed for another term, building that readiness would 
really be a priority for me. There are multiple elements that 
we can talk about there in terms of having the framework in 
place, the regulatory framework in place, having the personnel 
in place, having an efficient process in place. All those are 
key aspects of that.
    Senator Carper. As the United States and other countries 
around the world work to combat climate change and reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions, interest is growing in maintaining 
operating reactors and deploying new nuclear reactors that can 
help us meet our clean energy goals. Technology developers are 
designing new reactors and fuels that are safer, more 
efficient, and less expensive to build. These new designs must 
ultimately be reviewed and approved by the NRC before 
deployment.
    Would you please take a moment to share your thoughts on 
the ADVANCE Act with us, important legislation led by Senator 
Capito and myself and Senator Boozman? Are there provisions in 
the bill that you think are particularly helpful in the NRC's 
work?
    Mr. Baran. Yes. I think it is a very good bill with a 
number of valuable provisions. Easing the corporate support 
constraints would help the agency a lot, particularly with IT 
and physical space renovations, which save money down the road. 
The additional hiring flexibility would help us tackle our 
tough hiring challenge, so that we have the right expertise in 
place to review the new applications we are getting.
    Modernizing the foreign ownership control and domination 
restrictions are an important step, too. Those are back from 
the original Atomic Energy Act in the 1950s, and the new 
provision I think is valuable because it recognizes that there 
is now a global nuclear market that wasn't in existence 60, 70 
years ago.
    The provision on siting new facilities at brownfields sites 
I think is very good. The fusion provision I think is very 
helpful, too. I could go on. I think it is a very good bill.
    Senator Carper. If you had to think, and I will ask you to 
respond to this for the record, all of us on this Committee 
have had the opportunity to offer legislation, important pieces 
of legislation. I have never written a perfect bill. I would 
like for you to, in a question for the record, respond to a 
couple of ways that you think we can actually improve on the 
work that Senator Capito, her staff, and Senator Boozman and my 
staff have done. So if you could do that for the record, I 
would be grateful.
    Senator Capito.
    Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Commissioner Baran, Congress passed the NEIMA, Nuclear 
Energy Innovation and Modernization Act, to help facilitate 
deployment of advanced nuclear. The bill directed the 
Commission to develop a risk informed regulatory framework for 
advanced nuclear, new nuclear technologies. It is a very simple 
concept. The level of NRC's nuclear safety requirements should 
correspond to the associated risk of the facility. You already 
mentioned safety and security is top of the list.
    This concept is not just applicable to advanced reactors, 
but it is also incorporated through NRC's existing 
requirements. In 2021, the Commission approved the staff's 
proposal to establish requirements for nuclear power plants 
that are going through the decommissioning process. In that 
time, you were the sole vote in opposition to the staff 
proposal.
    One element the staff proposed, and the rest of the 
Commissioners supported, is limiting a shut down reactor's 
emergency planning requirements after enough time has elapsed 
for the spent nuclear fuel to sufficiently cool down. This very 
straightforward application of the NRC's risk informed 
regulatory process and the Commission repeatedly voted on a 
case by case basis to do so. The staff proposal formalized that 
established Commission precedent.
    In your opposition, you supported the theory that a spent 
fuel pool could immediately empty as a result of a severe 
accident with no subsequent mitigation actions, and that the 
remaining spent fuel would catch fire and result in a release 
that impacts public health.
    In 2014, the NRC spent 11,530 hours and $3 million 
evaluating the likelihood of this scenario. It concluded that 
it did not warrant additional regulatory requirements. That 
analysis was included in the staff's regulatory justification 
to the rule that you opposed.
    So, Commissioner Baran, do you know what the staff's 
extensive technical analysis found to be the odds of such an 
accident occurring at a shut down nuclear plant?
    Mr. Baran. I don't know off hand.
    Senator Capito. The odds were 1 in 10 million.
    So I could get hit by a meteor, that is probably the same 
odds.
    So in your view, does a risk lower than 1 in 10 million 
meet NRC's statutory regulatory standard of reasonable 
assurance of adequate protection, or what is your standard, if 
1 in 10 million is too much?
    Mr. Baran. I think in terms of thinking about the 
probability there, I certainly didn't have the view that a 
spent fuel pool could empty immediately. All the analysis would 
show that in those kinds of postulated accidents, you are 
talking about several hours.
    I think the question was, I agreed with the scaled 
approach, and when you take those steps to scale back 
particular requirements. My view was, as long as the staff as 
part of their analysis, including for the decommissioning 
rulemaking, talk about that there are risks, there are lower 
risks, but risks associated with spent fuel pools.
    My thought was the time to move to the elimination of 
emergency planning zones and all emergency planning is really 
when it is in dry cask storage. That was a view, I took 
seriously the concern to FEMA and State regulators and State 
emergency responders. We heard a lot of concerns from FEMA and 
State emergency responders about the timing for when you make 
that move, and from communities.
    So from my point of view, my goal is to have a balanced 
decommissioning rule. We are still in the process on that, we 
have the proposed rule, and the staff is now working on a draft 
final rule. I want to see what the comments are on that.
    But we had a lot of public comments, including a lot of 
concerns from States, localities, and FEMA about the timing 
there, and the view that--we are not regulating to zero risk, 
obviously. But we want to make sure we have adequate protection 
until dry cask storage.
    Senator Capito. So the point here I am trying to make is, 
we are moving forward toward this new licensing. If the 
standard of risk that is unacceptable to you has to be less 
than 1 in 10 million, and you also in your statement, or 
actually your reaction to the Chairman's question, extolling 
the expertise and technical suggestions that terrific staff 
does and has made over the years, this was something that they 
felt they had thoroughly researched.
    Will you use that same standard as you are starting to look 
at what we know is going to be a very busy and hopefully very 
productive 5 years of moving forward?
    Mr. Baran. Yes, when I think about small modular reactors, 
advanced reactors, I don't think anyone is talking about a kind 
of 1 in 10 million standard for risk.
    Senator Capito. So you would use a different standard?
    Mr. Baran. Right. We have a rulemaking right now that is 
focused on emergency planning for small modular reactors. We 
are now at a draft final rule stage before the Commission.
    My view is we need a graded approach. As you have new 
technologies that are safer, you are not going to have a 10 
mile EPZ in everything we do now. It is going to be scalable, 
based on the risks associated with the reactor and the safety 
features of the reactor. So you may have some with 5 miles, you 
may have some with 2 miles.
    The hardest issue is when you are talking about basically 
no dedicated offsite radiological emergency planning, 
effectively no EPZ site boundary. There may be a number of 
reactors. They may be able to make a safety case for that. I 
think that is reasonable. When I look at all the comments we 
got, and the draft proposed rule, I am comfortable going there.
    But I think it is important that there be a sign off, if 
you are going all the way down to site boundary, to make sure 
that FEMA is comfortable with it, and the local emergency 
planners and response organizations are comfortable that that 
is going to work for that particular site.
    I agree with you. We need a graded approach. Although the 
votes are not out yet on that, that is what my vote on that 
rulemaking says.
    Senator Capito. Thank you.
    Senator Carper. Thanks, Senator Capito.
    Senator Cramer, you are welcome to proceed.
    Senator Cramer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Capito, 
for having this important hearing on this important nomination.
    I am going to build off a little bit of what Senator Capito 
was asking you about. I am still not really sure what your 
standard is. When she quoted the 1974 Atomic Energy Act. She 
has quoted the reasonable assurance of adequate protection. And 
I am not really sure where you are in that. You are ready for a 
new rulemaking, and yet there is a law, things are getting 
safer, not less.
    So I want to go back to your voting record. I sort of take 
from your opening statement the fact that things are moving 
better than they have been since you have been on the 
Commission, all of that. I don't want to oversimplify your 
words.
    But your voting record, you have been the sole dissenter, 
not just in the one that Shelley was talking about, but a 
number of times, including against the development of more 
generic EIS that could help speed up some of this. Not even so 
much about speeding it up, streamlining, keeping it safe, but 
streamlining, recognizing that in the smaller reactors, they 
can have a little more generic process.
    She brought up the emergency planning requirements. You 
also voted against updating the NRC's guidance to provide 
increasing flexibility. Flexibility, again, back to the local 
communities and other things, flexibility is really, really 
important.
    I am just concerned that you are the one impediment on the 
NRC, not the one that is truly an advocate for advancing 
safely, advancing this important technology, to meet the 
climate and energy security goals that you spoke about in your 
opening statement. Could you respond a little bit to that? Is 
that a justified concern by me?
    Mr. Baran. I appreciate your concern. I have been on the 
Commission a while now, and I have a lot of issues in the 
minority and a lot of issues in the majority. I prefer it when 
my view prevails. But that is life on the Commission. Sometimes 
you are on the dissenting side, and sometimes not.
    Let me just take one of those, because I think it is really 
an important issue, which is a generic environmental impact 
statement for advanced reactors. I think that is an important 
one.
    I was skeptical of that, when that proposal was made. I 
really doubted that that was going to be useful. It was going 
to take a lot of work, and I wasn't sure it was going to be 
that helpful. Because my conception of what it was going to be 
is how much environmental analysis can you really do without 
knowing the site, without knowing the design, without knowing 
the size, any of the safety features.
    What the staff did, though, I think they did a really good 
job on it, and we have this before us now. I voted on this; it 
is not out yet because there are still votes pending.
    But they did a good job. What they did instead of trying to 
do a full kind of environmental analysis like you would imagine 
it, very specific to anything, they came up with, for each of 
the resource areas, they came up with basically entry criteria. 
If you have a site that would do this, we could make these 
findings. If you have a reactor that meets this, we can make 
this finding on noise, or this finding on land effects, or 
aquatic.
    So I support finalizing that. I think it is a good product. 
I was really pleasantly surprised at what the staff came up 
with. I do think it will be useful, because it is going to 
narrow, if used well, and hopefully it will work, narrow the 
issues that need to be resolved for each individual reactor 
application that comes in.
    I think that is heading in the right direction. Maybe I was 
overly skeptical about that to begin with, because I think it 
is a good product the staff has put together.
    Senator Cramer. It sounds like a good process, and good 
direction. Because we need to do things quicker. We really need 
to have that type of security that you talked about, and to 
meet the climate goals that several of you share.
    I may have to wait for another round to get to everything I 
want to talk about, but you have been such a strong advocate 
for environmental justice, to the point of advocating for maybe 
having an advisory committee right in the NRC on the topic. You 
have commented a couple of times, matter of fact, I have the 
transcripts of your last two speeches before the regulatory 
conference where you lauded the White House's Office of 
Environmental Justice.
    I just worry that as a regulator, having been one for 10 
years, an elected one albeit, but in an all of the above energy 
State like North Dakota, doing resource planning that included 
nuclear for Minnesota as well as clean coal for North Dakota 
and natural gas, wind, solar, you name it, we did it all, that 
when the regulatory agency gets involved in sort of more the 
political policy side of things, you become more of an 
impediment to the advancement of this technology than you do an 
advocate for it. We shouldn't be advocates either, obviously, 
as regulators.
    But again, is my concern justified, given your record, both 
in voting and the public comments you have made relating to 
environmental justice?
    Mr. Baran. I definitely don't see pursuing environmental 
justice as an impediment to the existing fleet or to new 
reactors. I really see it as something that is going to benefit 
all stakeholders.
    So the staff, just briefly, I will give you maybe 10 
seconds of the process the staff followed, over several months 
they did a kind of big review of NRC's policies and procedures 
and activities. They talked to a ton of stakeholders. They got 
public comments. They did written comments. They did public 
meetings and all kinds of outreach. They got a lot of feedback.
    And they used all that to come up with several very good 
recommendations. One of them is for an advisory committee. We 
have a couple of advisory committees at NRC that I think are 
very useful. I think this one could be as well.
    But I don't think, kind of going back to the Atomic Energy 
Act, we don't have, under the Atomic Energy Act, the latitude 
to consider environmental justice as a licensing factor. I 
don't think anyone is contemplating that. That wouldn't work 
under our statutory authority.
    What we are focused on are the processes we have, the ways 
we interact with the public. NRC is a complicated agency with 
really complicated processes. I think a lot of stakeholders, EJ 
communities, but everyone struggles sometimes to navigate all 
that.
    The main thrust, I think, of our environmental justice 
approach, is to make the agency more accessible to everyone, 
not just one set of groups, but everyone, so that people can 
navigate all that, and figure out, if they have a concern, how 
do they pursue it, or if they want to make a comment, how do 
they do that, and understand what we are doing. It is 
complicated stuff, and our processes haven't made that easy 
over the years.
    Senator Cramer. Process matters, for sure.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you. He actually answered the question 
I would have asked if you had given me another minute. Thank 
you.
    Senator Carper. You get extra points for that.
    All right, we have been joined by Senator Sullivan.
    Colonel, welcome.
    Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Baran, thanks for your service. Let me just begin with 
a couple of basic questions. Do you support nuclear energy in 
the U.S.?
    Mr. Baran. Yes.
    Senator Sullivan. Why do you think certain environmental 
groups don't? There is obviously zero emissions. And I have 
never understood that. If you need all of the above energy and 
one very strong power generation source for America, it is 
nuclear, and we are quite good at it, we have the whole nuclear 
Navy enterprise, Mr. Chairman, that is really remarkable.
    Why do you think certain groups oppose it? And I know you 
are not speaking for them. I have always just really been 
curious. I really don't understand it.
    Mr. Baran. I definitely don't want to speak for anybody 
else. There have been focused concerns over the years that 
people have expressed, whether they are concerned about 
radiological risk, whether they are concerned about waste.
    But it seems like the conversation has really changed in 
recent years. As the focus on climate change and NRC's energy 
security has ramped up, there is just a much more widespread 
consensus of the importance of nuclear than there has been.
    Senator Sullivan. I thought it was kind of going in the 
opposite direction, but maybe I am wrong in that.
    Mr. Baran. That is not my perception. I think there is a 
widespread understanding that we are not going to achieve our 
climate or energy security goals without the existing fleet. 
When I talk to utilities, as the conversation has changed 
about, well, a few years back, it was how do you get 20 or 30 
or 40 percent of your electricity carbon free. Now it is you 
need 80 or 90, or 100 percent. They can't figure out how to do 
that if you don't have the nuclear part of it.
    I hear that over and over. And I think to the extent that 
we have shared goals on climate and energy security, that just 
points to not just maintaining the role of nuclear, but almost 
certainly, expanding.
    Senator Sullivan. Let me ask you, you were talking about 
environmental justice, do you have a tight definition of what 
that means, thrown out a lot, but rarely defined?
    Mr. Baran. That is part of what we are going to determine, 
what is our definition in this process. For me, when I think 
about it, it is about equal treatment, it is about equal access 
to decisionmaking and decisionmakers. It is about having a fair 
process that includes everyone.
    To me, that is not something that benefits any one group or 
any one stakeholder. If it is done right, it is benefiting 
everyone.
    Senator Sullivan. In terms of your record, you were the 
sole vote against updating the NRC's guidance for siting 
smaller and safe advanced nuclear reactor technologies, you 
were the sole vote against NRC's development of a generic EIS 
for nuclear reactor technologies, you were the sole vote 
against the NRC staff proposal to scale emergency planning 
requirements for smaller, safer, advanced nuclear reactor 
technologies.
    We are looking at small scale microreactors in Alaska. But 
your record seems to be the one outlier on this important 
technology. Is that a misstatement? I am just giving you a 
chance to defend your record.
    Mr. Baran. Sure. I am proud of my record. I think I cast 
good votes over the years.
    But just to take a couple of those examples, the generic 
environmental impact statement, that was really at the 
conceptual stage. Now that we have a draft in front of us, I 
think that is a good draft, I think we should go forward with 
that, and I think we will get some real benefit there.
    Senator Sullivan. So you would change your vote, you think, 
on that, then?
    Mr. Baran. I think we are in a different space in the 
process. As I look at what the staff did, I think it is going 
to be useful. So I will support it. When we were talking about 
the emergency planning, that was at the proposed rule stage. We 
are now moving on to the final rule stage. I am going to 
support that rule. I think we do need graded emergency plans.
    I would like to see a few changes in it. But I think 
conceptually it is the right way to go, and I think that is 
going to be an important piece of the puzzle for the regulatory 
framework that we have in place.
    Senator Sullivan. Hit the siting one, then I have one more 
question for you.
    Mr. Baran. I was going to briefly say, on siting, no one 
has been, at least in any of the decisions to date, 
contemplating changing the regulatory requirement. The question 
is just do we need to update the guidance. There is a lot of 
flexibility in the guidance as is to do a lot of the projects, 
like the ones you are talking about, at military bases and 
villages, former fossil generation sites.
    I didn't think we needed to do it. I do think we have to be 
thoughtful. It is going to depend in part on the safety, 
obviously, of a particular design. But siting and emergency 
planning, they have traditionally been really key concepts for 
defense in depth. You try to have some distance from population 
centers, and you want to have adequate emergency planning.
    It is a tough balance to strike on that.
    Senator Sullivan. Well, let me ask my final question, which 
kind of relates to that. So we have had this nuclear regulatory 
framework for decades, that the Commission has implemented. It 
was built upon large scale nuclear power plants and large scale 
nuclear power generation.
    You have an entirely new approach with these microreactors, 
which pose much less safety risks. Don't you think then that 
the regulatory permitting regime should reflect that and not be 
essentially using what we have been using the last 40 years for 
a very different approach that might need a different 
regulatory approach as well?
    Mr. Baran. I agree with that. There are a lot of 
initiatives underway to get at that. The biggest is probably 
what we call Part 53, the new framework. We are all working 
through that, because we just got the draft proposed rule with 
the Commission. But yes, I agree with you.
    Senator Sullivan. OK, thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Sullivan.
    We have been joined by Senator Cardin.
    Ben, welcome, please proceed.
    Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Baran, welcome, and thank you for your commitment to 
public service. We appreciate it.
    The NRC is pretty special to those of us in Maryland, since 
you are headquartered in our State. We are very proud of the 
work force and the mission that you carry out.
    However, there have been some really disturbing trends that 
I want to talk about in regard to the work force. The attrition 
rate is well above the average for Federal agencies, 9.6 
percent. One-third of your work force is eligible for 
retirement, which is an older work force. The expertise is 
absolutely essential for you to be able to carry out your 
mission, and experience is very important.
    Perhaps the most disturbing fact is that on the OPM's 
rating on best places to work, NRC has dropped to 21st out of 
27th. That is not good. If you use the rating system in 2010, 
it was 81.8; it has dropped to 66.3.
    So tell me how you plan to, first, do you acknowledge this 
is a serious issue? And how do you plan to address the morale 
issue, as well as having a competent work force in order to 
meet the challenges that you have heard us, in an evolving area 
where expertise is going to be critically important to our 
future?
    Mr. Baran. I absolutely agree, we have to focus on the 
morale of NRC's terrific work force.
    My sense is that a significant cause of that decline in job 
satisfaction had to do with our re-entry from maximum telework 
in November 2021. We ended up being one of the first agencies 
to go back to the office. And there were a lot of concerns 
among our employees about doing that.
    They ended up heading into the office long before their 
colleagues at other agencies, and there was no real compelling 
explanation for why they were there, and folks at other Federal 
agencies weren't. I think it eroded some of the staff's trust 
in senior leaders.
    And the desire of many NRC employees to have significant 
telework flexibility is a major issue today, and I think 
continues to be a source of friction within the agency. From a 
how do we fix this point of view, I think striking the right 
balance on telework flexibilities is going to be crucial. I 
think it is maybe by far and away in my mind the biggest issue 
for the staff right now on morale issues.
    Senator Cardin. How do you strike that right balance? We 
all agree that the synergy of having staff working together is 
critically important for the development of staff and for the 
mission. And we do recognize that as a result of COVID and 
people doing telework, they found it much more convenient, and 
in many cases much more efficient in regard to their individual 
responsibilities. And of course, it allowed them to be able to 
not have to deal with the morning commutes and afternoon 
commutes.
    So how do you find that right balance?
    Mr. Baran. It isn't easy. The agency is spending a lot of 
time on that right now. One the one hand, as you have pointed 
out, we have a major hiring and staffing challenge. To the 
extent that we have a lot of employees currently, or potential 
applicants who are interested in a lot of telework, we want to 
be able to retain those folks, we want to be able to compete 
for those new employees.
    So we are going to need to have significant telework 
flexibilities. Without that, I think our staffing numbers fall, 
our attrition grows, we have a hard time hiring the couple of 
hundred people a year we need to hire, just to break even with 
that attrition.
    On the other hand, we have got to do it the right way, 
because we need to maintain our productivity and our 
organizational health. I think that is really the hard piece. 
With so many new employees coming to the agency, we need to 
acclimate them, there is mentoring, it is harder to do that 
from afar. We want to make sure meetings with applicants, with 
stakeholders, those are in person days.
    So the senior managers and staff are really focused on how 
do we make sure that the time employees are in the office is 
valuable in office time, they are doing things they couldn't do 
easily from home.
    We have some additional OMB guidance the staff is working 
through. We have to come up with what are the metrics, how do 
we make this work, what are the approaches we have to make sure 
that we strike a good balance in terms of the number of days 
people are at work versus home, but when they are in their 
office. We don't want them to sit in their cubicle all day on a 
TEAMS meeting like they would be at home, because then they are 
going to be frustrated and feel like, why am I here. We want 
them to have the kind of collaborative experiences that are 
going to make that worthwhile.
    Senator Cardin. My advice to you is, make sure it is in 
collaboration with the workers and their representatives. Their 
input becomes critically important, so they are part of the 
team in making that decision.
    I have one last question dealing with direct hire 
authority, as to how critically important that is for you to 
retain or get the top expert staff. I know there is some 
legislation here that expands that authority. But how critical 
is direct hire authority when you are carrying out your 
mission?
    Mr. Baran. When I talk to our chief human capital officer, 
it is definitely one of the tools. I think we are leaning ever 
more heavily on interns and co-ops, getting people while they 
are still in school to intern or co-op, and then you can do 
direct hires right out of that. That is great not only because 
it speeds up the hiring process, but you have folks you already 
know and who already know the agency, and you have a high 
degree of confidence you are bringing someone in who is going 
to be very good and a good fit.
    So an ever larger number of the folks we have hired each 
year are coming from internships and co-ops and programs of 
that kind.
    Senator Cardin. Thank you.
    Senator Carper. I have served here with Ben for, gosh, 
about 20 years or so. What we have done is we use the intern 
program. It is almost like in baseball, like the farm system, 
single A, double A, triple A, and then finally, the major 
leagues. This is the majors. They are part of our farm system. 
We rarely make a mistake when we use that system. Thank you.
    OK, we have been joined by Senator Ricketts.
    Welcome, good to see you.
    Senator Ricketts. Thank you, Chairman Carper.
    Mr. Baran, thank you very much for joining us. The Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission is important to Nebraska, and our Cooper 
Nuclear Station, which is an 835 megawatt facility, generates 
enough power for 385,000 homes. So it is a very important part 
of the overall energy mix for our State.
    Then of course, you are overseeing the decommissioning of 
the Fort Calhoun Station that was closed down a while ago.
    I think you said yourself that one of your main targets 
during your time on the Commission has been a strong focus on 
environmental justice. Do you agree that nuclear energy is the 
most reliable clean energy source we can produce with the 
current technology that is capable of providing that consistent 
baseload?
    Mr. Baran. Yes, I think that is right. Maybe hydro as well, 
but yes.
    Senator Ricketts. Very good. Do you agree that nuclear 
energy is critical to ensuring that we have that reliability in 
our country, for the grid?
    Mr. Baran. That is what I hear from grid operators and 
utilities, yes.
    Senator Ricketts. Do you agree that a diverse grid mix 
allows for more consistent and affordable energy prices?
    Mr. Baran. I am not really knowledgeable about that piece. 
We don't do the economic regulation part. But I think that is 
true, yes.
    Senator Ricketts. So would you say that just in general, 
that a diverse power source or a diverse grid mix is an 
important part of an overall energy strategy? Is that fair?
    Mr. Baran. Yes, that is what I hear from utilities.
    Senator Ricketts. OK, great.
    And do you agree that a great way to support our 
underserved, especially in rural communities, is allowing 
affordable and reliable energy? Anybody who is low income, 
reliable energy is a good thing?
    Mr. Baran. Right.
    Senator Ricketts. So, talk to me about the permitting 
process. My understanding is that the permitting process has 
taken longer, that the permitting for renewables is actually 
taking longer than the initials.
    Can you talk to me about how you think the permitting 
process and what we can do to be able to improve that? Because 
nuclear I think is going to be an important part of our energy 
mix going forward, especially if we are going to be reducing a 
lot of carbon we are putting into the environment, an important 
part.
    Talk to me about how you feel about permitting.
    Mr. Baran. I completely agree that NRC needs to have an 
efficient and effective licensing process that can handle all 
the applications that come our way. It may be a significant 
number in the next few years.
    Right now, the staff and the agency are taking a number of 
steps to improve the efficiency of the process. One is, we have 
moved to core teams. In the past, we would have staff turnover 
on the team reviewing an application. Now we have moved to a 
core team model, where you keep the same staff on, you are not 
constantly re-educating folks on the application and the 
status. That has been an effective tool. The staff is going to 
continue to use that.
    One of the things that often slowed things down in the past 
were formal requests for information, written questions that 
would go to the applicant. And it would often take weeks, 
months, to get responses back. There might be more questions, 
and it could get extended.
    So the staff, I think there is always going to be a role 
for some written requests for information, but they are focused 
much more now on in person checks, going out and visiting the 
applicant, show me your probabilistic risk assessment or show 
me the issues that they want to focus on. I think that is going 
to add some efficiencies to the process.
    Pre-application engagement, we are seeing it becoming more 
and more substantive, resolving, even before the application 
comes in, getting alignment on some key technical issues. That 
is very valuable. We saw some of the applicants do that, and it 
shrinks the amount of time pretty appreciatively that the staff 
then thinks the review will take when the application does come 
in.
    One of the issues I think we have had over the years is the 
hard issues don't get resolved right away. Sometimes they sit 
there. There is an increased focus among managers and 
supervisors to make sure we are elevating or resolving those 
issues.
    We don't want to let something linger. Spot the issues 
earlier, figure out what are going to be the hardest aspects of 
an application, figure that out early, focus on it, elevate 
those, resolve them so they don't become something that lingers 
later on.
    We talked about earlier, having a generic environmental 
impact statement for advanced reactors will speed up the 
environmental side of it.
    There is more, there is an increasing focus on risk in the 
agency. The staff is now using probabilistic risk assessments 
from an applicant to target the most safety significant aspects 
of an application to focus more of their attention there. That 
is a new development I think we will see more of. Even using 
data analytics to pinpoint the kind of biggest schedule 
vulnerabilities.
    So there is a lot going on, a lot of these things are going 
to advance further. But I agree with you, there is more work to 
do, and we need to have an efficient process.
    Senator Ricketts. So the last thing you said about data 
analytics, what is the average time it takes right now to be 
able to get through the process?
    Mr. Baran. I don't know that there is an average time, 
because we have different times associated with different types 
of applications. We also don't have too many that have come 
through with all this new stuff.
    I can give you a concrete example of one of our recent 
applications. We have a new advanced reactor design from 
Kairos, first of a kind for the agency. They had a great pre-
application period, resolved a lot of issues. Kairos did a 
great job; the staff did a great job.
    The staff thought it would be a 22 month safety review. 
They are about 4 months ahead of that now, so I think it will 
end up being about a year and a half for the safety review.
    Senator Ricketts. So you do measure how long it takes to go 
through the process?
    Mr. Baran. Oh, yes.
    Senator Ricketts. Great. And I know I am running over my 
time, Chairman, but one of the things that, as the Chairman has 
heard me here, it is not going to be about ethanol, just so you 
know, it is going to be about Lean Six Sigma. One of the things 
that we did at the State of Nebraska when I was Governor is we 
focused on Lean Six Sigma. Are you familiar with Lean Six 
Sigma?
    Mr. Baran. I am.
    Senator Ricketts. OK, great. So that was a great way for us 
to map out our processes, reduce the overlaps, and cut the 
number of steps and thereby cut the amount of time it took us 
to issue permits in a variety of different areas.
    So I would encourage you to encourage the Commission to 
look at how you can implement something like a Lean Six Sigma 
process for improvement methodology to the process as well. I 
think you will find that is another way to be able to shrink 
the time to be able to get things done.
    Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Carper. We have 14 former Governors now who serve 
in the U.S. Senate. It is a growing cabal of recovering 
Governors. Last night the National Governors Association hosted 
an event on Capitol Hill. I had a chance to go by and 
commiserate with the newbies. It was a joy. It is a joy having 
you on this Committee. Don't change.
    Senator Sullivan raised the question, it was a good 
question, about what we mean by environmental justice. I am 
going to give you another chance to elaborate on that a little 
bit, if you would like.
    When I think of environmental justice, I think about the 
words that show up in like every religion on the planet, Golden 
Rule, treat other people the way we wanted to be treated. I 
don't care if you are Mormon, I don't care if you are Jewish, I 
don't care if you are Muslim, I don't care if you are Hindu, 
Buddhist, Catholic, Protestant, every one of them has a Golden 
Rule.
    When I think about environmental justice, I think, how 
would I want to be treated if I were in the shoes of folks who 
might be in a Tribe in Alaska or a Tribe in Arizona or an area 
in my State or some other State. For me, that is really how 
would you want to be treated if you were in the shoes of these 
folks.
    The other thing that came to mind in terms of environmental 
justice was a quote, and I asked myself, who actually said 
these words? The quote is, people don't care how much you know 
until they know how much you care. I was thinking it was maybe 
Maya Angelou or someone like that.
    It wasn't, it was Teddy Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt, of all 
people. I think those words, especially coming from an 
environmentalist like him, a guy who was a rough rider, I would 
say those are pretty powerful words, and good ones for us to 
keep in mind.
    We are going to be joined by a couple of other colleagues 
here in a little bit. Maybe within seconds.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Carper. As soon as you walked in the room, my staff 
handed me this note, and it has one word on it: ``Lummis.''
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Carper. We are going to let you take your seat and 
get settled in. We are always happy when you can join us. You 
are recognized for your questions and comments.
    Senator Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I 
appreciate your wonderful attitude as Chairman of this 
Committee. You are a quality Chairman.
    Senator Carper. The lady is recognized for as much time as 
she would consume.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Lummis. Good morning, Mr. Baran. Happy to see you 
again.
    As Russia's invasion of Ukraine clearly laid bare, energy 
security is tied to national security. America currently 
imports about 20 percent of our nuclear fuel from Russia, and 
produces just a fraction of the uranium necessary to fuel our 
nuclear power plants.
    The Atomic Energy Act established our Nation's nuclear 
energy policy as one that should provide for the common defense 
and security of our country. That should directly apply to 
uranium production.
    Commissioner Baran, your record appears to contradict that 
policy. For example, you support imposing costly and 
unjustified new requirements on uranium in situ recovery 
facilities, the primary manner in which uranium is currently 
safely produced in my home State of Wyoming.
    Do you agree that NRC's mission and its activities should 
be executed in a way that provides for our common defense and 
security?
    Mr. Baran. Yes.
    Senator Lummis. Do you believe that increasing America's 
uranium production will support our energy security?
    Mr. Baran. Yes, I think with Russia's invasion of Ukraine, 
there is obviously a lot of interest in finding alternatives to 
Russian uranium.
    Senator Lummis. Thank you.
    You have supported previous EPA efforts to impose 
additional groundwater monitoring requirements on ISR 
facilities. The NRC raised substantive and jurisdictional 
concerns with EPA's proposals. The previous Administration's 
EPA withdrew the rule and signed a memorandum of understanding 
with NRC in 2020, to clarify jurisdictional interests between 
the two agencies on their respective roles and 
responsibilities.
    Do you consider NRC's position as agreed to in its MOU with 
EPA a settled issue, and one that you will stand by going 
forward?
    Mr. Baran. I don't see the MOU going anywhere with EPA. 
Obviously, EPA would have a say in that as well.
    I guess my approach, I don't think the Commission has ever 
taken a position on the former EPA rule. I don't recall ever 
doing that. But in my mind, NRC does not have specific 
standards right now for in situ uranium recovery. We are doing 
it right now via basically license conditions. It is working, 
it provides some predictability.
    But when I talk to applicants and licensees, they want to 
see greater predictability and they want to see a rulemaking 
that addresses all that. I think we have to get there.
    The key consideration, or a key consideration I have in 
mind, there is I would like to see us work together with EPA on 
that. Because we each have a regulatory role. If we were to go 
forward with a rule and then EPA were to come out with 
something that is inconsistent, we are going to have to redo 
our rule, which I think would be really silly.
    In my ideal world, there would be a joint NRC-EPA process. 
We wouldn't be at odds with each other, we would be working 
under the MOU, and we would be hearing the stakeholder views on 
what should a rule look like, and make sure we have all the--
they have been controversial issues--make sure we have the 
producers, we have the States, the Tribes, the environmental 
organizations, hear from everyone, but work together so that we 
are actually in the end providing some predictability, rather 
than some sense of, well, this agency thinks this, what does 
the other agency think.
    I think that was one of the pitfalls from when this was 
done several years back, or attempted to be done several years 
back.
    Senator Lummis. Yes. And we do hear, in our States, 
concerns by business about future predictability, just knowing 
what is going to be the rule, so people can be prepared to 
follow it.
    Commissioner Baran, I am extremely excited about the 
TerraPower reactor being built in my home State. And it is 
about to submit its license application to the NRC.
    However, my understanding is that both the NRC and the 
Department of Energy have to perform separate environmental 
reviews related to this project because it is being done 
through the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program. On its face 
this seems duplicative and a waste of both private and public 
funding.
    Is there any benefit to having two environmental reviews at 
both of these government agencies?
    Mr. Baran. I haven't focused on that issue, but it doesn't 
sound like it makes a lot of sense to me. I would like to see 
better coordination than that. I don't know why we would do two 
EISs for the same project.
    Senator Lummis. We might reach out to you and have a 
discussion about that later. Obviously, we don't want this 
thing to drag on until after we are all deceased. It really 
would be nice to have that TerraPower reactor up and running.
    One more question, Mr. Chairman.
    If reconfirmed, would you ensure the NRC and DOE work well 
together to minimize duplicative reviews?
    Mr. Baran. Absolutely.
    Senator Lummis. Thank you.
    Thank you for your kind indulgence, Mr. Chairman. I yield 
back.
    Senator Carper. Thanks so much for joining us today, and 
for your questions and participation.
    I had the privilege of spending a few minutes with 
Commissioner Baran earlier this week. When we spoke, you may 
recall talking with me about there being a ground shift in 
interest in nuclear power from the industry. And I think you 
mentioned that it was thanks at least in part to the passage of 
the Inflation Reduction Act, some of the provisions, the clean 
energy provisions, that Senator Cardin and I led on. If you 
would just comment on that for the record, please.
    Mr. Baran. Yes. I think the price signals that the 
legislation sent had pretty much an immediate impact. When I 
would meet with utilities, it really changed the way they were 
thinking about investments.
    So there was a certain amount of interest in subsequent 
licensing in the rule going from 60 to 80 years operation. That 
really ramped up. Now, almost every plant is contemplating it.
    We haven't seen a lot of power uprates, in other words, 
modifications to the plants to get more power out of the 
existing plants. Now we have a whole slew of potential power 
uprates that are expected in the next several years, in 
addition just to more new reactor applications. So it had a 
significant and from my vantage point, almost an instantaneous 
effect on how the industry was thinking about long term 
investments.
    Senator Carper. I had a meeting with some of our 
colleagues, a bipartisan meeting in one of the rooms off the 
Senate floor, we were voting on something, it was about a year 
ago. We were invited to stop by one of the meeting rooms on the 
second floor, off the floor of the Senate. We had maybe 10, 12 
Ambassadors from European countries who were there. I don't 
know what brought them to Capitol Hill, but they were there. We 
had the opportunity to chat with them.
    I remember asking at the time if the German ambassador, I 
said, we have I think it is close to 100 nuclear power plants 
in this country, and some of them getting pretty old. We have a 
decision to make to try to extend their lives or go ahead and 
shut them down. And this was right after it became clear that 
the Germans having walked away from nuclear energy were now 
fully dependent on the Russians for natural gas.
    I said to the Ambassador from Germany, do you have any 
advice for us? He said, don't shut them down. Don't shut them 
down.
    Another question, if I could. Would you take a minute or 
two and describe for us how to work to maintain or increase 
public confidence and transparency in the NRC's decisionmaking 
and regulatory process?
    Mr. Baran. Yes. I really try to take an open door approach 
to the work I do, and meet with a wide variety of stakeholders 
before making decisions, and meet with NRC staffers if they 
have different views or concerns. I want to make sure I am 
hearing kind of all of the different viewpoints before a 
decision is made.
    I want to see the agency communicate in ways everyone can 
understand. Some of these issues are complex, some of them are 
technical, a lot of them are. I am always working to see the 
agency communicate in ways, not just in the Federal Register or 
for a public meeting, formal public meeting, but in ways with 
language that everyone can understand.
    I think there is, it comes up in the context of 
environmental justice, but it isn't really solely an 
environmental justice issue, I think there is real value in 
standing up an office that is focused on public engagement and 
that can help stakeholders navigate some of the more complex 
processes we have and get the information they need.
    Senator Carper. Thank you.
    I am going to yield to my two colleagues if they would like 
to ask another question or two.
    I am happy to recognize you if you wish. I understand 
Senator Mullin may be trying to join us, so we will give him a 
few more minutes.
    Senator Ricketts. Yes, if I could, I want to follow up on 
the comments you made about the uprating of your facilities. 
What steps do you see the Commission taking to be able to help 
facilitate facilities and plants that are looking to do the 
uprating? How long will that take?
    Mr. Baran. There have been a lot of power uprates over the 
years, so it is nothing new for the Commission. The applicant 
would seek a license amendment, and depending on how 
significant the modification would be, it could be really 
straightforward or a little more complex.
    But we are already trying to get a good sense from 
applicants, when are they going to come in, make sure we are 
budgeted, and have the folks ready to review those. When I 
think about readiness for all these applications we are talking 
about, new reactors, extended terms, power uprates, I want to 
make sure we can handle the full volume. It is going to be a 
larger volume than we are used to seeing in recent years and 
decades. And I don't want to see us in a situation where people 
are queueing up, where we are triaging. I want to make sure we 
are able, we have the capacity, both the framework, the 
regulatory framework, the personnel, and the efficient 
processes to do them all as they come in.
    We need to meet that demand, from my point of view. I think 
that is an important responsibility that we have.
    Senator Ricketts. Great.
    I am a cosponsor of the ADVANCE Act, which members of the 
Committee have worked very hard to draft. One of the provisions 
included would reduce regulatory costs for the licensing of 
advanced nuclear reactor technologies. States like Nebraska 
conduct initial reviews regarding what advanced nuclear 
technology looks like. We actually in my State have passed some 
bills to encourage that investment in our State.
    What are specific actions you would be willing to commit to 
working with this body and our States to ensure the expeditious 
implementation of these provisions?
    Mr. Baran. Obviously, anything the Congress passed we would 
implement. We treat NEIMA and the other legislation that has 
been passed in recent years very seriously. So whatever is 
coming through the process, we will plan for and will make it 
happen. We are going to implement it.
    Senator Ricketts. Are you familiar with the ADVANCE Act and 
what the goal is there?
    Mr. Baran. Yes. I have looked at it. I haven't memorized 
all the provisions, but I have taken a good look at it. I think 
there are a lot of very good provisions in there.
    Senator Ricketts. So you will commit to working with 
Congress to be able to push forward these advanced nuclear 
technologies?
    Mr. Baran. Yes.
    Senator Ricketts. OK, great.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Carper. Senator Lummis.
    Senator Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    TerraPower requires high assay, low enriched uranium, I 
call it HALEU, to operate, and has already announced a delay on 
their start date due to a lack of fuel availability. While much 
of this delay is due to the DOE not yet moving forward on its 
HALEU program, the NRC has the important role of actually 
licensing the commercial HALEU facility.
    Commissioner Baran, if reconfirmed, will you prioritize 
licensing HALEU enrichment facilities, and how will you ensure 
the NRC and DOE work together, again, to minimize duplicative 
actions?
    Mr. Baran. The short answer is yes. Actually, the NRC staff 
is already very focused on it. The Commission was just briefed 
a few weeks back on all the various applications that have been 
submitted, the ones that have been approved, the ones that are 
being reviewed, the ones that are coming. The staff is very 
focused on that and views it as a high priority. There is 
already a lot of interaction going on with DOE about that.
    So we are on it.
    Senator Lummis. Thank you.
    And if Mr. Markey is prepared, I will yield to him, but I 
also have another question, if he would like a minute.
    Senator Markey. Go ahead.
    Senator Lummis. Thank you.
    Commissioner Baran, with overwhelming bipartisan support, 
Congress directed the NRC to establish a regulatory framework 
to license advanced nuclear reactors. The NRC staff has been 
actively working on this rulemaking, known as Part 53. And it 
is critical to get this rule right to facilitate the deployment 
of new carbon free nuclear power plants.
    As you discussed in your vision for this Part 53 framework, 
you said adequate protection is the minimum NRC is charged with 
doing under the Atomic Energy Act, not the maximum. Adequate 
protection isn't the ceiling, it is the floor. The agency has 
required many important safety measures over the years that 
went beyond adequate protection.
    Do you believe the Atomic Energy Act requires any 
regulatory safety threshold beyond reasonable assurance of 
adequate protection?
    Mr. Baran. I haven't studied that precise legal question. I 
can say that court opinions over the years and our backfit rule 
really contemplate two types of requirements. There are 
adequate protection requirements, which is the floor. We can't 
do less than that, and we can't consider costs of that. That we 
have got to do, we have to adequately protect the public.
    Under our backfit rule we also have what are called cost 
justified substantial safety enhancements. These are, if you 
could get a lot of improved safety off something, and it passes 
cost benefit, that is also something the NRC has required over 
the years.
    The point I was making there, and I don't think it is 
really a controversial point, some of our most important rules 
have been the latter kind of rule. Not everything we have done 
has been necessary for adequate protection.
    I will give you one quick example, which is the maintenance 
rule. You talk to anyone, in industry, in the agency, the 
maintenance rule is one of the most significant things the 
agency ever did. It was not an adequate protection rulemaking, 
it was a cost justified substantial safety enhancement.
    So I am not envisioning that Part 53 requires more than we 
have in the existing regulations. But you are going to require 
the same level of safety. To require the same level of safety, 
you will have things like the maintenance rule that are beyond 
adequate protection.
    Senator Lummis. Can you describe some of those issues that 
are part of the Part 53 proposal that go beyond adequate 
protection?
    Mr. Baran. I think anything that tried to track the 
existing regulation in terms of the level of safety, where the 
requirement was not an adequate protection requirement would be 
carried over in Part 53. For example, they do have provisions 
on maintenance.
    So we are all digging into this now. The Commission has had 
it for a few weeks now, we are all digesting it, going through 
it. There are several issues that are coming up that we are 
hearing from a lot of stakeholders. One is, it is a performance 
based rule. So what is the performance standard? There is a lot 
of disagreement about that. Should you use the quantitative 
health objectives that were from the 1980s as the performance 
standard?
    There is a question of how should we treat what is called 
ALARA, as low as reasonably achievable, doses. That has 
traditionally been policy and has some elements in rule. But 
should that be a design principle or an operating principle? It 
is a key issue.
    There is a new concept that the staff came up with that 
included facility safety programs. There has been a lot of 
concern about that, and staff thinks it is a good idea. We want 
to look at that, does that make sense.
    Some of these might be in that kind of margin you are 
talking about, is this really adequate protection, does it go 
beyond adequate protection, does it go beyond what we have as 
the existing kind of level of safety. We are going to be 
looking at all those issues, taking a hard look at them.
    Senator Lummis. How do you evaluate whether something is 
cost justified?
    Mr. Baran. That is a regulatory analysis, a cost-benefit 
analysis, that is going to be as quantitative as it can be. But 
often we will look at qualitative factors as well, if you can't 
quantify something.
    Senator Lummis. Thank you, Commissioner Baran.
    And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Carper. You bet. Thank you so much for being here 
and for your questions.
    Senator Markey.
    Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
    Senator Carper. We have something, Commissioner, once a 
year we have a spouse's dinner, those of us who have spouses 
are invited to bring them to Washington if they don't live 
here. We have dinner together. People around the country think 
we are always fighting with one another and we never have a 
good word to say about folks on the other side of the aisle.
    I wish they could have seen it last night. I sat at the 
same table with Democrats and Republicans alike. It was just a 
real source of joy.
    Our President has a lot of sayings, I have heard most of 
them. One of them is, all politics is personal, all diplomacy 
is personal. I was reminded of that last night.
    Senator Markey.
    Senator Markey. And it was a great night, a really great 
night.
    Commissioner Baran, since 2014, you have been a strong 
addition to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. And I have 
always appreciated your and your staff's willingness to speak 
to me about questions and concerns I have had about the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission proceedings, particularly those 
surrounding the decommissioning rule, the reactor oversight 
process, and the operations of the Pilgrim and Seabrook Nuclear 
Power Plants. Your breadth of knowledge on the issues you work 
on and your passion for supporting NRC, resident inspectors, 
and plant workers are truly admirable.
    As the longest serving commissioner currently on the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, you have significant 
institutional knowledge and a strong understanding of the inner 
workings of the Commission. You have worked on a wide variety 
of issues, including recent rulemakings regarding advanced 
nuclear reactors, fusion, and decommissioning.
    Can you just give us a brief understanding of how you 
evaluate these novel regulatory proposals that are now under 
consideration?
    Mr. Baran. I try, as I do for all decisions or voting 
matters, try to have an open minded, collaborative approach. I 
want to hear from the NRC staff and a wide range of 
stakeholders before I form an opinion.
    I also want to hear what my colleagues think about it. 
There are five of us, and everyone brings their own views and 
perspectives. But in the end, my goal is to have a balanced, 
thoughtful approach to the tough issues.
    Senator Markey. Thank you.
    During your time as a commissioner, you have also 
experienced what it is like to serve on both a full Commission 
and one with vacancies on it. If your nomination is not 
confirmed before your term expires at the end of the next 
month, the Commission would again have a vacancy and would not 
be operating at full capacity.
    Can you share your perspective on the importance of having 
a full commission?
    Mr. Baran. Sure. I have been on the Commission when we had 
three commissioners, four commissioners, five commissioners. A 
couple of times almost two, which is really to be avoided.
    Based on my experience, I would say a full Commission, five 
is ideal. There is a reason why Congress set five, and it is 
because you have a good number of people with different 
perspectives and views and you hash things out. It is a good 
process and a good way to make decisions.
    When I think about this particular time, it is really an 
important time for the nuclear sector and for the agency. These 
next few years, we need an active NRC that is going to do a lot 
of things and make a lot of decisions. We need the advanced 
reactor framework in place, the small modular reactor 
framework, the fusion framework, decommissioning. There is so 
much that needs to be done that a complete Commission will 
really help make that happen.
    Senator Markey. I agree with you 100 percent.
    Throughout your time on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
I have expressed my concerns about the issue of alkali silica 
reaction at the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant. Seabrook is the 
first plant in the Nation known to suffer from alkali silica 
reaction, which is a process that leads to cracking and 
degradation of concrete over time.
    In one example, severe cracks were found in Seabrook's 
reactor cavity pit by employees as early as 2012, but they 
weren't identified as a product of alkali silica reaction until 
a Nuclear Regulatory Commission inspector properly diagnosed it 
in 2021.
    More than a year and a half later, the NRC inspectors found 
that Seabrook's owner, Next Era, had failed to take the steps 
required by the Commission to ensure that proper alkali silica 
reaction protocols were being followed.
    Will you continue to work with me to ensure that Next Era 
is properly managing alkali silica reaction at Seabrook?
    Mr. Baran. Yes, of course.
    Senator Markey. I think that is just so important. It is 
like human beings, we have invented little pills we can take 
for our cholesterol, make sure our arteries are clear. Most of 
us try to take those little pills, kind of a big difference 
from a preceding generation.
    Well, the same thing happens to older nuclear power plants, 
they start to have these changes that occur, and this is one 
that has been identified but hasn't been properly dealt with.
    So we just need to make sure that if we want to continue to 
have these plants get older and older and older, that we also 
build in the safeguards. So taking your Lipitor each day is 
kind of the equivalent for what we are asking for in terms of 
Next Era installing to protect against the alkali silica 
undermining the concrete at a nuclear power plant.
    In your testimony you mentioned your frequent visits to 
nuclear power plants and other NRC facilities. What has your 
experience taught you when you visit these plants?
    Mr. Baran. I have been to probably about 40 operating 
nuclear power plants, including Seabrook, during my time on the 
Commission. I get a lot out of those visits. Obviously, you get 
to see the equipment and the technology first hand. And that is 
valuable.
    But I think really the more important thing is the 
opportunity to talk to the people. I get to talk with our 
resident inspectors, I get to talk with the licensee managers 
and workers there, operators. I get to talk to the local union. 
And I get to hear about their priorities, their concerns. There 
is nothing like talking to people face to face to get a sense 
of how things are going at a plant.
    Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
    Senator Carper. Senator Markey, thanks so much for joining 
us.
    I want to just ask if there might be a question you haven't 
been asked that you wish you had been, and you would like to 
answer it anyway. What have you not been asked that you would 
like to answer?
    Mr. Baran. When you asked Christine Svinicki this question 
a few years back, she had also been a long serving 
commissioner, and then Chairman. She took the opportunity to 
talk about why she was interested in another term.
    I am really excited about these next 5 years. They are just 
going to be a critical 5 years for the energy sector, for the 
nuclear sector, for our focus on energy security and climate.
    I want to be a part of that. I want to see and participate 
and contribute on the advanced reactor framework and small 
modular reactors and fusion. There was a big announcement today 
on fusion, the first power purchase agreement for the late 
2020s on fusion. Amazing.
    And so there are a lot of exciting things happening. I want 
to be around for that. I want to make progress on environmental 
justice and complete some of these important rulemakings that 
we have going. Some of them take longer than they really 
should, and I am looking forward to seeing them through to the 
end.
    So my colleague, David Wright, recently has been talking 
about this and how important this period of time is. He has 
said there is just nowhere he would rather be right now than at 
NRC on the Commission. And I feel the same way. I am excited to 
work with my four colleagues to meet the moment.
    Senator Carper. Good.
    When we had the full Commission here before us a couple of 
weeks ago, ironically, I go home most nights to Delaware, and I 
drive to the train station, jump on a train. I was listening to 
music in my car. Sometimes the news, but oftentimes music.
    That morning I was driving to the train station, I heard 
Carly Simon sing ``Coming Around Again.'' I thought that could 
almost be the theme song here for the nuclear industry.
    I don't know that Albert Einstein was a big Carly Simon 
fan, but I do know that he used to say a lot, in adversity lies 
opportunity. God knows we face plenty of adversity on so many 
fronts, but we have way too much carbon in the air, and it is 
getting worse. We have the opportunity to turn that around.
    We have spent fuel, and it is piled up in a lot of places 
around the country. The idea of somehow actually being able to 
use that spent fuel to derive more energy out of it to meet our 
energy needs is something that is exciting.
    I have been waiting forever for fusion. I am glad I lived 
long enough to see the day come when it is going to be real, 
and it is going to help us meet our energy needs here and 
around the world.
    I want to thank you again for appearing before us today.
    Before we adjourn, some housekeeping. I would like to ask 
unanimous consent to submit into the record a variety of 
materials relating to today's hearing, including a letter of 
support from the International Brotherhood of Electrical 
Workers, also known as the IBEW.
    [The referenced information follows:]


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

   
    Senator Carper. The last thing I would mention is in terms 
of the questions for the record, as you know, we give our 
colleagues the opportunity to submit those. They have until 
Wednesday, May 17th, to do that. We would ask that you reply to 
those questions for the record by May 24th.
    It is nice to be with you again. Thanks to our members who 
came and stayed for this important hearing, to grasp the 
opportunity we have before us. I think it is important that we 
do that. We need a strong Commission. We need wonderful and 
dedicated people working at the NRC.
    I remember a time when the NRC was the most sought after 
place to work in the Federal Government, year after year after 
year. I look forward to the day, not that far in the future, 
when it is again.
    With that, this hearing is adjourned. Thanks, everyone.
    [Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                             [all]