[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]