    [Senate Hearing 118-763]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 118-763

                          HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF
                      CHRISTOPHER T. HANSON 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

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 APRIL 17, 2024

                                   __________

      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
    62-518                     WASHINGTON : 2025

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
                                 SECOND 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

                                 APRIL 17, 2024
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware..     1
    Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore, U.S. Senator from the State of West
      Virginia.......................................................     4

                                    WITNESS

    Hanson, Hon. Christopher T., nominee to be a member of the
      Nuclear Regulatory Commission..................................     7
        Prepared statement...........................................    10
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Fetterman........................................    15
            Senator Markey...........................................    20
            Senator Capito...........................................    21
            Senator Lummis...........................................    35

                             ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

    Letters to Senator Carper and Senator Capito from:
        Generation Atomic............................................    60
        Good Energy Collective.......................................    62
        Fusion Industry Association (FIA)............................    64
        Third Way....................................................    66
    Letters to Senator Carper, Senator Capito, Senator Schumer and
      Senator McConnell from:
        Nuclear Innovation Alliance (NIA)............................    67
        American Nuclear Society (ANS)...............................    69

     HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF CHRISTOPHER T. HANSON TO BE A MEMBER OF
                       THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, APRIL 17, 2024

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m. in
    room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper
    (chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Carper, Capito, Whitehouse, Markey,
    Stabenow, Kelly, Padilla, Lummis, Ricketts.

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

        Senator Carper. Good morning, everyone. I am pleased to
    call this committee to order.
        We are here today, as you know, to consider the nomination
    of Christopher T. Hanson to serve an additional 5-year term as
    Commissioner on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Welcome back
    to our committee, Chair Hanson. We thank you for the time you
    have taken to meet with us in anticipation of this hearing and
    with other members of the committee and with our staffs.
        In a few minutes, Senator Stabenow has asked for the
    privilege of introducing you, and at an appropriate time, I
    will yield to her.
        Let me just start off by saying a few words about what I
    think is a crucial, that may be the wrong word, but I am going
    to say it is a crucial moment, or a critical moment, maybe, for
    the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and for the future of nuclear
    energy in the United States and abroad. I like to quote Albert
    Einstein, who used to say, in adversity lies opportunity. There
    is plenty of adversity around the world, and in this Country
    also plenty of adversity, but plenty of opportunity. The NRC
    can be and has been part of that opportunity.
        Today, the Commission is facing some new challenges, but I
    believe that, again, in adversity lies opportunity. We are
    going to make sure that it actually works out that way.
        As we all know, nuclear power plays a critical role in our
    electricity grid. It is also indispensable in our ongoing
    efforts to address the climate crisis that we face and to
    strengthen our Nation's energy security, while also creating
    economic opportunity and jobs, lots of jobs. Nuclear energy is
    currently the largest source of reliable, clean energy in our
    Nation, providing, I am told, about 20 percent of our Nation's
    electricity and nearly half of our clean power.
        At last year's United Nations climate conference, known as
    COP28, over 20 countries, including the United States, agreed
    to triple global nuclear energy capacity by 2050, triple global
    nuclear energy capacity by 2050. Let me just say that again: by
    2050, triple our global nuclear energy capacity. I was amazed
    to see that. Let me say that again: at last year's U.N. climate
    conference, over 20 countries, 20 countries, including the
    United States of America agree to triple global nuclear energy
    capacity by 2050.
        The consensus is clear. New nuclear energy development can
    help us limit global warming to our target of 1.5 degrees
    Celsius.
        That is why I have long believed that nuclear energy must
    be a part of our work to address climate change. My interest in
    nuclear goes back to my days as a Navy ROTC student at Ohio
    State University and later as a Naval flight officer tracking
    nuclear submarines all over the world, Russian subs and all
    that, as well as our own. I am happy to report that it was easy
    to find their submarines and very hard to find our own. It
    still is that way, it is still that way.
        I went back to Ohio State, actually, just last weekend, and
    had the opportunity, rejoined with some of my colleagues from
    all those years ago during the Vietnam War. Anyway, I witnessed
    in my early days as a junior officer how our submarines and
    aircraft carriers traveled millions of miles on nuclear power.
        While a great majority of my colleagues and I support
    research and development of nuclear technologies, the Nuclear
    Regulatory Commission is charged with ensuring that current and
    new nuclear designs are safe and that they are secure.
        The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is recognized globally as
    the gold standard for the regulation of nuclear technology.
    Other countries around the world look to our Commission because
    of its independence, because of its technical expertise, and
    because of its emphasis on safety. That is what the Congress
    and the American people expect from the Nuclear Regulatory
    Commission.
        The climate crisis we face today presents new challenges
    and, again, opportunities for the Nuclear Regulatory
    Commission. It is imperative that the Commission carefully
    review the many new nuclear plant designs that companies,
    entrepreneurs, and the U.S. Government are bringing forward. At
    the same time, the Commission must ensure that existing
    reactors can continue to operate safely, in many cases, well
    past their original design life.
        It is up to us in Congress and particularly in this
    committee to ensure that the Commission has the right
    leadership and resources it needs for the 21st century. That is
    why I have been working for years now with Ranking Member
    Senator Shelley Moore Capito and others on the committee to
    pass our ADVANCE Act, which she is the lead on.
        I am joining her, along with a bunch of the Democrats and
    Republicans on this committee, and in the Senate, and as it
    turns out, I think maybe, in the House, too. More about that
    later. I believe the ADVANCE Act will provide the Commission
    with the tools, the resources, and the work force that it needs
    in order to usher in the future of nuclear energy.
        At this crucial moment for new nuclear technologies and our
    climate, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission needs a full slate
    of Commissioners in place to succeed. Fortunately, President
    Biden has nominated Chair Hanson to serve another term as Chair
    on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
        Chair Hanson is a proven leader and a dedicated public
    servant with decades of government experience. Before beginning
    his service on the Commission, Chair Hanson worked as a staff
    member on the Senate Appropriations Committee, who I believe,
    did you know him then?
        Senator Capito. No.
        Senator Carper. Before beginning his service on the
    Commission, Chair Hanson worked as a staff member in the Senate
    Appropriations Committee, where he oversaw civilian and
    national security nuclear programs. Prior to his time in the
    Senate, he was a Senior Advisor in the Department of Energy's
    Office of Nuclear Energy. He has also worked in the Department
    of Energy's Office of the Chief Financial Officer, where he
    oversaw nuclear and environmental cleanup programs and managed
    the department's relationships with the House and Senate
    Appropriations Committees.
        Under Chair Hanson's leadership, the Nuclear Regulatory
    Commission has undertaken significant efforts to modernize the
    agency while dealing with constrained resources. He has
    skillfully led the Commission's development of policies to
    prepare for new technologies. That includes, for example, the
    Commission's work to establish a new regulatory framework for
    the safe licensing and operation of the next generation of
    nuclear reactors, as well as fusion energy systems. Through
    initiatives like this one, the Commission is improving
    efficiency while maintaining high standards for safety.
        In his time on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Chair
    Hanson has gone above and beyond to engage with both industry
    and with the public. For example, in 2022, he convened the
    first Commission meeting outside of Washington, DC. in decades
    in New Mexico, where he facilitated a dialog with Navajo Nation
    members about the cleanup of legacy uranium mining and milling
    sites.
        Finally, he has also demonstrated a commitment to promoting
    environmental justice during his tenure by directing Commission
    staff to provide recommendations for updating the agency's
    environmental justice policy.
        In closing, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is most
    effective when it has a full slate of commissioners who can
    carry out its critically important mission: to protect the
    safety of our nuclear facilities and maintain public trust
    while facilitating the safe deployment of clean nuclear energy.
        I believe that Chair Hanson is the right person for the job
    at this time. I hope to work with members of this Committee,
    including our Ranking Member, to move his nomination through
    the confirmation process.
        Chair Hanson, I want to thank you for your service and I
    want to thank your family, your long-suffering wife, Ann, and
    your mother, sitting out there, who brought you into the world
    and helped raise you and shared you with all of us. He has
    turned out pretty well, ma'am. You gave him a good start in
    life. Thanks for sharing him with us.
        With that, I want to turn to Senator Capito for her opening
    remarks. Senator Capito?

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

        Senator Capito. Well, thank you, and welcome to everybody.
    Thank you, Chairman Carper, for calling today's hearing, and
    thank you, Chair Hanson, for being here today.
        I certainly have appreciated our conversations, both in-
    person and on the phone. We probably did a few Zooms during
    COVID, and you have always been very open and ready to respond,
    so I appreciate that.
        During your tenure, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has
    been preparing for the expected increase in advanced nuclear
    licensing and regulatory work, while also ensuring the safe and
    secure operation of today's nuclear reactors and nuclear
    materials.
        Based on projections, we will need significantly more
    reliable electricity generation, including from nuclear energy,
    in the future. Nuclear power already provides 20 percent of our
    Nation's electricity, emissions-free electricity, that is on
    24-7, 365 days per year.
        Electricity demand is projected to increase rapidly in the
    short term in part due to the buildout of data centers. When I
    heard how much power data centers use, it really astounded me,
    and increased use of artificial intelligence. If the
    Administration continues to push an electrify everything
    agenda, from cars to trucks to trains to buildings, electricity
    demand will rise even faster.
        Meanwhile, in the face of increasing power demand, the
    Biden Administration is advancing their radical climate agenda
    to close down fossil-fuel-fired power plants that supply
    reliable, affordable electricity. I have repeatedly raised the
    red flag on this looming threat of increasing demand and
    decreasing supply since the beginning of this Administration.
        I most recently raised that flag in an amicus brief and an
    oversight report from the committee Republicans, and I will
    continue to highlight that going forward. It just makes sense
    to me.
        Unless stopped by Congress or the courts, the
    Administration's regulatory attack on the power sector will
    cause dispatchable baseload electricity resources to retire
    prematurely. This will lead to major reliability challenges and
    stunt economic development and increase the costs paid by
    American families and businesses. We should be focusing on
    increasing, not decreasing, the supply from baseload, reliable
    power sources, and increased nuclear energy deployment should
    be and must be a part of that solution.
        That will require the NRC to be prepared to efficiently
    review and approve novel reactor designs, to enable the safe
    use of nuclear power, and license a high volume of applications
    in a timely, affordable, and predictable way. The projected
    increase in the NRC's workload will overlap with the 5-year
    term that Chairman Hanson has been nominated to serve.
        Chair Hanson has supported some important policies since he
    joined the Commission 4 years ago. He supported finalizing the
    emergency preparedness rules for advanced reactors and
    correcting a flawed staff proposal to establish a new
    regulatory framework.
        That said, Chair Hanson has also made a few policy
    decisions that I have some concerns about. For example, he
    voted to reverse a previous Commission decision to issue
    license extensions, a vote that resulted in a cascade of
    uncertainty for the nuclear industry. We can talk about that in
    the questioning.
        Chair Hanson's nomination must be judged not only on his
    policy positions, but also on his management decisions as
    Chairman. The Chairman oversees and supervises the NRC staff's
    work and is responsible for developing policy planning and
    guidance for consideration by the Commission.
        Chair Hanson has a duty to ensure that the NRC staff,
    including the Executive Director of Operations, the EDO, are
    responsible to the Commission in the performance of its
    functions. The Chairman and the EDO, through the Chairman, are
    responsible for ensuring that the Commission is fully and
    currently informed about matters within its functions. The
    Chairman supervises the development and execution of the
    Commission's budget and comes before us once a year to talk
    about that.
        I have concerns with some of the ways that the Commission
    has been managed recently. Last year, senior NRC staff, under
    the supervision of the Chair, proposed to drastically expand
    telework, cutting the required time in office to just 4 hours
    per week. This staff proposal bluntly contradicted the Biden
    Administration's directive to get Federal employees back in the
    office. I expressed concern with the staff's proposal, noting
    the likely unintended consequences from reducing personal
    interaction, both within the NRC staff and between the staff
    and licensees, applicants, and the public.
        The Commission believed that this dramatic departure from
    in-office culture was a policy matter and therefore subject to
    approval by the entire Commission. This appears to reflect the
    view that the Commission was not fully informed on the course
    of the staff's proposal, as the Chairman is responsible to do.
        When presented with the opportunity to directly weigh in on
    this decision, Chair Hanson doubled down in his support of what
    I think is an outlandish proposal, breaking with the other
    three commissioners. I appreciate the efforts of the other
    members of the Commission to reset the staff's proposal.
        We similarly saw the NRC staff present the Commission with
    a flawed proposed rulemaking to establish the regulatory
    framework for advanced nuclear reactors, as the Chairman talked
    about how critical this is, despite countless public comments
    that the rule was unworkable. In this instance, Chair Hanson
    aligned with the entire Commission to rectify those flaws, and
    thank you for that, although the senior NRC staff and the
    Chairman probably should have acted earlier to address these
    well-documented issues.
        I look forward to getting more information from Chair
    Hanson about the execution of his role to supervise and direct
    the NRC staff.
        We are at a critical time for the nuclear industry, and I
    appreciate how members across the political spectrum are
    working together to provide the Commission with the necessary
    direction and tools to fulfill its mission.
        Chairman Carper, Senator Whitehouse, and I continue to work
    tirelessly to see the Accelerating Deployment of Versatile,
    Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy--we always have a good name--
    called the ADVANCE Act signed into law, we got really close at
    the end of last year, so that America remains the world's
    leader in nuclear energy.
        As the saying goes, personnel is policy, and as we work to
    advance these laws, we need to make sure we have the right
    personnel in place at the NRC. I look forward to learning more
    about Chair Hanson's plans for the Commission's work and how he
    will consider these critical policy matters.
        Again, thank you for coming, and I thank the family for
    joining him.
        Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Capito.
        Senator Stabenow has asked for the opportunity to introduce
    you, and I have rejected that request.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. Everybody else wants to introduce you, too.
    Senator Stabenow, go right ahead. Thank you.
        Senator Stabenow. That is right. Well, thank you, Mr.
    Chairman. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. It
    really is my pleasure to introduce the Chair of the U.S.
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission, who has been renominated to
    serve out a second term in his position.
        I am so glad that your wife, Ann, is here, and son Andrew,
    and mother Linda, who has traveled all the way from Michigan, I
    understand, to be here. That is great, and your father-in-law
    as well, George, so we welcome all of you for being here. We
    are so pleased.
        Mr. Chairman, Chair Hanson was born and raised in Michigan,
    so his work ethic, his values, his perspectives come from hard-
    working people in Michigan. In fact, growing up----
        Senator Carper. If I could, let me just say, I was back in
    Ohio at Ohio State University----
        Senator Stabenow. You do not have to talk about Ohio State.
        Senator Carper. No, no, no, no, no, but I sit----
        Senator Stabenow. You know, we like our competitor, just in
    case, Mr. Chairman, you didn't realize, we are competitors with
    Ohio State.
        Senator Carper. What are you saying, just because someone
    is your opponent that they do not have to be your enemy?
        Senator Stabenow. That is right.
        Senator Carper. I am a huge Detroit Tigers fan, along with
    Senator Stabenow. Huge fan, huge fan. There you go.
        Senator Stabenow. Yes, and we will welcome you back to a
    game.
        Senator Carper. All of our grandchildren go to the
    University of Michigan, so there.
        Senator Stabenow. Somebody got it right, yes.
        Let me just say that growing up, his family home in
    beautiful South Haven along Lake Michigan, you have to come see
    beautiful South Haven, it was only a few miles from the
    Palisades Nuclear Power Plant in West Michigan. His family,
    friends, and neighbors worked at the plant, an NRC resident
    inspector lived just up the block, I understand. I mention that
    just because Chair Hanson knows what a nuclear facility can
    mean for a community, as both a source of emissions-free
    electricity, but also a source of good-paying jobs.
        As a Michigander, he also knows well the vital importance
    of protecting our environment and particularly our Great Lakes.
    In fact, the Great Lakes are in our DNA.
        In college, he worked as a park ranger for the Michigan
    Department of Natural Resources at Van Buren State Park. Each
    summer, he and his family head back to Michigan to visit his
    mom, Linda, and they visit Sleeping Bear Dunes and camp at the
    State parks along Lake Michigan. They know all there is to
    protect and preserve for Michigan.
        It is that stewardship, that perspective as a guardian of
    safety, and stewardship of our natural resources that I believe
    has made him an excellent Chair of the NRC, and why I urge my
    colleagues to vote for his renomination.
        Under his leadership, the NRC has built up their capacity
    to evaluate both existing and emerging technologies, all while
    keeping its safety mission, safety mission, safety mission
    front and center. They have improved agency engagement with
    licensees and the public alike, which I appreciate, and they
    have spearheaded critical efforts to ensure that we have the
    nuclear work force to meet future needs through the educational
    and R&D grants to institutions like the University of Michigan.
        I can not stress enough how important a position like this
    is, as we know, and Chair Hanson is the right person for the
    position. He has proven as much during his first term. I know
    he is going to continue to do a great job in his second term.
        Chair Hanson, I am pleased to welcome you back to the
    committee, and I look forward to supporting your nomination.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Carper. Senator Stabenow, thank you for that
    introduction. Thank you for just being a great member of this
    committee. It has been such a joy. I think we came to the U.S.
    Senator together.
        Senator Stabenow. We did.
        Senator Carper. We will someday leave together. About 20
    more years, I think that is what we are thinking. Maybe not
    that long.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. I think, with that, we are ready to rock
    and roll here. Thank you very much, Chair Hanson, for joining
    us, and your family and friends that are out in the audience.
    We welcome your testimony, and we look forward to having the
    opportunity to ask a couple of questions once you have
    concluded. You are recognized. Go ahead, please.

      STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER T. HANSON, NOMINEE TO BE A MEMBER,
                     NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

        Mr. Hanson. Thank you very much, Chairman Carper.
        Senator Carper. If you want to start by introducing your
    family, please do.
        Mr. Hanson. Yes. Thank you, Chairman Carper and Ranking
    Member Capito. Please allow me to introduce my family seated
    behind me: my wife Ann, our son Andrew, who, contrary to
    appearance, is not on the basketball team at Washington
    College, but is rather on the rowing team. He is a sophomore
    there.
        My mom Linda, who, as Senator Stabenow noted, travelled
    from Michigan to be here, and my father-in-law, George, who now
    lives in the area. Two of our boys, Sam, is in the U.S. Army.
    He is serving down at Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio these
    days.
        Senator Carper. Sam is serving at Fort Sam?
        Mr. Hanson. Fort Sam, yes.
        Senator Carper. That is pretty good.
        Mr. Hanson. It is not lost on us, either. We have a good
    time with that in our house.
        In the Army Medical Corps. Our son Theo is a junior in high
    school. He lucked out and is on his way on a school field trip
    to Orlando.
        Senator Carper. He would rather do that than be here?
        Mr. Hanson. Right.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. I do not get it.
        Mr. Hanson. I want to just express my gratitude to all of
    them for their love and unwavering support. Thank you.
        I wanted to thank you, Senator Stabenow, for your very kind
    words of introduction, and particularly to thank you for your
    distinguished career in service to the people of Michigan, to
    say nothing of the entire Country. Thank you so much.
        Senator Carper and Senator Capito, it is a real pleasure
    and an honor to appear before you. As I get into my opening
    statement, I just want to take a moment to remember my former
    boss on the Appropriations Committee, Senator Dianne Feinstein,
    who introduced me to this committee at my confirmation hearing
    in March 2020.
        As you know, she passed away last September. One of the
    things that I most admired about her was her pragmatism, her
    constant drive to make a difference and to get things done.
    That is what really makes her a role model for me and what I
    have strived for at my time at the NRC and what I hope to
    continue to strive for.
        I am deeply honored to be renominated by President Biden. I
    am humbled and grateful for his confidence in my ability to
    continue serving the American people as Chair of the Nuclear
    Regulatory Commission. I want to take a moment to sincerely
    thank the hardworking and dedicated staff at the NRC who work
    tirelessly to fulfill our mission to regulate the civilian use
    of nuclear material and protect the public health and safety
    and the environment.
        I am proud of the accomplishments of the NRC staff and my
    Commission colleagues over the past 4 years, ushering in a new
    era at the agency. These include paving the way for a
    technology-inclusive framework to license new and advanced
    reactors, charting a path for regulating fusion energy systems,
    licensing the first non-light water reactor in the United
    States in over 50 years, efficiently overseeing the addition of
    2,500 megawatts of new nuclear generation at the Vogtle Plant
    in Georgia and strengthening America's leadership role abroad
    as a reliable partner to embarking nations seeking national and
    energy security.
        During my tenure at the NRC, I have embraced building a
    culture of trust and confidence, both internally and
    externally. As the NRC becomes even more proficient in applying
    risk information and making further efficiencies in our
    licensing reviews and decisions, we must continue to uphold our
    commitments to the American public.
        There is more work still to be done. If confirmed by the
    Senate, I pledge to continue leading the agency in tackling the
    challenges ahead for both the existing fleet of reactors and
    next generation nuclear technologies while upholding the
    agency's critical safety and security mission.
        I believe the NRC can adapt to a dynamic landscape where
    new and existing nuclear technologies will play a greater role
    in our energy future. We can pursue excellence and exercise
    safety oversight without sacrificing timeliness and
    effectiveness.
        We can build on the tremendous expertise this agency has
    accumulated over its nearly 50-year legacy by staying true to
    our principles of good regulation: independence, openness,
    efficiency, clarity, and reliability. We can and will meet,
    anticipate the changes ahead and we will rise to meet them.
        If confirmed, I commit to working with my colleagues on the
    Commission and leading the NRC staff into the next chapter of
    the agency's long and distinguished history.
        Thank you, Senators, for your consideration of my
    nomination, and I welcome your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Hanson follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. We welcome them, as well. Thank you.
        Thanks for your testimony, your willingness to be here with
    all of us, and to bring along with you your family. This is
    great.
        Now, we are ready to begin the questioning for our witness.
    Senator Capito and I have agreed to two rounds of 5-minute
    questions.
        To begin, this committee has three standing yes-or-no
    questions that it asks of all nominees who appear before us. I
    am going to ask the first question.
        Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this committee
    or designated members of this committee and other appropriate
    committees of this Congress and provide information subject to
    appropriate and necessary security protections with respect to
    your responsibilities? Do you?
        Mr. Hanson. Yes.
        Senator Carper. Do you agree to ensure that testimony,
    briefings, documents, and electronic and other forms of
    communication of information are provided to this committee and
    its staff and other appropriate committees in a timely manner?
    Do you?
        Mr. Hanson. Yes.
        Senator Carper. Finally, 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. Hanson. I am not aware of any matters of conflict of
    interest, Senator.
        Senator Carper. Thank you.
        With that, I am going to start the questioning. Really
    quick question, I can spend the rest of the morning telling
    about what I learned from my parents in order to enable me to
    serve in the military and the State of Delaware and here. I
    could spend a long time talking about what was really helpful
    to me as a kid growing up.
        Mention one of the things that, from your mom, with her
    sitting there, one of the things that she helped instill in you
    that helped prepare you for this responsibility. Go ahead.
        Mr. Hanson. Thank you, Senator. Really, I would highlight
    both my parents. My mom was a middle school English teacher and
    a librarian for many years. First of all, she made sure I
    didn't leave the house without knowing how to write and
    communicate clearly in the written word, but also just a deep
    appreciation from both of my parents for public service.
        My dad was a teacher as well as a public school
    administrator in western Michigan, and I watched him toil over
    budgets and teacher contracts and school construction and all
    kinds of things.
        While we may operate on a bigger scale here in Washington,
    the issues are not that different. Tackling those things with a
    real attention to detail and some integrity really made a
    difference. I got that from both of my parents.
        Senator Carper. Great. Well, thanks very much for sharing
    that with us.
        The NRC, I will talk a little bit about 2024 priorities
    that you have embraced, and we will be talking about today. The
    NRC is focused on its charge to ensure the safety of the
    existing nuclear fleet. The Commission is also meeting the
    moment to safeguard new technologies, including advanced
    reactors, something that Senator Capito and I and others on the
    committee have worked on a lot.
        Navigating these priorities requires a clear vision and
    decisive leadership, which you have demonstrated, I think,
    throughout your first term. Here is my question: could you
    detail for us your goals for the Commission heading into this
    year and update us on your progress?
        Mr. Hanson. Thank you, Senator. We have had some successes
    in the last few years. We have successfully issued, as I noted,
    that construction permit for a non-light water reactor. It was
    a small reactor, but we learned a lot, and we learned a lot
    from past reviews during that time.
        My focus is really building on the learning that we have
    accumulated over not only our 50-year history, but even in the
    last five or 10 years on timely and efficient reactor reviews,
    and understanding and adapting our regulations to these new
    technologies. As we get some further successes under our belt,
    we have another license application, the Bill Gates Company,
    TerraPower, came in with its construction permit application
    just a couple of weeks ago, expecting, again, an efficient and
    timely review on that.
        As we build on that success, I am focusing on the
    repeatability of these efforts to build confidence outside the
    agency that the NRC can either adapt its existing frameworks
    or, again, chart new paths with the Part 53 rulemaking and
    other things.
        As Senator Capito noted, we put out an emergency planning
    final rule. We have issued siting guidance. We have a security
    paper in front of us. I have directed the staff and just
    received a paper on options on reforming the uncontested
    mandatory hearing process that I think could be important in
    terms of making nth-of-a-kind reactors more efficient.
        I and my colleagues are focused on microreactors and how to
    send the right signals and adapt our regulatory frameworks
    there as we work with you on potential legislative changes that
    may be needed.
        I think there is, as I said, we have a lot of things in
    progress. I think we have had some successes, but building on
    those and getting repeatability, building that muscle memory
    within the organization I think will be critical moving
    forward.
        Senator Carper. I have a number of other questions I am
    going to ask, but not right now. I want to give Senator Capito
    and the other members of our committee to jump in on the
    questions.
        I will telegraph my pitch, like baseball, telegraph my
    pitch. The next question I will ask is, how do the actions that
    the NRC take today matter for the future? How do the actions
    that the NRC takes today matter for the future of the agency? I
    will be asking that when it is my turn again. Thank you.
        Senator Capito?
        Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chair Hanson, you know this is one of my, I mentioned it in
    my opening statement, is the staff telework decision. You
    select and appoint the Executive Director of Operations. The
    recommendation, which was to reduce the amount of in-person
    work at the NRC from the current minimum of 2 days a week to
    just 4 hours per week. It was determined that the Commission
    has the authority to vote on this, and it was an administrative
    decision.
        Your colleagues on the Commission decided, I mean, thought
    that this policy should be a policy which requires full
    Commission approval. Do you agree with your colleagues that the
    Commission had the authority to determine the proposed changes
    in the NRC internal telework guidance? Was it a matter of
    policy, authorizing the Commission to vote on the new proposal?
    Do you agree with what went forward, the way it was handled?
        Mr. Hanson. Yes, my colleagues, any member of the
    Commission, can take an information paper that wouldn't
    necessarily be a voting matter and turn it into a voting matter
    for the entire Commission.
        Senator Capito. That is what happened. Do you agree with
    that, that is something the Commission should have considered?
        Mr. Hanson. Telework, Senator?
        Senator Capito. Yes.
        Mr. Hanson. I thought it was more, at the time, I thought
    it was more of an operational decision for the EDO. I had a
    number of concerns about taking that authority, in this case,
    away from the EDO.
        Senator Capito. It was taken away, the Commission voted on
    it?
        Mr. Hanson. It was. The Commission voted, absolutely, and
    we have implemented that direction going forward.
        Senator Capito. I know what you are going to say when I ask
    this question, because every time I ask it to a Cabinet member,
    I get the same answer. How do you consider potential impacts of
    dramatic reductions in in-person staff work? I know you are
    going to say, the work gets done because we are checking on
    everybody.
        I think corporate America and others are seeing, and we are
    seeing this in government functions, whether it is a slowdown
    in visas or whether it is the messing up the FAFSA, Free
    Application for Federal Student Aid form, and all these other
    kinds of, these lack of in-person interaction in the workplace,
    obviously, an outgrowth of COVID, has had impacts.
        What would you say about the fact that your policy says
    that you only are, I think it is 2 days every 2 weeks, and a
    day is 6 hours? How do you feel about that? The impacts that it
    has on the NRC.
        Mr. Hanson. Senator, if I could, I want to just take a step
    back. We were one of the first agencies to come back into the
    office in November 2021, led by our EDO at the time. Even
    throughout that subsequent 18-month period, we were still in
    the office more than anybody else.
        It generated a lot of frustration on the part of the staff,
    because people, even at 2 days a week, which was the standard,
    people were coming into empty offices, and they were coming
    into their offices to sit on Zoom meetings when other people
    weren't there, and so on and so forth.
        The mission, we accomplished the mission during that time.
    We issued licenses; we oversaw the completion of Vogtle, we got
    a lot done in that both full-time telework and hybrid work
    environment. The proposal, while it may have had the effects
    that you described, the proposal that the EDO put forward was
    actually to delegate telework decisions down to the lowest
    level possible.
        During that time, when we were in the office more than
    almost any other agency in government, it created a real lack
    of trust between staff and senior leaders, and I think the EDO
    at the time was trying to address that. He said, OK, let's
    delegate that decision down to the lowest level, the team
    leaders, about what works best on an individual team lead in
    terms of the telework posture that people should have.
        The accountability mechanisms were still going to be in
    place. We have a strategic goal about having a healthy
    organizational culture. People are still going to be held
    accountable for that. We have goals about accomplishing the
    mission. People would still be accountable for that.
        It is not that I took any pleasure whatsoever is
    disagreeing with my colleagues or that I saw the matter as my
    personal views, even, about 1 day a week or any number of days
    a week. It was about the level of decisionmaking for me and
    about, I didn't want the Commission to be in a position of
    having to negotiate with the union, for example. I was looking
    on some of the knock-on effects, as well.
        Senator Capito. I would just comment on that. I kind of
    disagree, I definitely disagree with the track that you are
    taking there, because I think that is part of the problem that
    we see governmentwide, is the President is in charge of the
    government. He makes a statement: everybody should come back to
    work, but nobody is coming back to work. They are not coming
    back to work full-time.
        I think the person running the organization is the one who
    has the responsibility, because if you leave it to everybody
    individually, to me, that would be sort of chaotic.
        I have a lot, another, can I ask one more question before?
    I mentioned this in my opening statement, and I want to give
    you a chance to respond to that, and thank you for your answer
    on the other.
        You have stated, and you restated again that reliability is
    critical in terms of decisionmaking because it ensures a level
    of predictability and certainty. You did, despite your
    statements, you did choose to side with former Commissioner
    Baran to overturn previously issued license renewals. Your
    decision ignored extensive staff analysis and justification,
    multiple previous Commission licensing actions without any new
    information really being used. The resulting vote occurred
    solely because two commissioners that had previously been in
    the majority were no longer on the Commission.
        How does your vote to reverse previously issued licenses
    align with your 2020 statements that the NRC must be reliable
    and predictable, and your statements here again today, and its
    regulatory actions, so licensees can act with a minimum of
    uncertainty in the regulatory arena?
        Mr. Hanson. Senator Capito, thank you for the opportunity
    to address this issue. I appreciate it very much.
        The decision to overturn the previous Commission decision
    was not taken lightly at all. It was my firm belief at the
    time, and it continues to be, that there was a significant,
    that the agency and, by extension, our licensees faced
    significant legal risk. It was because of that that the
    decision was necessary to comply with NEPA, National
    Environmental Policy Act, and APA, Administrative Procedure
    Act. It was my belief that, in short, that we were going to get
    sued, and the people who sued us were going to win.
        While I recognize and I very much regret the disruption
    that that reversal caused, while having issued one or two or
    even three license renewals now, fixing that situation
    expeditiously, which we did, and that fix has been in front of
    the Commission, I hope to see a decision imminently on that,
    that it was better to fix that now than to get 10 or 12 or 15
    licenses down the road and have a Federal court overturn us.
        Senator Capito. Let me just ask a technical question, then,
    of the previously issued licenses in the time which you voted
    to overturn those in 2022. Are you just now telling me that two
    and a half years later, you are getting to looking at these
    that you denied and deciding what to do with them? Or have some
    of them already been----
        Mr. Hanson. No, the safety evaluations have been completed
    on those. We have one licensee who elected to do a site-
    specific analysis on that, and I believe that----
        Senator Capito. None of those licenses have been reissued
    from 2022?
        Mr. Hanson. There is one other that I believe is waiting to
    incorporate the new generic environmental impact statement.
        Senator Capito. Well, this kind of gets to the point of
    timeliness of some of these things. I will let it go to the
    next question.
        Mr. Hanson. I understand. I guess I would like to make the
    point, Senator, that I guess I saw my decision also as a matter
    of reliability. For me, reliability means the Commission making
    decisions that can hold up and are durable over time. This was
    one that I honestly didn't think was.
        Senator Capito. Right. The staff didn't agree with you at
    this point, right? The staff had made a recommendation to keep
    going with these licenses, correct?
        Mr. Hanson. Because of the previous Commission decision.
        Senator Capito. Right, yes. Thanks.
        Senator Carper. All right.
        Senator Whitehouse, welcome. Good to see you.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you for
    being here.
        First of all, congratulations on the Part 53 instructions.
    That seems to have received good stakeholder feedback, and the
    Ranking Member issued supportive comments. That is good.
        As you know, I am a strong advocate for the repurposing and
    reprocessing of our existing nuclear waste stockpiles into
    productive fuel. I want to make sure, since there is no
    specific process for reprocessing that as the NRC is looking at
    its priorities, you keep in mind the really important value to
    the Country of trying to whittle away at that nuclear waste
    stockpile.
        My concern is that all of this energy and effort that is
    going into next-gen nuke goes to brand-new nuclear fuels, which
    if they come in a nickel cheaper than reprocessing can move the
    entire market toward that and eliminate the opportunity to
    begin to address the nuclear waste problem in this way. I think
    that is really important.
        It is a weird thing that when you are the United States of
    America, the liability for that nuclear waste is not on your
    books anywhere. If we were the United Corporation of America,
    that liability would be on our books and would be giving the
    board a strong economic signal every single year, hey, we have
    a multi-million dollar liability. Spending a few million to
    clean it up, a few billion to clean it up.
        Without the incentives in the right place and without a
    specific procedure, how can you reassure me that the
    reprocessing side of next-gen will not be treated as the orphan
    side if it ends up being a little bit more expensive?
        Mr. Hanson. Senator, thank you for the question. As I think
    we have discussed, I have a long history on the spent nuclear
    fuel issue. I really believe that a Country as wealthy and
    creative and dynamic as the United States should have more than
    one way of dealing with nuclear waste. I know there is a lot of
    interest these days in reprocessing.
        I can tell you that we are interacting with companies.
    There are a number of companies that are interested in this
    area, and they are coming to talk with us. We are working with
    the Department of Energy about these different technologies. We
    elected not to pursue a specific rulemaking on reprocessing
    several years ago. Then of course, not 6 months later, there
    was a lot of interest in this again that I think has really
    picked up since.
        We are interacting with companies in this space. We are
    keeping track of it. We have companies coming into us on
    preapplication engagements to talk about their designs, about
    their technology, about their facility concepts, et cetera. We
    are really staying on that, so that should somebody come in to
    us with an application, should one of these things really take
    off or be the subject of investment by the Department of
    Energy, we are ready to go on that.
        Senator Whitehouse. You get my point that there is
    significant value to making a success of reprocessing.
        Mr. Hanson. I think the NRC should not be the impediment
    for the folks that want to come up with safe concepts for that.
        Senator Whitehouse. The other thing I wanted to talk with
    you about is the process of refueling, for instance, existing
    coal plants. There is huge logic to that. You have a community
    that already supports a utility plant. You have a work force
    there, the necessary electricians and engineers and experts.
    You have the turbines, which will spin in nuke steam just as
    readily as coal steam, and transformers, and you have the grid
    centralized.
        The DOE is moving forward trying to encourage that kind of
    investments, our ADVANCE Act specifically encourages that kind
    of investment. Are you running up against any issues with your
    processes in making sure that that refueling from coal to
    nuclear can go forward? Do you need any existing authorities?
    Are you involved in that in any way? Do you need to be? What is
    your role?
        I would like to see it expedited. Do you need help to do
    so, or is it simply not your problem?
        Mr. Hanson. I appreciate very much the provision in the
    ADVANCE Act. I do not know at this time if we need any
    additional authorities. One of the advantages of a coal site,
    as you say, is the work force. We have developed some guidance
    already about taking folks, the operators at a coal plant, and
    then kind of an expedited capability based licensing for
    nuclear, to kind of move those folks over. Oftentimes at coal
    sites you have something that is very well characterized. I
    would expect that to help with the environmental assessments if
    a nuclear plant were to go in that place.
        I think we are OK at the moment. We would love to see
    somebody go first and to kind of plow that ground with us and
    show how we can do that in a number of other places.
        Senator Whitehouse. Good. When that entity does show up to
    go first, I hope you will treat them with upmost cordiality and
    dispatch.
        Mr. Hanson. Absolutely, Senator. Thank you.
        Senator Carper. Thank you for your very thoughtful
    questions. Very thoughtful .
        Senator Ricketts, welcome. Good to see you today. Thanks
    for joining us.
        Senator Ricketts. Thank you, Chairman Carper.
        Senator Carper. This man gets an A+ for attendance. He is
    the best we have on either side. He shows up as much or more
    than me.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Ricketts. Thank you, Chairman Carper, for doing
    this important hearing with regard to the Nuclear Regulatory
    Commission. Nuclear energy is very important to Nebraska. We
    have our Cooper Nuclear Station that generates 835 megawatts of
    power that helps supply energy to 385,000 residential homes,
    even when it is the hottest in the summer. That is a big part
    of our energy mix in the State of Nebraska.
        In order to ensure that our Cooper Nuclear Station can
    continue to supply clean, reliable, affordable energy, we need
    to make sure that we have an expeditious license renewal
    process. Cooper Nuclear Station has actually begin their
    process already coming up for the year 2030, I think is when
    their licenses renew.
        In November, Senator Capito and I sent you a letter which
    requested specific steps that the NRC is taking to ensure that
    the SLR review and approval process is efficient, timely,
    predictable and affordable. I wanted to first of all thank you
    for your timely response back, your letter to our letter. Thank
    you for doing that. I in my little over a year being in the
    U.S. Senate have sent in numerous letters to different
    government agencies. I have only received a response back on 22
    percent. You are in an elite category there of people who
    actually respond.
        In your December response, you mentioned the road map to
    restore the license renewal program onto a path of timely and
    predictable reviews and achieve a goal of 18 month reviews.
    After looking through a road map published at the end of last
    month, it is really below the level of ambition that we would
    expect to be able to get these license renewals expedited. The
    goal of 15,000 review hours included in the April 15th updates
    to the road map are closer to what should be the standard for
    approval.
        What are your personal goals for the review timelines from
    start to finish, hours to process, the amount of applications
    the NRC is processing, that sort of thing? Can you give us an
    idea, Chairman, what are you thinking you ought to be doing?
        Mr. Hanson. Thank you, Senator Ricketts, for that question.
    I think underwhelmed is how I would characterize my response. I
    am not satisfied with what the staff sent us. They sent us an
    initial iteration that talked about the path to kind of get to
    18 months. I understand there is some wonkiness to work out as
    we get the process going and we get applications. We probably
    have 10 or 12 of these in right now. There is always a little
    bit of a spike at the beginning of the process.
        I think waiting 18 months to get to 18 months is, I think
    we need to sharpen our pencils in a pretty big way there.
        One of the things that the road map didn't address was the
    number of hours. You mentioned affordability. We got a
    supplement, I believe Monday, that we have now released
    publicly on this that again didn't have a specific goal with
    the number of hours. I think we should have one.
        We did the Clinton, that's a plant in Illinois, license
    renewal in about 17,000 hours. About 25 percent of where we
    were the last time I talked to you. We did a license renewal
    for a plant in Minnesota that was down to about 14,000 hours. I
    think we need to have aggressive but achievable goals in this
    area.
        If I were going to put a thumb in the air, I might cause
    panic back at our headquarters in Rockville. I think getting in
    the range of 14,000 hours sounds about right. If we can do
    better, even better. I think given high quality inputs, given
    appropriate aging management plans, which is really what those
    license renewals are about, seems like a very achievable goal
    to me. I am going to be going back to the staff, working with
    my colleagues to move us in that direction.
        Senator Ricketts. I think the last time we had this
    conversation I talked a little about process improvement
    methodologies, like Lean Six Sigma. Can you talk a little bit
    about, have you made progress in getting more of those put in
    place, or where are you with that?
        Mr. Hanson. Yes, we have. I can get back to you on the
    details of some of these. I am pleased that one of the aspects
    of the road map that came in was kind of a three-step to
    process improvements. The staff has really gathered the low-
    hanging fruit on some of that, particularly around project
    management reforms. They have two more of those to go, and they
    are going to pursue those. That is another area where we can, I
    think that is how we are going to get down to that 14,000,
    15,000 hour benchmark. I will be watching that closely as well.
        Senator Ricketts. All right, great.
        Mr. Chairman, if I may beg your indulgence for just one
    more question?
        Senator Carper. Yes, please.
        Senator Ricketts. Great, thanks.
        One of the things during the Commission's consideration of
    a proposal for generic EISs, environmental impact statements,
    you support limiting the revised document to just one renewal
    period, from 60 to 80 years, instead of making it more broad. A
    site's environmental impacts are limited by the operation of a
    nuclear reactor in general. Any new environmental data would be
    covered in a required supplemental EIS.
        It seems to me this is going to create more work for the
    NRC staff in future. What was your rationale for limiting the
    generic EIS to just one renewal period?
        Mr. Hanson. One of the rationales was to get the rule out
    sooner than later. Revising that generic environmental impact
    statement was to fix a particular legal infirmity with regard
    to the word initial versus subsequent. Adding the extra term
    would have required additional analysis and would have delayed
    that. I thought, again, getting back to reliability and
    certainty, we needed to fix that issue and get it back out into
    the world, so that the people who were pursuing license
    renewals today for that 60 to 80 year period could use it as
    soon as possible. That was the big thing.
        Then the other one was really that we weren't getting any
    signals from industry about the pursuit of 80 to 100 years,
    that that issue, both on the environmental side and the safety
    side should probably be considered down the road and based on
    specific interactions with licenses as they pursue that.
        What I hope we will see is, we have a process to evaluate
    that generic impact statement every 10 years. As we get signals
    from the industry about their interest in that, then we can
    take up that issue, figure out what those impacts are and then
    move forward.
        Senator Ricketts. Great. Thank you very much. I know I am
    over my time. I appreciate it, Chairman. If we can followup on
    the process improvement methodology and how you have been
    implementing that, that would be great.
        Mr. Hanson. Happy to.
        Senator Ricketts. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Carper. You are welcome. Thanks for those question.
        Next, we are joined by Senator Padilla, twice, I think now.
    Second time is a charm. You will be followed by Senator Lummis.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to start
    off by thanking you for your remarks about Senator Feinstein
    earlier in the hearing. As you know, she pulled no punches on
    issues important to California and Californians and our Nation.
    I appreciate that acknowledgement.
        It is in that same spirit that I ask the following. When
    you live in California, it is not a matter of if, it is a
    matter of when we experience another major earthquake. That is
    why seismic safety was important to Senator Feinstein and is
    important to me and has always been important to political
    leaders in our State.
        California is home to numerous dangerous fault lines, which
    can pose significant challenges and threats to the safety of
    buildings, infrastructure, including critical infrastructure
    and our energy infrastructure is no exception, particularly
    infrastructure that is intended to last decades without severe
    consequences of these types of challenges. Understandably,
    there are a lot of communities who have this concern, what is
    the seismic safety of nuclear power facilities among other
    things.
        My question is this: can you speak to the standards that
    the Commission uses and the practices that are in place that
    are used to evaluate and manage seismic risks in nuclear
    facilities?
        Mr. Hanson. Thank you, Senator, for the question. We apply
    a probabilistic analysis for this that takes into consideration
    all possible earthquakes in an area, of the magnitudes, the
    ground motion acceleration, the source to site distances, the
    depths, et cetera. We take all of that information and combine
    it.
        What we have found is that that probabilistic approach is
    more defensible kind of compared to the previous deterministic
    approach, which is to kind of assume one kind of earthquake for
    a particular site. Then we are really incorporating the full
    panoply of information that we have.
        What we really want to do is, we want to make sure the
    plant is protected from a ground motion kind of acceleration
    frequency, basically of anywhere from 1 to 10,000 to 1 to
    100,000 years, which is consistent with our overall approach to
    reactor safety, to make sure that the systems and structures
    and components and the additional equipment that licensees
    installed after Fukushima is adequate then to address that wide
    range of seismic scenarios.
        Senator Padilla. I think the bottom line question is, can
    you commit, here publicly and on the record, to upholding the
    highest standards of seismic safety, to ensure that communities
    around these facilities are safe in the event of incident?
        Mr. Hanson. Absolutely. I would note that, Diablo Canyon,
    that the plant today is meeting those standards and is
    operating safely.
        Senator Padilla. Speaking of Diablo Canyon, as you know,
    the Diablo Canyon facility in California is currently
    undergoing a relicensing process. One of the major issues that
    has arisen around Diablo Canyon and the continued operation is
    the possible embrittlement of Unit 1. How does the NRC
    currently evaluate embrittlement and what is the acceptance
    criteria?
        Mr. Hanson. Thank you for that, Senator. In each reactor,
    there is insertion of, we call it a coupon, but basically a
    strip of metal that is made of exactly the same material as the
    reactor vessel itself. We require licensees to take that strip
    of metal out occasionally, we cut a piece off and we send it
    for analysis and testing to basically get an overall sense of
    what is going on inside the reactor.
        We make sure that coupon is actually placed in a very
    conservative spot within the reactor itself. That is, it is
    exposed, in many cases, to more neutrons than probably the
    reactor vessel itself, in order to bound that analysis. We have
    prescriptive equations and acceptance criteria within
    regulation, and we require our licensees to validate that and
    show how they are meeting those requirements.
        The next coupon withdrawal at Diablo is going to be in the
    spring of 2025. That will be time then to allow the licensee to
    look at that coupon, analyze it, and then get that data into
    our licensing reviews. Currently, based on the last analysis,
    we fully expected the reactor vessel to meet safety criteria
    well into the 2030's.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you very much. I look forward to
    working with you to stay on top of this one.
        Mr. Hanson. Absolutely.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Senator Carper. Senator Padilla, thanks for coming. As a
    former resident of California, I understand full well your
    concerns, and those oftentimes were shared with us by Diane
    Feinstein when she was one of our colleagues.
        Speaking of one of our colleagues, another one has just
    passed away, former Governor, former U.S. Senator from Florida,
    Bob Graham. His death was reported last night. What a wonderful
    human being and great leader in Florida, and a great leader
    here. We celebrate his life, and mourn his passing.
        Senator Lummis?
        Senator Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
    stopping by and visiting with the kids from Cheyenne South High
    School yesterday. They loved meeting you.
        Senator Carper. Was that fun or what?
        Senator Lummis. It was great fun. I really appreciate it.
        Senator Carper. They were probably pretty amazed to see
    that Democrats and Republicans actually like each other.
        Senator Lummis. It was very cool. Your bury the hatchet
    story was awesome.
        Senator Carper. Thank you. In some States, in New Jersey,
    they would say breaking the back of the neck of their
    opponents. In Delaware, we actually do bury the hatchet in a
    civil kind of way.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Lummis. In sand, which is far less messy.
        Thanks, Chairman Hanson. Thanks for coming in yesterday as
    well to meet with me.
        I mentioned that I would probably be following up with you
    today about Wyoming's uranium and the need to remediate other
    abandoned uranium sites in Wyoming and elsewhere. I think this
    needs to be done in a timely manner, and the latest
    technologies that will require forward thinking at the NRC. It
    is just going to be necessary to approve them.
        I know you mentioned yesterday that you would like to find
    ways to accommodate innovative solutions. I want to visit again
    with you about high pressure slurry ablation. This option is
    really not new to you. The Commission has had 10 months to
    evaluate the vote notation paper and the technology was
    something you were aware of before that. It is really not a
    novel approach anymore.
        I am trying to understand further the hesitation at the
    NRC. The EPA evaluated the technology and the Navajo Nation,
    joined by the Governors of Arizona and New Mexico, are eager to
    move forward with addressing abandoned uranium mines. My Senate
    colleagues from Wyoming, Arizona, Utah and West Virginia joined
    in my letter to you last month. Our response was a little bit
    like gee, got your letter, cream of wheat, compared to a nice
    breakfast taco.
        In our meeting, you mentioned a study involving that
    technology that showed different results at different sites. If
    you are referring to the USEPA treatability study, I want to
    raise some of their conclusions. Waste rock material, treated
    with the ablation technology, had up to a 98 percent reduction
    in the concentration of uranium and up to a 93.5 reduction in
    the concentration of radium 226.
        On average, ablation was able to remove over 90 percent of
    the uranium and radium 226 contaminants from numerous sites and
    samples tested. Treated materials met water quality standards,
    so materials could be disposed of onsite without concerns for
    surface water and groundwater.
        These success rates above 90 percent sound to me like
    really welcome outcomes, even if they might differ a little bit
    by location. It would be a huge improvement over the existing
    condition on the ground.
        A couple of questions. First, do you agree that the cleanup
    of abandoned uranium mines is an urgent environmental priority?
        Mr. Hanson. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Lummis. Can you offer me any assurances today that
    the Commission will prioritize a pathway for adopting an EPA
    validated remediation technology for AUM, Abandoned Uranium
    Mines, cleanup?
        Mr. Hanson. We will prioritize this. This has been a
    subject of ongoing conversation within the Commission and I
    remain committed to working with my colleagues to reach a
    resolution here.
        As I said yesterday, I do not want us to be the impediment
    to the implementation of a technology that clearly has an
    environmental benefit, particularly for Native American
    communities. We have to figure out how to do that under the
    existing provisions of the law, and we talked yesterday about
    kind of a case by case or a site specific solution versus a
    device solution.
        I want to mention the conversations that we are having with
    the Environmental Protection Agency and the potential
    application of this technology under the Superfund law.
        Senator Lummis. I want to just say, that makes me a little
    nervous. That just seems like a good way to stall. That is a
    great tool for kicking the can down the road.
        I want to call your attention to, again, Option 2(b). I
    think that is the best option. I hope you will give it your
    thorough and diligent review and consideration. May I once
    again ask you to revisit Option 2(b) and just give it a
    thorough ablation?
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Hanson. I promise to take a close look at it, Senator.
    I am hoping we can find a specific approach to this to move
    forward, maybe as a pilot project in some way, rather than
    potentially a universal solution. I understand and appreciate
    your concerns on this.
        Senator Lummis. I really feel like sometimes the perfect is
    the enemy of the good here. A solution that gives you a 90
    percent remediation rate over where we are now is a really good
    solution in my opinion.
        Mr. Chairman, I have another question, but I am out of
    time.
        Senator Carper. Go ahead. Just briefly if you will.
        Senator Lummis. OK, thanks. This is with regard to
    microreactor technology and Wyoming trona. As we talked about
    in our meeting, we are interested in the BWXT critical work to
    produce fuel in reactor cores for the U.S. Navy. Does the NRC
    have the ability to license a single design once and not have
    to go back to the beginning of the review process each time
    that reactor design is going to be deployed, even if it is just
    a few miles away?
        Mr. Hanson. We have regulations for that where you can get
    a design kind of preapproved, and then apply for a license
    basically for site-specific types of issues and operations. You
    can have preapproved designs and then deploy that in multiple
    places under our regulations today.
        Senator Lummis. I know I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. I
    may want to submit some more questions for the record that are
    specific to microreactor technologies and Wyoming trona.
        I really do appreciate the time we had together yesterday
    and again today. Thank you, Mr. Hanson, and thanks, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Senator Carper. Just make sure that when you receive those
    questions for the record that you respond in a timely way.
        Mr. Hanson. Of course.
        Senator Carper. Thanks. Our next Senator is a Senator who
    knows a thing or two about nuclear energy. I am delighted he is
    a member of this committee. Senator Kelly, you are recognized.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanson, I want
    to followup on Senator Lummis' questions about abandoned
    uranium mines and the high pressure slurry ablation option for
    cleanup. She highlighted how this produces upwards of 90
    percent removal of hazardous waste at sites. We have 500
    abandoned uranium mines in Arizona on the Navajo Nation that
    have waited and waited and waited to be cleaned up. The health
    effects to the Navajo people are substantial.
        You mentioned that you want to reach a resolution on this,
    that this clearly has an environmental benefit. You want to do
    it under existing provisions of the law. Senator Lummis
    referenced Option 2(b), which is licensing the technology.
        Mr. Hanson, what progress has the NRC made specifically in
    licensing the technology? What are the steps to get it
    licensed? How many steps have been completed? What remains to
    be done?
        Mr. Hanson. Thank you, Senator. This license, this
    technology could be licensed today under our existing
    regulations, but we do not have an application in front of us
    from a company for this. The paper that is in front of us is
    about the overall approach to how we might do this forward and
    the options that the staff has provided us, you mentioned
    Option 2(b), which is really technology specific, where we
    license the technology and then allow it to be deployed in
    multiple locations.
        The staff's recommendation on that was, because of, even
    with the significant environmental reduction in harm that you
    and Senator Lummis mentioned that there is still a need to go
    back and double check that on the site and monitor that. That
    is kind of how that case by case basis would be. Yet that is
    potentially, we would want to figure out for the serial
    application at multiple sites of this how to kind of figure out
    and do that efficiently.
        In light of that, the EPA feasibility report was very
    helpful. We knew that was coming, and I think a number of us on
    the Commission were saying, OK, well, let's kind of see where
    that comes in. There were some differences, you are right, and
    often cases, Senator Lummis, you are absolutely correct, that
    there were reductions in the radioactive constituents there.
    Yet there were also some differential outcomes about whether or
    not it met the residential radiation standard, which the Navajo
    Nation, Navajo EPA adhere to.
        If I could, Chairman Carper pointed out, I led the
    Commission in holding the first Commission meeting outside of
    Washington, DC. in over 40 years. We did that on the Navajo
    Nation, and we visited with their Red Water Pond community and
    I held a public meeting in Gallup. I heard firsthand and got to
    see firsthand the environmental legacy of these over 500
    uranium mine and mill tailing sites. I do not want the agency
    to be an impediment to the timely application of this.
        That is why we are working through this paper and we are
    working with the Environmental Protection Agency to figure out,
    hey, can we do a pilot project here in partnership with the
    Navajo to test out the technology, test out our regulations,
    develop the efficiency around this, et cetera, so that we can
    move forward.
        Senator Kelly. If the company submitted an application for
    a license, how long do you think it would take to be approved?
        Mr. Hanson. I would have to get back to you on the record
    on that. I really would hesitate, I find our regulations in
    this area pretty efficient. I think we would just want to know,
    again, followup on the how are we going to verify on a site by
    site basis that we are achieving the results that are intended
    through that technology.
        Senator Kelly. If you did a pilot program with this
    technology, any sense for how long it would take to get to a
    point where you could make a decision to expand the pilot
    program across the mines that require cleanup in the States of
    Arizona and Wyoming?
        Mr. Hanson. I would hesitate to speculate on that at the
    moment. I would be happy to go back and ask the NRC staff and
    consult with EPA about something like that. Hopefully I can
    provide you a clearer answer for the record.
        Senator Kelly. Could you get an answer? We could probably
    make a request or communicate that to the company to say, hey,
    if you submit an application, we might get it licensed. You
    start with a pilot program at one mine, and we will see what
    the results are and then expand it.
        Mr. Hanson. If I could, Senator, I think one of the
    benefits of something like that, of an approach where it is
    selected as the remedial technology under the Superfund law is
    that EPA would be overseeing that and would be making sure at
    those individual sites on the Navajo Nation that the technology
    was working as intended. That is why I think that conversation
    that is just getting started between the NRC and EPA is so
    important.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Carper. Thanks so much. Thanks for those questions
    and for being here today.
        I am going to start a second round of questions and be
    followed by Senator Capito. I had the privilege of joining her
    in support of legislation called the ADVANCE Act, as you know,
    and others of our colleagues, Senator Whitehouse has been very
    much involved in that as well. I want to say thanks to our
    staffs, both on the Democratic and Republican side, on this,
    the progress that has been made.
        I want to ask, the legislation supports the NRC in a
    variety of ways, by among other things providing needed support
    and direction to improve the agency's readiness for advanced
    reactor licensing.
        Would you take a couple of minutes for us today to share
    your thoughts on the ADVANCE Act? Are there provisions in the
    bill that you think are especially helpful to the work of the
    NRC? Are there some provisions that are unhelpful to the work
    of the NRC? We will not be offended if you say there are. We
    look forward to your just being candid with us. Go ahead.
        Mr. Hanson. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question, and
    thank you for your leadership and Senator Capito for her
    leadership, Senator Whitehouse and others, who have really come
    together and put together what I think is a very beneficial
    piece of legislation that could be very beneficial to the
    agency going forward.
        I will start with the provisions with regard to our ability
    to recruit and retain talent. The nuclear work force, there is
    a huge amount of competition for talent in the nuclear space
    right now. The NRC is in the middle of that. Having things like
    expanded direct hire authority and the ability to pay folks a
    little bit more and get some flexibility on compensation is
    absolutely critical.
        I go out and I sell the mission, the importance of the
    mission, the importance of public service, of serving your
    country in this really important way in this important time.
    Having these tools behind the scenes when we try to bring
    people in the door is absolutely critical. I very much
    appreciate that.
        I also want to express appreciation for the flexibility
    around some of the budget issues, reclassifying some of the
    costs that we have, whether it is in the Commission or whether
    some of the real eState costs and other kinds of things that we
    have will, I think, help streamline and improve the
    reliability, I hope, and the predictability of our budget going
    forward.
        As I mentioned to Senate Whitehouse, the coal-to-nuclear,
    the Brownfields Site provision I think is also important and
    very helpful. Like I said, I would really like to get an
    application in the door to prove out how we can do that in an
    efficient and timely way while upholding our standards for one
    of these sites.
        I will just mention two more, if I could. The Foreign
    Ownership Control and Domination (FOCD) provision and the
    potential for investment on the part of our allies in the
    United States in this sector, I think we have seen since the
    invasion of Ukraine the importance of like-minded nations
    coming together around all parts of the fuel cycle to work
    together. Various nations have strengths in various areas,
    whether it is enrichment or fuel fabrication or reactor
    technology or whatever.
        These nations working together to replace and compete
    against Russia in this space I think is more critical than
    ever. I think the FOCD provisions in that law could play an
    important role.
        Finally, just the recognition of our international efforts
    within the agency. I saw that as an exclamation point on the
    good work that our folks in the Office of International
    Programs are already doing, and I appreciate it very much.
        Senator Carper. Thanks for that response.
        Senator Capito has rejoined us. I am going to yield to her
    and once she asked whatever questions she has in mind, I will
    ask a couple more questions. I think Senator Markey may be
    joining us as well. There are a lot of committees meeting
    today. I am very pleased by the attendance, but people are
    coming and going, as you can tell.
        Senator Capito?
        Senator Capito. Thank you. Good to be back. Sorry for my
    absence there.
        I am going to kind of read a statement. I just want to get
    your commitment that I have this right. It is sort of dealing
    with some of the things you said previously when I was out of
    the room.
        In response to direction from the Commission, last week the
    NRC staff released a road map to improve the NRC's review of
    subsequent license renewal applications. The road map's goal
    with respect to timeliness, cost, and number of applications in
    review are insufficient.
        I would like a commitment from you, Chair Hanson, that you
    will direct the staff, utilizing the chairman's authority to
    directly supervise the staff, to update the road map to achieve
    an 18 month review schedule, with 14,000 staff hours to
    complete the review and capacity to review up to 12
    applications at a time. Staff should be prepared to achieve
    these goals by the end of this calendar year.
        Is that basically what you said to, I think Senator
    Ricketts' questioning?
        Mr. Hanson. I do not know about the 12 applications at a
    time, Senator. I am not trying to walk that back, I just want
    to understand from the staff better what their actual capacity
    is and what a reasonable stretch goal would be in that area. I
    want them to understand better that the road map needs, that I
    am not satisfied with the road map and that we need to do
    better.
        Certainly I did say 14,000 hours. Again, that seems like a
    reasonable goal to me. I think that is something we should
    shoot for.
        Again, getting to 18 months before 18 months is also
    something that I think we should, and that I will be engaging
    with the staff directly on.
        Senator Capito. Thank you. Just a quick question on the
    mandatory hearing. You mentioned this in my statement, we
    talked about it in my office. It adds about 6 months to the
    review and millions of dollars to regulatory costs.
        Previous Commissions have requested that Congress remove
    this requirement. Yesterday, the Commission released a memo
    drafted by your general counsel at your request that identified
    options to administratively streamline this mandatory hearing.
        Do you agree that even with administrative changes to
    streamline the process the mandatory hearing is still
    statutorily required and Congress would need to eliminate that
    requirement from the law? Do you agree with previous
    Commissions' recommendations to do that?
        Mr. Hanson. Yes, ma'am. The requirement in the Atomic
    Energy Act still stands. We have had flexibilities on this. The
    process that we have used for a long time was really about
    large light water reactors that were, all of which, as we know
    in this Country, turned out to be pretty unique. I think given
    the serial deployment and the standardized designs that we are
    going to see, we have an opportunity really reform that
    process. Maintain the public communication portions, but really
    streamline that.
        Senator Capito. Yes, I do not interpret that as an effort
    to eliminate any public hearings or public communications. That
    is not the interpretation I would have.
        I have 2 minutes left. I would say, if we are sitting here
    5 years from now and you could say that you had achieved two
    things in the 5-years that you really wanted to achieve as a
    re-nominated and re-confirmed chair, what would those two
    things be?
        Mr. Hanson. I would say repeatability on licensing reviews
    for new technologies to show again and again that we can take
    these new technologies and we can tackle them, we can evaluate
    the safety and get back to our licensees very expeditiously. I
    think that would be the first one.
        The second would be closely aligned to it, and I think that
    is making progress on microreactors in the agency as well, and
    charting the path for that. Again, these are things that could
    potentially come out of factories. Being able to either license
    the factory itself as well as potentially check the thing that
    is coming out of that factory I think is going to be really
    important.
        Senator Lummis, of course, is interested in trona mining,
    but in it for a lot of other locations as well, oil and gas
    production, et cetera. I think proving that out, working with
    the Congress on any changes that we need to make that happen to
    the Atomic Energy Act I think will also be really important.
        Senator Capito. The other thing I would say, and thank you
    for those, one thing that is repeatedly coming into the mix is
    not right, it is not your regulatory responsibility, but it
    does weigh into the timeliness of being able to move forward,
    is permitting. The length of time, the money, the people that
    walk away from trying to get things permitted, no matter what
    type of energy production it is, is really slowing us down. I
    would hope we can use your expertise and work together to try
    to figure out the best way, we have been talking, the Chairman
    and I have, to make some strides in the permitting process.
        Thank you very much for coming. Thank all of you for being
    here.
        Mr. Hanson. Thank you.
        Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Capito.
        Maybe my last question, I have at least one more question,
    dealing with public trust and transparency. We have already
    talked a little about that. I want to focus on it a bit more,
    if we could. Building and maintaining public trust is at the
    core of the NRC's mission to ensure that the benefits of
    nuclear technology are used safely. This trust is especially
    important for communities who host operating or decommissioning
    nuclear power plants, spent nuclear fuel and other nuclear
    materials.
        Also because much of the NRC's work is highly technical, it
    can oftentimes be inaccessible to members of the public seeking
    to better understand the agency's decision. My question is,
    will you please take a minute or two to describe for us how you
    work, how you and your colleagues work, to maintain or increase
    public confidence and transparency in the NRC's decisionmaking
    and regulatory processes?
        Mr. Hanson. Thank you, Senator. I agree, this is absolutely
    critical to our mission. If we for whatever reason lose the
    public's trust, we are not fulfilling our mission. Not only
    trust, but also the confidence. A key part of that is
    explaining in plain language how we do our work and how and why
    we reach our conclusions.
        We communicate a lot; we hold almost all of our meetings
    with licensees and on licensing matters out and open to the
    public. In fact, there is a big public meeting tonight about
    the Palisades plant and the effort to bring that back, with
    over, I think, 300 people registered at this point, where we
    are going to be outlining our processes. I continue to direct
    and encourage the NRC staff in this regard.
        I remember being up at Indian Point outside New York City
    and that decommissioning reactor a few years ago. I had the
    opportunity to meet with representatives from the State of New
    York and others. They said, well, we have a decommissioning
    oversight board meeting coming up. Do you think you could come
    and participate? I said, yes, why wouldn't we, of course we
    will.
        Since then, we have been to at least half a dozen of those.
    That was probably 18 months or more. I was absolutely happy to
    commit to things like that. I think it is critically important,
    where we are out in the community and explaining in plain terms
    our rules, our standards, and how we are upholding those.
        I continue to be focused on this. I try to make myself
    available to community groups and external stakeholders
    whenever I can.
        Senator Carper. All right.
        Senator Markey is trying to join us. I am going to ask one
    other question until he arrives. The question is, sometimes I
    ask this if we have time in a hearing, I like this question. Is
    there a question you wish you had been asked that you have not
    been asked? If there is, what would that question be?
        Mr. Hanson. Perhaps about our international work.
        Senator Carper. Go ahead.
        Mr. Hanson. The importance of that on the world stage, for
    longstanding partners as well as emerging nations. One of the
    greatest honors and privileges of this position, Senator, and
    if confirmed, I sincerely hope to continue, is to represent the
    Country with my regulatory counterparts around the world. There
    are numerous countries who want to work with the United States
    and who are pursuing nuclear energy for the first time for
    national security, economic security, economic development,
    human health, et cetera.
        It is to go and work with those nations in places like
    Poland the Philippines and Romania and others, and not just
    talk about the technical work that we have done, about a
    particular technology, but talk about our overall approach,
    about the transparency, how we engage the public, the
    importance of an independent regulatory body outside of the
    policy apparatus in a particular country. It is really one of
    many, many rewarding aspects of our position, of my position
    and the work of the Commission.
        Senator Carper. That is good. I will ask you one more quick
    question. I think it was Mark Twain who used to say that the
    most important days of our life are one, the day we are born,
    and two, the day we figure out why. When did you figure out
    this was why, at least in part, you were born?
        Mr. Hanson. This role? I do not know if I was born for it
    or not, Senator. Hopefully, I have earned it over time, and
    hopefully, I continue to earn the trust and respect of the
    incredibly dedicated public servants at the NRC as well as the
    American people.
        Senator Carper. Thank you.
        Senator Markey, we are delighted to see you.
        Senator Markey. I was born and then I figured out why. It
    was to be the centerfielder for the Red Sox. Then I needed a
    backup plan after Dickie Timmons [phonetically] could throw a
    fastball 87 miles an hour. I had a backup plan, and that is
    what this is.
        Ultimately, maybe I can become major league commissioner,
    baseball commissioner. It could still come out.
        Chairman Hanson, the House passed a nuclear energy package
    known as the Atomic Energy Advancement Act, which would alter
    the mission of the NRC to promote nuclear energy in the United
    States and would promote the export of emerging nuclear
    technology. That bill passed the House. To have our Nation's
    nuclear safety expert take on a second job as a promoter for
    nuclear technologies would be like having the EPA moonlight as
    a chemical distributor. You can not focus on safety if you are
    also focused on sales.
        Again, that is why the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was
    created, to break it off from the Atomic Energy Commission,
    which was a promotor and a regulator. It was to set up a
    separate agency which would just focus on the regulation of
    these plants to make sure they are safe in the communities in
    which they are in. That is when I joined the committee, 48
    years ago, the Nuclear Committee. It was right after the NRC
    was created for that purpose.
        Chairman Hanson, do you agree that the mission and duty of
    the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is to act as a regulator, not
    as a facilitator of nuclear energy in this Country and around
    the world?
        Mr. Hanson. Senator, it is our job to act as a regulator.
    One of the messages, there has been a lot of conversation in
    both the House and Senate and other places about the mission of
    the NRC. What I really take away from that is I think Congress
    wants us to feel the urgency of the moment. It might be fair to
    say that they do not want us to inhibit the safe and secure us
    of nuclear power. We have gotten that message.
        Again, the emphasis there in terms of our standards is on
    the safe and secure use. We have to make those decisions.
        Senator Markey. You agree that safety standards can not
    change, so that it is easier to promote sales of the power
    plants.
        Mr. Hanson. I do not think we should change our standards
    for the sake of promoting sales. I think we need to revisit our
    standards on occasion to make sure that we are focusing on the
    most safety significant things.
        Senator Markey. OK. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff
    recently sent you their final rule on decommissioning. This
    draft final rule comes nearly 10 years since the Commission
    first voted to initiate it. It is critical that we have the
    strongest necessary safeguards and security guardrails for the
    decommissioning process. Just because the risks are lower than
    operating facilities does not mean there are no risks at all.
        I am very worried that this rule which regulates by rubber
    stamping requests to be exempted from the NRC's rules by
    operating plants does not consider how safety considerations
    might be altered, not ended, during decommissioning.
        Chairman Hanson, do you agree that radiological risks
    continue to exist after a nuclear facility begins to
    decommission?
        Mr. Hanson. They do exist, but at a much lower level than
    an operating reactor.
        Senator Markey. They do exist?
        Mr. Hanson. They do exist.
        Senator Markey. They do have to continually be monitored by
    the NRC to make sure those risks do not spread into those
    communities that surround a nuclear power plant as it is being
    decommissioned?
        Mr. Hanson. That is right. They do continue to need to be
    monitored, and we need to make sure that the decommissioning
    facilities are meeting our standards.
        Senator Markey. Chairman Hanson, does the decommissioning
    rule address FEMA's concerns that it phases out radiological
    emergency planning before all spent fuel is stored in dry
    casks?
        Mr. Hanson. I would have to get back to you for the record.
    I am not 100 percent sure of FEMA's specific concern on this. I
    know we have had a number of interactions and engagements with
    them on this. It has been a longstanding practice of the NRC to
    allow for the exemption from the emergency planning zone prior
    to the removal of all the spent fuel from the pool because of
    the significantly reduced radiological risk.
        Senator Markey. Yes, so we need that response back in
    writing to my office, to the committee, just balancing FEMA's
    concerns against NRC's actions.
        Then, plants, Mr. Chairman, should not be able to walk away
    from safety planning after benefiting from community support
    for years, and communities have a right to know how their
    health and safety could be affected during the decommissioning
    process. The decommissioning of Plymouth's Pilgrim Nuclear
    Power Plant serves as a strong example. Community members have
    been repeatedly blindsided by Holtec's plans to release
    radioactive water from Pilgrim's spent fuel pools into Cape Cod
    Bay or to evaporate that radioactive water into the air above
    their homes.
        As written, the final rule does not include approval of
    licensees post-shutdown decommissioning activities, reports
    which would prompt meaningful public engagement and new
    environmental reviews, before the decommissioning process,
    giving communities an opportunity to weigh in.
        Chairman Hanson, do you believe that the NRC can do better
    in its efforts to enable public engagement before enduring
    decommissioning process?
        Mr. Hanson. Senator, I spoke to the Chairman about how
    important it is for the NRC to be out and engage with the
    public regularly and in plain language about our standards and
    our processes, and how we are monitoring and holding licensees
    accountable.
        Senator Markey. Yes. We need transparency, Mr. Chairman, we
    need the public to be able to understand what is happening in
    their communities with regard especially to those already
    existing power plants. This month, Mr. Chairman, the Government
    Accountability Office released a report on how the Nuclear
    Regulatory Commission is failing to address climate-fueled
    risks to nuclear facilities.
        The threat is clear. All 75 operating and shut down U.S.
    nuclear power plants will face climate-fueled heat, drought, or
    wildfire risks. Nearly two-thirds of plants are located in
    areas with exposure to Category 4 and Category 5 hurricane
    storm surge or high flood hazard.
        As we saw over 10 years in Fukushima, extreme weather
    events can wreak havoc and devastation on communities
    surrounding nuclear facilities. Addressing climate risks before
    they become reality can save countless lives.
        Chairman Hanson, do you agree that the Nuclear Regulatory
    Commission licensing and oversight processes should consider
    the threat of climate change fueled extreme weather on nuclear
    facilities?
        Mr. Hanson. Senator, a couple of things. First of all, the
    existing fleet of nuclear reactors, everywhere in the United
    States, are operating safely. They are incredibly resilient to
    natural hazards, including severe storm events, seismic events,
    et cetera. We do consider climate change impacts. We have a way
    of assessing and incorporating information about natural
    hazards on an ongoing basis. We certainly agreed, up front,
    with the GAO recommendation that we can evaluate how we are
    incorporating climate change modeling and projections into our
    licensing processes.
        I can tell you that the natural hazards that are out there
    and at least in the foreseeable future are being incorporated
    into plant design bases, and those plants are operating safely
    and within that bases.
        Senator Markey. OK, well, again, the public is very
    concerned about these climate-related issues. A lot of them are
    built along rivers, on oceans, to use that water as the basis
    for cooling the plant.
        I would just say that we are heading into a catastrophic
    period of time right now in terms of the climate change impacts
    near these nuclear power plants. I guess what I would say, and
    this just follows up on your earlier answer----
        Senator Carper. Senator Markey, I need to leave and go vote
    at another committee. Go right ahead.
        Senator Markey. Just a few seconds. This communication can
    not be one-sided. It just can not be the NRC telling
    communities. It should also listen to communities and respond
    to communities' concerns as well. That is in response to my
    last question but also this one as well. People are asking
    legitimate questions.
        We are in the process of hardening down the seaport of
    Boston against climate change. What is the plan for nuclear
    power plants?
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I have a question on
    radioactive waste burial that I would ask for you to respond to
    in writing.
        Senator Carper. Thanks so much for joining us today.
        In closing, I want to thank you, Chairman Hanson, for
    appearing before us today, to remind us all that the NRC is a
    vitally important agency in our fight to reduce greenhouse gas
    emissions and to help maintain the reliability of the grid. To
    Senator Markey's point about the threat that climate change
    poses to our nuclear power plants, there is a nuclear power
    plant, two of them, actually, on the other side of the Delaware
    River not far from where I live, my family and I live.
    Actually, with sea level rise, there is great awareness and
    concern relating to that.
        We are depending on the NRC to ensure that the continued
    development and use of nuclear power is safe and secure. The
    NRC needs strong leadership, and I have confidence that you can
    provide the agency that kind of leadership during this
    challenging time.
        We thank you for your testimony today. We look forward to
    the committee's consideration of your nomination in the closing
    weeks.
        Before we adjourn, some housekeeping. First, I want to ask
    unanimous consent to submit into the record a variety of
    materials relating to today's hearing, including several
    letters of support for Chairman Hanson's nomination. Without
    objection, so ordered.
        [The referenced information follows:]
       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. Finally, Senators will be allowed to submit
    written question for the record through the close of business
    on Monday, April 22d. We will compile those questions and send
    them to our witnesses. We would ask that you reply by Monday,
    April 29th.
        With that, I want to close with one last thought. The late
    Bob Graham, Senator Bob Graham, a U.S. Senator, Governor, and
    Senator Capito, you are the daughter of a Governor from West
    Virginia, but when I was a Governor running for the U.S.
    Senate, Senator Graham was telling me, he was nice enough to
    host a fundraiser for me. I remember talking with him when I
    was down there with him, and I said to him, you have been a
    Governor, you have been a Senator, which of the jobs do you
    most appreciate? As you might imagine, people love being
    Governor. Being a Senator is great, it is a great privilege to
    serve in the Senate, but people love being Governors of their
    States.
        When I asked him which he preferred, he said, oh, I loved
    being Governor probably the most. He said, folks will tell you
    who serve in both the Senate and as Governors, they tell you
    that they prefer being in the Senate, he said, they will lie
    about other things, too.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. Which I thought was just a great line. I
    have never forgotten it.
        This has been a good hearing, an important hearing for all
    of us, for our Country, for our planet. Convey our thanks to
    your family very much for sharing you with us. Our thanks to
    the team that you lead, you and the commissioners lead at the
    NRC. We are grateful for all of your services.
        With that, this hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:46 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                          [all]