[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]