U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

36–163 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

S. HRG. 116–12 

OVERSIGHT OF 

THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 2, 2019 

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

( 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

MIKE BRAUN, Indiana 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, 

Ranking Member 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

RICHARD M. RUSSELL, Majority Staff Director 

MARY FRANCES REPKO, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

APRIL 2, 2019 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 1 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 3 

WITNESSES 

Svinicki, Kristine, Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ................. 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Barrasso ....................................................................................... 21 

Senator Gillibrand ..................................................................................... 52 

Senator Markey ......................................................................................... 58 

Baran, Jeff, Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ..................... 71 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 72 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Gillibrand ......................... 73 

Burns, Stephen, Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ............. 74 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 75 

Caputo, Annie, Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ............... 76 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 77 

Wright, David, Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ................ 78 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 79 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF 

THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

TUESDAY, APRIL 2, 2019 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Barrasso, Carper, Capito, Cramer, Braun, 

Rounds, Ernst, Cardin, Whitehouse, Gillibrand, Markey, and Van 

Hollen. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Good morning. I call this hearing to order. 

Today’s oversight hearing will be looking at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the NRC, and I welcome all five Commissioners 

here today to the Committee. 

Last May, the Senate confirmed Commissioners Caputo, Wright, 

and Baran. As a result, the Commission now has a full slate of five 

Commissioners for the first time since 2014. 

This morning Commissioners Caputo and Wright will testify before Congress for the first time since being confirmed. I look forward to the testimony. 

Today also marks the last time that Commissioner Burns will be 

testifying before the Committee. His term concludes this summer. 

Commissioner Burns has served the agency in various capacities 

for over 40 years. A remarkable service. We are very grateful. 

You were Chairman from 2015 through 2017, so we just want to 

thank you on behalf of the entire Committee for all of your service 

to the NRC. 

Last week marked 11 years of continuous service as Commissioner for Chairman Svinicki. This is unprecedented. So far, her 

tenure as Chairman has been very productive. Last September 

Chairman Svinicki and then-Wyoming Governor Mead signed an 

agreement in Cheyenne, Wyoming. The agreement allows the State 

of Wyoming to license and regulate uranium recovery facilities. 

It has been a long time priority for me. Thank you for your leadership to assure the agreement was signed in a very timely manner. 

Affordable, reliable electricity powers a strong economy. Nuclear 

energy is by far the most reliable carbon-free energy source. Nuclear energy also provides more than twice the amount of elecVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:16 Jul 15, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\36163.TXT SONYA
2 

tricity as wind and solar combined. Nuclear power provides about 

60 percent of our Nation’s emissions-free energy. If we are serious 

about climate change, we must be serious about expanding our use 

of nuclear energy. 

In 2018, nuclear energy generated a record breaking amount of 

electricity in the United States. Regrettably, last year’s record will 

not be broken again unless we take dramatic action. Two nuclear 

power plants will close this year. An additional eight reactors are 

expected to close between 2020 and 2022. We need to work to reverse this trend. 

Shuttering nuclear plants not only reduces the amount of dependable energy produced, it also increases a plant’s regulatory 

costs since fewer plants are available to fund the Commission’s 

work. In this regard, I am pleased the Commission has submitted 

a smaller budget that reflects the reduced workload. 

I encourage the Commission to continue to find ways to make 

their work more efficient. For example, the Commission staff 

should focus their efforts on issues of greatest safety significance. 

This would not only reduce budgetary demands, it would also allow 

nuclear reactor operators to focus on the most important safety 

issues. 

Predictable and transparent budgets should align with predictable and transparent regulations. The Commission’s completion of 

a major rulemaking in January I believe did just that. This rulemaking requires nuclear power plants to be prepared for an unforeseen emergency. It is an accumulation of years of work in response 

to the 2011 nuclear crisis in Japan. I look forward to hearing more 

about the rulemaking. 

In addition to maintaining predictable requirements for existing 

nuclear reactors, the Commission must also establish the rules for 

new nuclear technologies. That is why I was pleased that President 

Trump signed into law the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act in January. A number of us cosponsored this bipartisan legislation. I cosponsored it, along with seven members of our 

Committee, to help American nuclear innovators develop, license, 

and deploy advanced nuclear technologies. 

These new technologies could increase safety, could decrease 

costs, and could reduce nuclear waste. They are also necessary to 

achieve low carbon energy future for our country and the world. 

America has always been the global leader in nuclear technology. 

We can’t allow our international rivals to surpass us. The Commission plays a vital role in this global competition. The Commission 

should prioritize activities to advance American nuclear leadership. 

For example, new and upgraded fuel types, known as accident-tolerant fuel, can improve safety, make plants more cost efficient, and 

generate less waste. This is a win-win-win. 

While we seek to reestablish American leadership for nuclear reactor operation and technology, we must not disregard the dire outlook of American uranium production. Last year, two American 

uranium companies petitioned the Department of Commerce to 

consider the national security impacts of uranium imports. I support this review. 

The deadline for the Administration’s response to the petition is 

approaching. The Administration must take meaningful steps to 

3 

maintain and grow American uranium production. Our American 

uranium industry must not be forced out of business due to unfair 

competition driven by Russia and other nations. 

It is also critically important for the Federal Government to 

properly manage and dispose of our Nation’s spent nuclear fuel and 

nuclear waste. I am pleased the Commission’s budget requests $39 

million to resume its review of the Yucca Mountain site, as required by law. Congress should support this request. 

I would now like to turn to Ranking Member Carper for his 

statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for bringing us 

all together. 

It is good to see each of you here before us today. 

Madam Chair, a pleasure. 

And to our former Chairman, I just want to echo the words of 

our Chairman John Barrasso to thank you for a lifetime of service 

to this country. 

He has expressed my thoughts on the need for more carbon-free 

electricity—not less—and nuclear has provided anywhere from 60 

to 70 percent of our carbon-free electricity for some time. It is dropping now, as you know, but I think we have an opportunity and 

I think an obligation to try to make sure it doesn’t drop much further. And if we can somehow reverse that, we ought to do so. 

But we are here today to continue our oversight of the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission and to hear more about the President’s 

budget proposal for fiscal year 2020. It is my sincere hope that today’s hearing is just the beginning of other hearings on our Committee’s budget over the agencies for which we have jurisdiction. 

Since joining this Committee, I have worked closely with our colleagues to strengthen the culture of safety, worked closely with you 

to strengthen the culture of safety, and within the U.S. nuclear industry itself. In part, due to our collective efforts, and thanks to 

the NRC leadership and the Commission’s dedicated staff, the NRC 

continues to be the world’s gold standard for nuclear regulatory 

agencies. 

However, we are here to look forward, not look back, and we 

need to ensure that the NRC continues to have the tools that it 

needs to be successful and to be safe. We also need to ensure that 

the NRC’s actions taken this year have safety in mind in order to 

ensure that America’s nuclear power remains the safest in the 

world. 

Today I am interested in—and I think we are interested in— 

learning whether the President’s budget, which I believe falls short 

in a number of areas, will provide the NRC with sufficient funding 

to protect the public, while being responsive to the legitimate needs 

of the industry that is being overseen. 

While most any organization needs strong leadership, as I like to 

say, it is always the key to success. I don’t care what the organization is, leadership is always the key. A dedicated work force is certainly helpful, and the appropriate resources don’t hurt, either. 

4 

I support improving the NRC’s efficiency and its flexibility to respond to the changes in the nuclear industry; however, we cannot 

cut the agency’s budget just for the sake of cutting. We must ensure that the NRC has adequate funding to continue to attract the 

best and brightest talents so that the agency continues to be the 

global standard for safety. 

Beyond the budget, I am particularly interested in hearing today 

more about why the NRC decided to change courses regarding the 

post-Fukushima rule. Our nuclear reactors must be able to withstand seismic or flooding events, regardless of when the reactors 

were built. Requiring our nuclear reactors, most of which were 

built decades ago, as you know, to withstand earthquake and flooding risks beyond the capacity of their original design doesn’t make 

much sense to me. 

This issue goes well beyond being able to withstand a similar 

event that occurred in Fukushima. As we continue to see the worsening effects of climate change nationwide, our nuclear fleet will 

experience flooding, experience drought and other extreme weather 

more frequently. As we saw a year or two ago in Ellicott City, 

Maryland, not far from here, and recently in the Midwest, 1,000- 

year flooding events are happening every couple of years, not every 

1,000 years, and we need for our nuclear fleet to be prepared for 

this new climate reality. 

Why the NRC has decided to reverse course from its proposal 

and make these protections voluntary is still unclear to me, especially since, according to the NRC’s own staff, no one asked for this 

change; not industry, not staff, no one. With that said, I look forward to learning more today from the NRC about why its members 

decided to take this approach. 

I am also interested in hearing today how the NRC plans to implement changes in the advanced nuclear reactor licensing framework, as Congress directed in the recently passed Nuclear Energy 

Innovation and Modernization Act that the Chairman has alluded 

to. This legislation was supported by the Chairman, by me, I think 

many members of our Committee, and it is a good legislation. 

I believe that if our country is smart—and we are—we will replace older nuclear technology with new technology developed right 

here at home. That includes advances that are safer, produce less 

spent fuel, and are cheaper to build and to operate. In doing so, we 

can reap the economic benefits, along with the clean air benefits of 

a new, advanced nuclear electricity generation. 

In closing, let me again reiterate the importance of making sure 

that the NRC has the resources that you need to review these new 

technologies and to ensure that our current nuclear fleet remains 

safe far into the future. 

I want to thank our Commission for being here today. We look 

forward to your testimonies. Welcome. 

I am going to have to slip out for a few minutes, but I will be 

back, and I look forward to a robust round of questions and answers. 

Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

We are now going to hear from our witnesses. We will start with 

the Chairman, Kristine Svinicki, and then move to Commissioner 

5 

Jeff Baran, Commissioner Stephen Burns, Commissioner Annie 

Caputo, and Commissioner David Wright. 

We are going to continue with the Committee’s practice of a 5- 

minute opening statement from Chairman Svinicki and the 2- 

minute statements from each of the other Commissioners. 

I want to remind the witnesses that your full testimony will be 

part of the official hearing record. 

Chairman Svinicki, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF KRISTINE SVINICKI, 

CHAIRMAN, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Ms. SVINICKI. Thank you. 

Good morning, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, 

and Senators Gillibrand and Cramer, and other distinguished 

members of the Committee who may join us. My colleagues and I 

appreciate the opportunity to testify this morning on the U.S. 

NRC’s fiscal year 2020 budget request. 

The funding we are requesting provides the resources necessary 

to accomplish our mission to license and regulate the civilian use 

of radioactive materials to ensure adequate protection of public 

health and safety, and to promote the common defense and security. 

The NRC’s fiscal year 2020 budget request, including resources 

for the NRC’s Office of the Inspector General, is $921.1 million, 

which would include 3,062 full-time equivalent positions, or FTE. 

The fiscal year 2020 budget request represents an increase of $10.1 

million when compared to the fiscal year 2019 enacted budget. This 

requested increase in resources is due principally to the inclusion 

of $38.5 million to support licensing activities for the proposed 

Yucca Mountain deep geologic repository for spent fuel and other 

high level radioactive waste. 

The NRC proposes to recover $759.6 million of the requested 

budget from fees assessed to NRC’s licensees and applicants. This 

will result in a net appropriation of approximately $161 million 

with, again, $38.5 million of that to be derived from the Nuclear 

Waste Fund. 

The NRC has initiated efforts to implement requirements of the 

Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act and is progressing in each area to ensure timely implementation of the Act’s 

requirements. The budget also proposes $15.5 million for the continued development of a regulatory infrastructure for advanced nuclear reactor technologies. 

We are mindful of the importance of the highly skilled staff that 

we have and the need to maintain our expertise while our workload 

continues to evolve. In addition, the NRC’s focus on transformation 

and innovation continues. The Commission has met with NRC staff 

and external panels that included the nuclear industry, other Federal agencies with ongoing innovation efforts, and non-governmental organizations to discuss the NRC’s staff’s efforts, and we 

have also explored broader organizational strategies and innovation 

perspectives from a range of external experts. 

In summary, the fiscal year 2020 budget request reflects the 

NRC’s continuing efforts to achieve efficiencies while maintaining 

6 

reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and 

safety and safeguarding the security of our Nation. 

On behalf of the Commission, thank you for the opportunity to 

appear before you and for the Committee’s consistent support and 

oversight of NRC’s important mission. 

Before I conclude, I would like to add my recognition and thanks 

to former Chairman Stephen Burns and Commissioner. I think of 

the members of the Commission, I may have known him the longest. He was Deputy General Counsel when I joined the Commission, was then General Counsel, left for a time, and came back and 

was both my Chairman and my colleagues. I consider him a friend. 

He is a pleasure to work with. 

We all think about the last day we might have on the job, but 

I think if any of us could leave the NRC with the amount of respect 

and esteem that Steve commands throughout the NRC, it would be 

a significant accomplishment. 

So thank you, and I look forward to questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Svinicki follows:] 

7 


36163.001

Kristine L. Svinicki 

Chairman 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

The Honorable Kristine Svinicki was designated Chairman of the 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission by President Donald J. Trump 

on January 23, 2017. She is currently serving her third term, ending 

June 30, 2022. She began her service on the Commission in 2008. 

Chairman Svinicki has a distinguished career as a nuclear engineer 

and policy advisor, working at the state and federal levels of 

government, and in both the legislative and executive branches. 

Before joining the NRC, Svinicki spent over a decade as a staff 

member in the United States Senate advancing a wide range of policies and initiatives related 

to national security, science and technology, and energy and the environment. She also 

served as a professional staff member on the Senate Armed Services Committee where she 

was responsible for the Committee's portfolio of defense science and technology programs 

and policies, and for the atomic energy defense activities of the U.S. Department of Energy, 

including nuclear weapons, nuclear security, and environmental programs. 

Previously, Svinicki worked as a nuclear engineer in the U.S. Department of Energy's 

Washington, D.C. Offices of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, and of Civilian 

Radioactive Waste Management, as well as its Idaho Operations Office, in Idaho Falls, Idaho. 

Before that, she was an energy engineer with the State of Wisconsin at the Wisconsin Public 

Service Commission in Madison, Wisconsin. 

Born and raised in Michigan, Svinicki earned a bachelor's degree in nuclear engineering from 

the University of Michigan in 1988. She is a longstanding member of the American Nuclear 

Society and the Society has twice honored her with its Presidential Citation in recognition of 

her contributions to the nuclear energy policies of the United States. Chairman Svinicki was 

named Woman of the Year by the Women's Council on Energy and the Environment in 2013. 

She was selected as a Stennis Congressional Fellow of the 1 08th Congress and as a 

Brookings Institution Legis Congressional Fellow in 1997. She has been honored by the 

University of Michigan, College of Engineering as its 2009 Alumni Merit Award recipient for 

Nuclear Engineering and Radiological Sciences and, in 2017, was awarded the College's 

Alumni Medal. 
8 


36163.002

WRITTEN STATEMENT 

BY KRISTINE L. SVINICKI, CHAIRMAN 

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

TO THE 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

APRIL 2, 2019 

Good morning Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and distinguished members of the 

Committee. My colleagues and I appreciate the opportunity to testify this morning on the U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 budget request. 

The NRC is an independent Federal agency established to license and regulate the civilian use 

of radioactive materials in the United States to ensure adequate protection of public health and 

safety and to promote the common defense and security. The funding that we are requesting 

for FY 2020 provides the resources necessary to accomplish the NRC's mission while improving 

the agency's efficiency and effectiveness. 

This testimony will also provide an update on the NRC's ongoing regulatory activities and our 

continuing efforts to adopt efficiencies and streamline agency processes where possible, while 

continuing to uphold the agency's important safety and security mission. In addition to our 

inspection and oversight programs, areas of significant activity include overseeing new reactor 

construction, reviewing applications for small modular reactors (SMRs), preparing to review 

advanced non-light water reactor designs and accident tolerant fuel (ATF) designs, and 

conducting reviews of applications for subsequent license renewal and consolidated interim 

spent fuel storage facilities. 
9 


36163.003

We recognize that the agency needs to enhance our use of risk-informed, innovative 

approaches and embrace new and diverse ideas in a changing regulatory environment. If 

the number of operating plants continues to decrease in the coming years, the agency's 

budget will reflect appropriate and commensurate decreases. The NRC will continue to 

improve the accuracy and realism of its cost and schedule projections for regulatory actiom 

so that the Congress, the public, and regulated entities will be more fully informed. 

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST 

The NRC FY 2020 budget request, including resources for the NRC's Office of the Inspector 

General (OIG), is $921.1 million, including 3,062 full-time equivalents (FTE). The FY 2020 

budget request represents an increase of $10.1 million, or 1.1 percent, when compared to the 

FY 2019 enacted budget. This requested increase in resources is due to the inclusion of $38.5 

million, including 77 FTE, to support licensing activities for the proposed Yucca Mountain deep 

geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive waste. 

In FY 2020. the NRC proposes to recover $759.6 million of the requested FY 2020 budget from 

fees assessed to NRC licensees and applicants. This will result in a net appropriation of 

$161.5 million, which is an increase of $31.4 million when compared to the FY 2019 enacted 

budget, with $38.5 million to be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund for licensing activities 

related to Yucca Mountain. 

FY 2019 Proposed Fee Rule 

I would like to turn briefly to some key elements of the FY 2019 Proposed Fee Rule. Annually, 

the NRC adjusts its licensing, inspection, special project, and annual fees charged to its 

2 
10 


36163.004

applicants and licensees. These adjustments are necessary to implement the requirements of 

the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. The Act requires the NRC to recover 

approximately 90 percent of its annual budget through fees. Based on the Act and the FY 2019 

enacted budget, the following items are excluded from the fee-recoverable portion of the budget 

in the FY 2019 Proposed Fee Rule: international activities, advanced reactor technologies 

regulatory infrastructure activities, generic homeland security activities, Waste Incidental to 

Reprocessing activities, and Inspector General Services for the Defense Nuclear Facilities 

Safety Board. 

Based on the FY 2019 enacted budget, the NRC is currently proposing to collect $781.9 million 

in fees for FY 2019, a decrease from $789.3 million in FY 2018. Proposed annual fees for FY 

2019 have increased for operating reactors, some materials users, and Department of Energy 

(DOE) transportation activities, while the annual fees for spent fuel storage/reactor 

decommissioning, research and test reactors, fuel facilities, and the facilities covered by the 

DOE Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act Program have decreased. Proposed annual 

fees for non-DOE uranium recovery licensees remained unchanged. 

The NRC held a public meeting on the proposed fee rule on February 13, 2019, which 

included presentations relating to budget formulation. The public comment period for the FY 

2019 Proposed Fee Rule ended on March 4, 2019. Regulated entities continue to express 

concerns regarding fee increases, particularly in areas where the number of licensees is 

declining. The NRC is mindful of the impact on fees as the number of licensees declines 

within a fee category. Our goal is to ensure that fees are equitable, fair, and transparent. We 

monitor these dynamics and seek to mitigate the impact on the remaining licensees, where 

possible. 

3 
11 


36163.005

FY 2020 Budget Request 

I would now like to highlight specific elements of the FY 2020 budget request. 

Nuclear Reactor Safety 

The NRC's Nuclear Reactor Safety Program encompasses licensing and oversight of civilian 

nuclear power plants, research and test reactors, and medical isotope production facilities to 

protect public health and safety. This program contributes to the NRC's safety and security 

strategic goals through the activities of the Operating Reactors and New Reactors Business 

Lines that regulate existing and new nuclear reactors and medical isotope production facilities to 

ensure their safe and secure operation. 

Overall resources requested in the FY 2020 budget for Nuclear Reactor Safety are $449.5 

million, including 1,824 FTE. This represents a funding decrease of $9.9 million when 

compared to the FY 2019 enacted budget. Primarily, the reduction is a result of activities 

associated with the planned merger of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) and the 

Office of New Reactors (NRO). These two program offices are on track to integrate by October 

of this year, earlier than previously planned. The merger of NRR and NRO will provide flexibility 

and improved agility to manage uncertainties associated with the workloads in both the 

Operating Reactors and New Reactors Business Lines. In addition, there will be efficiencies 

gained and elimination of redundancies in certain technical programs, administrative support, 

and supervisory and management oversight. The budget request also proposes $15.5 million 

for the continued development of a regulatory infrastructure for advanced nuclear reactor 

technologies. 

Operating Reactors 

4 
12 


36163.006

The Operating Reactors Business Line portion of the Nuclear Reactor Safety Program 

encompasses the regulation of 96 operating civilian nuclear power reactors and 31 research 

and test reactors. The NRC is requesting $361.6 million for operating reactors, including 1,485 

FTE, which represents a decrease of $3.6 million from the FY 2019 enacted budget. When 

compared to the FY 2019 enacted budget, the resources for research activities appear to 

increase because $10.4 million was funded through the application of authorized prior-year 

carryover in FY 2019. Overall, resources decrease when compared to the FY 2019 total budget 

authority. 

The decrease in funding within the Operating Reactors Business Line is primarily due to the 

permanent closure of Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station and the pending closures of the 

Pilgrim and Three Mile Island reactors. The decrease is also a result of fewer requests from the 

States for replenishment of potassium iodide supplies, efficiencies in processing licensing 

actions, and the completion of post-Fukushima flooding and integrated assessment work. The 

NRC is reviewing three applications for subsequent license renewal for Turkey Point Nuclear 

Generating Station in Florida, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station in Pennsylvania, and the 

Surry Power Station in Virginia. If approved, they would extend operations at each of these 

plants for an additional 20 years. 

The NRC is committed to enabling the safe use of existing and new technologies, especially 

those that have the potential to increase safety at NRC-regulated facilities. The U.S. nuclear 

industry, with DOE's assistance, is planning to deploy A TF in the operating fleet by the mid2020s. In 2018, the NRC developed a project plan to align agency regulatory readiness with 

industry and fuel vendor plans for regulatory submittals. In FY 2020, the NRC staff will continue 

5 
13 


36163.007

to engage with vendors, licensees, DOE and other stakeholders to ensure all sides are 

prepared for licensing and oversight of ATF. 

New Reactors 

The New Reactors Business Line portion of the Nuclear Reactor Safety Program is responsible 

for licensing and overseeing the design, siting, and construction of new nuclear power reactors, 

including SMRs and advanced reactors, in an efficient manner. The new reactors activities are 

designed to ensure that new civilian nuclear power reactor facilities are developed in a manner 

that protects the health, safety, and security of the public. 

The FY 2020 budget request for new reactors is $87.8 million, including 339 FTE, a funding 

decrease of $6.3 million when compared to the FY 2019 enacted budget. The decrease in 

funding within the New Reactors Business Line is primarily due to delays in application 

submittals, projects nearing completion, and efficiencies gained in several critical areas, 

including the merger of NRR and NRO. During FY 2020, the NRC expects to continue 

reviewing the reactor design certifications for the NuScale SMR and the U.S. Advanced 

Pressurized-Water Reactor (a large light water reactor), as well as the renewal of General 

Electric-Hitachi's Advanced Boiling-Water Reactor design certification. 

The NRC is accelerating its activities related to the development of regulatory infrastructure to 

support reviews of advanced reactor technologies. Regarding future new reactors, the NRC 

continues to interact with vendors about prospective SMR and advanced reactor applications. 

Additionally, we will continue to refine our regulatory processes as we prepare to review these 

potential applications. 

6 
14 


36163.008

Nuclear Materials and Waste Safety 

The Nuclear Materials and Waste Safety Program is responsible for licensing, regulating, and 

overseeing nuclear materials in a manner that adequately protects the public health and safety. 

The agency's work provides assurance of the physical security of the materials and waste and 

protection against radiological sabotage, theft, or diversion of nuclear materials. Through this 

program, the NRC regulates uranium processing and fuel facilities; research and pilot facilities; 

and other nuclear materials licensees such as medical, industrial, research, and academic uses. 

Additionally, through this program, the NRC regulates: spent fuel storage; spent fuel and other 

nuclear material transportation and packaging; decontamination and decommissioning of 

facilities; and low-level and high-level radioactive waste. 

The FY 2020 budget request for this program is $165.7 million, including 564 FTE. This funding 

level represents an increase of $34.7 million when compared to the FY 2019 enacted budget. 

This increase is due to the inclusion of $38.5 million in the budget request for continuing 

licensing activities for the proposed Yucca Mountain deep geologic repository for spent nuclear 

fuel and high-level radioactive waste. 

Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation 

The Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation Business Line is responsible for licensing and 

overseeing the safe and secure storage of spent fuel and the safe and secure transport of 

radioactive materials. The FY 2020 budget request for spent fuel and transportation is $24.2 

million, including 101 FTE. When compared to the FY 2019 enacted budget, the resources for 

licensing activities appear to increase because $2.4 million was funded in FY 2019 through the 

application of authorized prior-year carryover. However, resources decrease when compared to 

the FY 2019 total budget authority. In addition to licensing and overseeing independent spent 

7 
15 


36163.009

fuel storage installations, transportation packages, and storage casks, this business line has two 

reviews under way for consolidated interim spent fuel storage facilities- one submitted by 

Holtec International for a proposed facility in New Mexico and another requested by Interim 

Storage Partners for a facility in Texas. The NRC anticipates the completion of both reviews by 

mid-2020. 

Nuclear Materials Users 

The Nuclear Materials Users Business Line portion of the Nuclear Materials and Waste Safety 

Program supports the licensing and oversight necessary to ensure the safe and secure 

processing and handling of radioactive materials in medical, industrial, and academic 

applications. This business line also provides Tribal coordination and programmatic oversight of 

Agreement States that have assumed NRC regulatory authority under the Atomic Energy Act of 

1954. The FY 2020 budget request for nuclear materials activities is $59.1 million, including 

205 FTE, a funding decrease of $1.4 million when compared to the FY 2019 enacted budget. 

The recent agreement with the State of Wyoming was signed on September 25, 2018, and 

became effective on September 30, 2018. The State of Vermont has applied to become an 

Agreement State and, if approved, would bring the total number of Agreement States to 39 by 

FY 2020. 

Decommissioning and Low-Level Waste 

The Decommissioning and Low-Level Waste (LLW) Business Line portion of the Nuclear 

Materials and Waste Safety Program supports licensing and oversight of uranium recovery 

facilities, sites undergoing decommissioning, and disposition of LLW from all civilian sources. 

The FY 2020 budget request for decommissioning and LLW is $22.9 million, including 93 FTE, 

an overall funding decrease of $1.9 million when compared to the FY 2019 enacted budget as a 

result of overseeing fewer operating uranium recovery facilities, completing support to the State 

8 
16 


36163.010

of Wyoming for the Agreement State transition, and nearing the expected license terminations 

for the former Humboldt Bay Power Plant in California, Zion Nuclear Power Station in Illinois, 

and LaCrosse Boiling Water Reactor in Wisconsin. The FY 2020 budget request provides 

funding for a number of major activities to include oversight of the national LLW management 

program, monitoring of DOE's Waste Incidental to Reprocessing determinations and related 

disposal actions at the Savannah River Site and the Idaho National Laboratory, and 

decommissioning activities for four research reactors and 20 power reactors. 

Fuel Facilities 

The Fuel Facilities Business Line portion of the Nuclear Materials and Waste Safety Program is 

responsible for ensuring that commercial nuclear fuel cycle facilities are licensed and operated 

in a manner that adequately protects public health and safety and promotes the common 

defense and security. The FY 2020 budget request for fuel facilities is $21 million, including 88 

FTE, which represents a funding decrease of $2.2 million when compared to the FY 2019 

enacted budget. This decrease in funding is primarily due to an expected decline in work 

associated with license renewal applications, a decrease in the anticipated number of license 

amendments, efficiencies gained as a result of changes to the Fuel Facilities Inspection 

Program and workload projections, a reduction in rulemaking activities involving enhanced 

security for special nuclear material, and elimination of workload associated with the MixedOxide Fuel Fabrication Facility. 

High-Level Waste 

The High-Level Waste Business Line portion of the Nuclear Materials and Waste Safety 

Program supports the NRC's activities for the proposed Yucca Mountain deep geologic 

repository for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive waste using 

9 
17 


36163.011

appropriations from the Nuclear Waste Fund. The FY 2020 budget request for high-level waste 

is $38.5 million, including 77 FTE. The FY 2020 resources would include support for the 

adjudicatory proceeding; infrastructure activities for facilities and information technology (IT) 

capabilities; rulemakings associated with the geologic repository operations area; and related 

support activities such as acquisitions, recruitment, staffing, and training. 

The NRC continues to provide monthly updates to Congress on its activities in response to the 

decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in In re Aiken 

County; these updates provide information on our effort to effectively spend the remaining 

limited unobligated carryover funds appropriated from the Nuclear Waste Fund for Yucca 

Mountain activities. At the beginning of FY 2019, there was approximately $430,000 remaining. 

Corporate Support 

The NRC's corporate support involves centrally managed activities that are necessary for 

agency programs to operate and achieve goals more efficiently and effectively and includes 

acquisitions, administrative services, financial management, human resource management, IT 

and information management, training, outreach, and policy support. The FY 2020 requested 

budget for corporate support comprises approximately 32 percent of the agency's total budget 

and reflects a decrease of $0.4 million when compared to the FY 2019 enacted budget. Within 

the Corporate Support Business Line, $6.6 million was funded in FY 2019 through the 

application of authorized prior-year carryover. However, when compared to the FY 2019 total 

budget authority, the FY 2020 budget request reflects a decrease of $7.0 million. The budget 

request supports continuing efforts to modernize IT, leverage common contracts and best 

practices to drive cost reductions and efficiencies, improve the management of major 

10 
18 


36163.012

acquisitions, focus on the highest value work, and improve the customer experience with federal 

services. 

Office of the Inspector General 

The NRC's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is a statutory entity whose mission is to 

independently and objectively audit and investigate programs and operations to promote 

effectiveness and efficiency, and to prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse. The FY 2020 

budget request for the NRC OIG is $13.3 million, which includes $11.3 million in salaries and 

benefits to support 63 FTE and $2.0 million in program support. These resources will support 

OIG auditing and investigation functions for both the NRC ($12.1 million) and the Defense 

Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ($1.2 million). 

CHANGING REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT 

The NRC has initiated efforts to implement requirements of the "Nuclear Energy Innovation and 

Modernization Act," which was signed into law on January 14, 2019. The legislation changes 

the way the NRC determines how fees are assessed to licensees and applicants, including 

limiting the annual charge to each operating reactor licensee, and includes requirements related 

to our fee invoicing process. The Act also specifies a cap on the percentage of the annual 

budget request that the NRC can devote to corporate support costs. These fee- and budgetrelated requirements take effect on October 1, 2020 (FY 2021 ). In addition, the legislation 

requires the NRC to take certain actions related to the licensing process for advanced reactors 

and research and test reactors while soliciting input from the Department Of Energy, industry, a 

diverse set of technology developers, and other public stakeholders. The legislation also 

includes a number of other provisions related to various topics. The NRC is progressing in each 

area to ensure timely implementation of the Act's requirements. 

11 
19 


36163.013

In January of this year, the NRC directed the staff to publish the Mitigation of Beyond-DesignBasis Events Rule, based on lessons learned from the March 2011 accident at Japan's 

Fukushima Daiichi plant. This rule is the result of seven years of activities that have tangibly 

enhanced safety at U.S. nuclear power plants. The NRC and its nuclear power plant licensees 

will continue to monitor and review post-Fukushima efforts outside of the rulemaking context, 

including analyses of whether additional safety improvements are necessary in response to 

updated site-specific seismic and flooding risk assessments. 

We are mindful of the importance of a highly skilled staff and the need to maintain our expertise 

while our workload continues to evolve. Strategic Workforce Planning is vital to helping the 

NRC identify the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary to perform our mission now and into 

the future. In addition to our continuing efforts to find efficiencies, use resources wisely, and 

streamline processes, the NRC has undertaken additional initiatives to ensure that our 

workforce is trained, equipped, and resourced to address current and future challenges. 

The NRC's focus on transformation and innovation continues. At last year's hearing, we 

reported that the Executive Director for Operations had established a Transformation Team 

whose charter was to identify potential transformational changes to our regulatory framework, 

culture, and infrastructure. In October of 2018, the Commission held a public meeting, entitled 

Transformation at the NRC. At this meeting, the Commission met with NRC staff and two 

external panels that included nuclear industry, other Federal agencies, and non-governmental 

organizations to discuss the NRC staff's recommendations in a paper that is now before the 

Commission. The Commission has scheduled a second public meeting on this topic. 

12 
20 


36163.014

Separately, the agency sought assistance from a consulting firm to evaluate how industry and 

the NRC's regulatory environment might look in 2025 and beyond. In January 2019, the NRC 

published a report on those findings. The report, entitled ''The Dynamic Futures for NRC 

Mission Areas," describes four possible scenarios or hypotheses to inform the agency's nearand mid-term planning related to budget, workload, workforce issues, agency organization and 

structure, and opportunities to innovate. The NRC staff is currently evaluating the report and 

will prepare a paper seeking Commission approval by June 30, 2019. This paper will discuss 

how the staff will monitor conditions to determine which scenarios may be unfolding and will 

identify actions that would be beneficial to meet the future regulatory environment. 

CLOSING 

In conclusion, safety and security have always been the main focus of the NRC. The FY 2020 

budget request reflects the NRC's continuing efforts to achieve additional efficiencies while 

maintaining reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety and the 

security of our Nation. 

Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and distinguished members of the Committee, 

this concludes my written testimony. On behalf of the Commission, thank you for the 

opportunity to appear before you and also for your support of the vital mission of the NRC. We 

are pleased to respond to your questions. Thank you. 

13 
21 


36163.015

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Hearing Entitled "Oversight of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission" 

April 2, 2019 

Chairman Barrasso: 

QUESTION 1. This year the Commission is spending about $20 million in 

carryover funding from Fiscal Year (FY) 2018. 

a) What is the current projected amount of carryover funding 

expected to remain at the end of FY 2019? 

b) How is NRC accounting for projected carryover as it proceeds 

with the final fee rulemaking for FY 2019 and the FY 2020 budget 

management planning process? 

ANSWERS. 

a) As of April 30, 2019, the projected amount of fee-based unobligated carryover expected to 

remain at the end of FY 2019 is in the range of $20 million to $30 million. The agency continues 

to refine its projection for fee-based unobligated carryover funding as it completes its mid-year 

review. 

b) With respect to FY 2019, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA-90), as 

amended, requires the NRC to recover approximately 90 percent of its annual appropriated 

budget through fees, less certain amounts excluded from this fee-recovery requirement. Fees 

are collected on new appropriations only. The NRC does not assess fees in the current fiscal 

year for any carryover because carryover is appropriated in previous fiscal years and fees would 

have been assessed in the fiscal year in which it was appropriated. The FY 2020 budget 

request does not assume the use of any carryover. The NRC provides information to Congress 

regarding carryover balances throughout the year, such as in the monthly Congressional Status 

Report submitted in accordance with section 402(e) of the Energy and Water Development and 

Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019. 
22 


36163.016

QUESTION 2. 

ANSWER. 

The shrinking number of licensees in the fuel cycle facilities fee 

class may place additional resource constraints on NRC's fuel cycle 

regulatory and oversight programs. 

a) Last year, NRC staff proposed adjusting the fee calculation for 

fuel cycle facility licensees. Is NRC committed to providing 

predictable annual charges for fuel cycle facility licensees? 

b) How is NRC aligning staff needs to reflect the limited number of 

fuel cycle licensees? 

a) The NRC is committed to using a fair, equitable, and transparent process for its 

decisionmaking, including with respect to how fees are calculated each year. The fees 

assessed to licensees and applicants by the NRC must conform to OBRA-90, which requires 

the NRC to collect approximately 90 percent of its annual appropriated budget (less certain 

excluded items) through both user fees and annual fees. Regarding the fuel facilities fee class, 

the NRC has taken steps to right-size the budget to ensure that it reflects the reduced workload 

in the business line. In a public meeting conducted on February 13, 2019, on the FY 2019 

proposed fee rule, the NRC provided an overview of the Fuel Facilities Business Line budget, 

which included a discussion of major activities, the budget planning process (e.g., workload 

forecasting, types of work, and inspection activities), and 10 CFR part 170 user fees and 

10 CFR part 171 annual fees for the fuel facilities fee class. 

The NRC provides cost estimates for common licensing and inspection services on the NRC's 

public website. The available cost estimates are offered to enhance stakeholder awareness of 

the costs associated with these services and to aid licensees and applicants in the planning and 

budgeting of future applications. These cost estimates are developed through a sampling of 

historic actions, and actual costs may vary depending on the specific circumstances. The NRC 

2 
23 


36163.017

encourages licensees and applicants to engage the NRC early in the process when submitting 

new licensing requests. Licensees are encouraged to work with their NRC project manager to 

discuss details of any specific application. 

b) The NRC continues to look for efficiencies within the fuel facilities program. The Fuel 

Facilities Business Line is focusing efforts to align the agency's program of work in the fuel 

facilities area to workload projections and continuing to risk-inform the regulatory framework for 

these activities. In the coming months, the NRC will be sharing opportunities for the public and 

industry to engage in these efforts with a goal of identifying and realizing additional efficiencies 

in the licensing and oversight of fuel facilities while maintaining adequate protection consistent 

with the NRC's mission. 

3 
24 


36163.018

QUESTION 3. The Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research conducts research to 

support other NRC program offices. The supporting offices provide 

funding to the research office to carry out research activities. 

a) Please provide the total Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 

budget for FY 2018 and projected total budget for FY 2019. Please 

break down the funding office and provide a description of each 

project. 

ANSWER. 

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Budget for FY 2018 and FY 2019 

are not 

prior-year carryover of $7.7 million in FY 2018 and $10.4 million in FY 2019 are included in 

the table 

4 
25 


36163.019

FY1811~ P~Gject 

Title · 

Seismic Analysis . This research assesses the probability 

and Evaluation I and consequences of seismic events for l nuclear facilities, including Commission-

! directed activities following the 

1 Fukushima earthquake and tsunami. 

I Objectives include updated seismic 

I hazard assessments and ground motion 

Operating 

Reactors, New 

Reactors 

Structural and I This research assesses the in;tt;;;engarit~y;-;o;tf,-i(;n.:;r;t;r;;) ___ l 

Geotechnical I structural elements of nuclear facilities 

I models. 

Structural and 

Geotechnical 

Evaluations I (e.g., walls, foundations, and supports), 

I including their ability to withstand design 

i basis impacts and loads. A key 

, I research focus area is to evaluate 

I j i aging-related degradation of concrete 

I I I structures during long-term reactor 

finstrumentationr SafetY of l&cl·?~~~~~rch primari!Ysupportsthe-

! and Controls I implementation of Commission direction 

! (I&C) I to modernize the regulatory 1 I infrastructure for digital I&C, including 

I the assessment of issues such as 

1 common cause failure and embedded 

I digital devices. 

Security of I&C l This research primarily supports the 

; assessment of cybersecurity risks and 

I threat mitigation for nuclear facilities. as 

I 

well as evaluating the effects of 

electromagnetic pulses and 

geomagnetic disturbances on nuclear 

· facilities. ~E :--c-..:--:---+---:::c-:-=---=---'-==:::-="-----,- 1 lectncal able and This research assesses the integrity 

I Equipment Aging I and reliability of cables and electrical 

I equipment in nuclear power plants. A 

, key research focus area is to evaluate 

I I aging-related degradation of cables 

New 

Reactors 

Operating Reactors 

i Operating Reactors 

I 

Operating ReactorS] 

L----·---·----+ during Jong-terfll_Ieactor ()Jl§l!_ation. --· 

I 

:.• Electrical System 1 This research assesses the reliability of I Operating Reactors 

I Evaluation 1 electrical power systems at nuclear 

1 i I power plants, including batteries, I 

L.____---+-----.. --- i breakers, and sw~ear:.;----;:;;---...,.--1\-:::c-.....,---=--:---j I Materials , Evaluation 1 This research evaluates the efficacy of I. Operating Reactors 

I Performance Techniques 1 non-destructive examination 

1 methodologies for nuclear power plant 

I components, including new and 1 I emerEl~hno~~ro~p~o~s~e~d~b~y ____ L_ ____________ ~ 

5 
26 


36163.020

T!lcbnical 

Area 

Operating 

Experience 

I FY18119 Pr6ject 

Title 

Description · · Business l.ine(s) I 

I industry to improve the reliability and I 1 

L efficiency of examinatl~~-------~ I J j Integrity Analysis This research develops computational !operating Reactors 1 

I Tool Development tools to Independently confirm licensee I , '1 and Guidance analyses for the failure of piping I ,

1

1 

systems using probabilistic fracture I 

1

1 mechanics, thereby supporting safety I i 

evaluations and reviews of inspection 1 1 

I relief requests. I I - t 

I

! Steam Generator This research provides support for Operating Reactors 1 

, Integrity evaluating steam generator tube 1 

I I inspection methodologies and integrity _II 

! 1 analyses. A key focus is new and 

I 1 emerging technologies proposed by 

~ I industry to improve the reliability and 

1

1 

I efficiency of examinat,io"-'n'?Cs'--. --~-,--+:o---:-:----::::---:---1 Materials 1 Th1s research assesses the corros1on Operating Reactors 1 

Degradation, , and 1rrad1at1on-ass1sted degradation of 1 

Analysis, and I reactor components A key research 

I Mitigation 1 focus area IS to evaluate ag;ng-related 

I Techniques I degradation of reactor vessel internals 

~ 1 during long-term operation. 

1 P1ping and Other 1 This research provides support for 1 Components I developing computational models to 

1 Integrity I analyze the structural integrity of reactor 

I

I components, thereby supporting safety 

I 

evaluations and reviews of inspection II 

relief requests. 

~---;-:-----1 Operating 

Reactors, New 

Reactors 

1 Vessel Integrity This research assesses the structural 1 Operating Reactors I 1 (reactor pressure integrity of the reactor pressure vessel, I • 

1 vessel and particularly ~rrad1at1on-mduced 1 

~.':..'l<Ji~ §_ll1lJI}l!IE)!11.E'I1~~-~-~~--~--~~------~i i Storage (Dry This research assesses the potential for 1 Spent Fuel Storage 1 

1 Cask, I corrosion or aging-related degradation 1 and Transportation I 

1 Transportation) of spent nuclear fuel dry storage casks, 1 I 

I as well as the efficacy of in-service non- I ! 

i destructive examination methodologie~c.l__ ----1 

I

I Accident This Commission-directed program I Operating Reactors 1 

Sequence maintains the NRC's tool for long-term 1 1 

1 Precursor risk-informed trending of industry-wide 1 j 

I 

Program operatmg expenence of all events that I i occur at U.S. commercial nuclear power ~- I 

~~- i 

I Reactor Operating This program provides up-to-date event -~' Operating Reactors I 

Experience 1 frequencies and component reliabilities 

Program j for use in NRC and licensee 

-~~-~~~- --~~ Jlf,<J_tJ_i3_bll!stic risk assessment (£'13_/l-)_~L-~~~~_____; 

6 
27 


36163.021

I 

r External I This research involves assessing Operating Reactors 

I . Commission-directed Process for 

Hazards 

1

. external hazards in PRAs, including the II 

I Ongoing Assessment of Natural 

1 Hazards Information POANHI effort 

I 

Probabilistic Flood This research activity will provide Operating 

I

. Hazard improved guidance and tools for Reactors, New 

Assessment probabilistic assessment of flooding Reactors 

Research hazards and potential impacts to 

II i structures, systems and components for I , use in the oversight of operating [ I 1 facilities as well as licensing of new 1 

I Human Factors I Drug-and-Alcohol- ensures that the Operating 

'I Research I Related Fitness- NRC's regulations are consistent with 

1 for-Duty and up-to-date information on rapidly I Fatigue evolving drug and drug-test subversion 

· Management technologies needed to provide 

Research effective oversight of licensees' fitnessfor-dut ro rams. 

Safety Culture This activity provides technical expertise 

Inspections and related to human and organizational 

I

I Technical performance to support the agency's 

Assistance safety culture and policymaking 

~ activities. · -H,_u_m_a_n_--if-:-H:-u_m_a_n-:R::-e-:l-:-ia-;-b"'ili::-ty-+-:;T"'h is'"'c~o""m"-m-cis-s-cio-n--'"'"di:-re-c-,-te-d-,--re-s-e-a-rc-ch--hoc-p-e-ra-:t in-g-:R::-e-a-c-,-to-r-sReliability Analysis Data I effort involves obtaining up-to-date 

Research Collection human reliability analysis (HRA) data to 

support PRA analyses and improved 

realism. 

Fire Research 

Human Reliability 

Analysis Methods 

Fire Risk Training 

This research effort was initiated from 

Commission direction to reduce 

1 variability in the use of HRA methods 1 contributing to the variability of 

PRA/HRA results. 

This program supports the agency's 

policy to increase the use of PRA 

technology by providing training for fire 

protection programs in fire PRA, circuit 

analysis, fire analysis, HRA, and 

Operating Reactors 

f-c'"7:--:-'"7:----,--+-a::O:d'-'v"'a"-nc,e"-'d'cf'-"ir.o:..e. modelil}fL_·---·----·t-;;;:-:-ccc-;-:---;:;----·:----1 High-Energy Arc This activity involves performing 

Faults Testing experiments to obtain data on the highenergy arc fault (HEAF) phenomena to 

develop an improved mechanistic model 

to account for failure modes and 

7 
28 


36163.022

i'TeChfliCal 

f-_ Area 

I consequence portions of HEAF. This 

I research entails characterizing and 

Business Line(s) 

i understanding HEAF hazards to reduce 

1 uncertainties and provide realism in fire 

·,---cc--=-..JI-'P='R..,.Acc..in the §.r.§.'!_Qf HEAF modelin~·~-:-+-o::---cc--~--:-~ 

Support for Fire I This research involves the development I Operating Reactors 

Protection I and implementation of tools, methods, II 

Activities I and data to improve realism in fire 

I PRAs to support risk-informed i 1 

'--cR=-isc-k:-A:-n-a-cly_s_,is-;-: -c:Rccis-ck-A-:--n-a:-ly-s,-is ---K~~~~~~~~~~~u-des researchto---t Operating'R63'ctors , 

Research Research I maintain state-of-the-art risk I 1 assessment methods, tools, data, and 

! technical information to support the 

! agency's safety mission and increasing 

1 use of risk-informed regulatory 

!----------- ______________ L9_l2_cisi_onGJ_§~lo_g~-------------- . LDevelopment and I This activity includes the development I Operating 

Enhancement of I and enhancement of risk analysis tools I Reactors, New 

NRC Risk I to provide the agency with the capability I Reactors ,I 

Analysis Tools 'I to perform independent risk I 1 

1 assessments and supports risk- 1 1 

+inf()rn<f:Jd regulat()ry_a_ctil!~if:l~------ _ --+ ___ __ _ ---1 

Level 3 PRA , Th1s Commission-directed activity I Operating Reactors 1 

ProJect (full s1te I involves research on the state-of- 1 1 

mult1-un1t nsk I pract1ce methods tools, and data I 

assessment) 

1 

reflectmg advances m the appl1cat1on of I 

PRAs to gam new 1ns1ghts on PRA for 1 

enhancing the agency s capabilities for I 

t-:o-c-c------c-'----:c:----:---:-:--:~tory dec1s1onmakmg 1 

Guidance and Development of 1 ThiS research supports the development 1 Operating 

I 

-~ 

I 

Standards Technical I of consensus standards on PRA and I Reactors, New 

Guidance for I guidance on the application of I Reactors 

Implementation of I approaches and methods in support of 1 

Risk-Informed 1 risk-informed dec1sionmaking. ' 

Accident 

Progression 

and Source 

Term Analysis 

I : 

Activities 1 --k---c:------i 

MELCOR CodeTThe MELC-ClR compi:itercodeis.atoOI ! Operating 

l ____ _ 

Development and 1 used to evaluate severe accident I Reactors, New 

Maintenance I analysis and potential source term 1 Reactors 

1 generation for nuclear reactors and I 

i spent fuel pools under design basis 

! accident and beyond-design-basis 

1 conditions. 

Severe Accident I Severe accident experimental research 1 Operating 

Verification and I provides a valuable phenomenological I Reactors, New 

Validation behavior assessment basis and Reactors 

1 validation framework to help ensure that 

_______ Lthe NRC will continue to have available 

8 

i ---l 

I 

i 

I 

I 

.J 
29 


36163.023

Technical FY18/19 Project Oescri'ptlon .·• Business.l.jn~($} 

Area ; Title .. ·. .. · .. ·· . 

I I audit tools that are sufficiently 

1 sophisticated to confirm industry I I calculations submitted to the NRC. : 

I 

Accident I Accident progression analyses. Operating 

Progression and 1 generally using MELCOR, support Reactors, New 

Source Term I independent regulatory decisionmaking Reactors 

Analysis . through confirmatory safety reviews of 

I power plant operator actions, license 

I amendment requests, and design 

certifications. 

Consequence I MACCS Code 1 The MACCS computer code is a tool Operating I I I Analysis I Development, 1 used to evaluate consequence analysis Reactors, New I I Maintenance, from potential severe accidents of Reactors I ! Verification, and nuclear reactors and spent fuel pools 

Operatin_g ____ j Validation under beyond-design-basis conditions. 

WinMACCS, The WinMACCS and MeiMACCS 

MeiMACCS, and computer codes provide a graphical Reactors, New I 

SECPOP Code user interface, code-to-code coupling, Reactors I 

Development and I post processing, and uncertainty 

Maintenance analysis; and SECPOP provides I 

I estimated population and economic 

data I to support MACCS analysis. 

Consequence Offsite consequence analysis, generally Operating 

I Analysis using MACCS, helps inform the Reactors, New 

technical bases and cost-benefit 1 Reactors 

analyses in support of rulemaking, I 

environmental, and regulatory 

decisionmaking. 

Radiation Dose Assessment The dose assessment computer codes Operating 

Protection Code (RASCAL, RADTRAD, GALE, and Reactors, New 

Analysis Development and HABIT) are tools used to evaluate dose Reactors 

Maintenance consequence calculations for accidents 

and events involving NRC-licensed 

facilities to confirm protective action 

recommendations and protective action 

decisions. I 

Radiation The radiation protection assessment I Operating 

Protection Code computer codes (VARSKIN, PiMAL, and Reactors, New 

Development and RadToolbox) are tools used to evaluate Reactors 

Maintenance radiation safety and protection of 

I workers and members of the public from I releases during normal and accident I conditions. 

Decommissioning The decommissioning assessment Decommissioning 

Code computer codes (DandO, VSP, and Low-Level 

-~·~•v>""~"' and MILDOS, and RESRAD) are tools used Waste 

t()_ evaluate IO,f1g~t~rrn __ ~t()ra,g~---

9 
30 


36163.024

Tech.nil:<!l 

Area 

Fuels and 

Neutronics 

Analysis 

ThermalHydraulics 

Analysis 

F¥18119 Project Oescrlptloh 

.· .···Title ··· 

1 I performance and associated evaluation 

L-----~ of decommissioning actions. 

I Radiation Radiation protection analysis evaluates 

I Protection radiation protection and event data and 

I Analysis 1 monitors ongoing radiation health 

I 1 effects research to ensure that the 

I 1 NRC's system of radiation protection is 

I adequately protecting public health and 

safety 

PARCS Code The PARCS computer code is a tool 

Development and used to evaluate core neutronic 

Maintenance phenomena during core cycle analysis 

and is often coupled with TRACE to 

I

' support thermal-hydraulic/neutronic 

systems analysis. 

SCALE Code The SCALE computer code is a tool 

Development and used to evaluate criticality safety, 

Maintenance reactor physics, radiation shielding, 

radioactive source term 

characterization, and sensitivity and 

uncertainty analysis. 

FAST Code The FAST computer code is a tool used 

Development and to evaluate fuel performance under 

Maintenance operating, anticipated transient and 

design-basis accident scenarios, 

evaluation of drying and long-term spent 

fuel storage, and confirmation of fuel 

Business. Line(s) I 

Operating 

Reactors, New 

Reactors, Nuclear 

Materials Users 

Operating 

Reactors, New 

Reactors 

Operating 

New 

Reactors 

Operating 

Reactors, New 

Reactors 

I 

I I 

Operating 

I 

l----:=---,---:----t-:s:"a"'fe=ty_g,"ri,t,e7r'-'ia:.:.·-,--:---:--:--:-----+-:c:--:c-------l Fuels and Fuels and Neutronics Analysis, 

Neutronics 

Analysis 

generally using PARCS, SCALE. and 

FAST, supports independent regulatory 

decisionmaking through confirmatory 

safety reviews of power plant operator 

actions, license amendment requests 

I 

(e.g., power uprates), and design 

certifications. 

Accident Tolerant 1 This activity supports independent and 

Fuels I collaborative efforts in evaluating the 

I technical bases and computer code 

I 

capabilities for potential accident 

tolerant fuel (ATF) applications. 

TRACE Code I The TRACE computer code is a tool 

Development and I used to evaluate coupled neutronic 

Maintenance II (with PARCS) and thermal-hydraulic 

!

transient behavior of nuclear reactor 

and plant systems under normal, 

abnormal, and accident conditions. 

10 

Reactors, New 

Reactors, Spent I 

Fuel Storage and 

I Transportation 

j 

Operating Reactors 1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

Operating I 

Reactors, New I 

Reactors 

I I 

I 

I I 
31 


36163.025

I Technical 

Area 

FY18J.19 Project 

Title 

Thermal-Hydraulic 

Verification and 

Validation 

Thermal-Hydraulic 

Analysis 

CFD Analysis 

Description ,,•' 

', 

Thermal hydraulic experimental 

research provides a valuable 

assessment basis and validation 

framework to help ensure that the NRC 

will continue to have available audit 

tools that are sufficiently sophisticated 

to confirm industry calculations 

submitted to the NRC. 

Thermal-Hydraulic Analysis, generally 

using TRACE in concert with the Fuels 

and Neutronics codes, supports 

independent regulatory decision making 

through confirmatory safety reviews of 

power plant operator actions, license 

amendment requests (e.g., power 

uprates), and design certifications. 

Commercial computational fluid 

dynamics (CFD) codes are used to 

conduct detailed thermal-hydraulic 

analysis to audit and confirm industry 

calculations submitted to the NRC and 

enhance system-level code predictive 

· capability by examining an area or 

phenomena more closely. 

I Computational Center (RSICC) at Oak 

' RSICC Support I The Radiation Safety Information 

! Ridge National Laboratory maintains a 

I I I 

database of computer codes that the 

. and minimally maintaining legacy 

Business l.ine(s) I 

I 

Operating 

Reactors, New 

Reactors 

Operating 

Reactors, New 

Reactors 

'Operating 

Reactors, New 

Reactors, Spent 

Fuel Storage and 

Transportation 

Operating Reactors 

I 'l__, 

-

NRC uses to help with code distribution 

I codes. 

1 SNAP Code -+1 ~T":-h"'-e'SS:c;N-;-A"'P~c-o-m-put'-e--r -c--od-:-e-p-ro-v7

id-:-e_s_a--+-:::0::-p-e-ra--:t-:-in-g-------1 

I

I I Development and I graphical user interface, code-to-code Reactors, New I 

I 

1 Maintenance coupling, post processing, and Reactors i 1 uncertainty analysis for assessment 

1

_ 

1

1 codes such as TRACE, PARCS, FAST, 

MELCOR, RADTRAD, and SCALE. 

lcl Generic Issues .

1 

Generic Issues These resources are for management of Operating Reactors 

Program the NRC-wide Generic Issues Program, 

including meeting Commission reporting l I 1 ~~~~~~~:s~!sa:~~;~~=ming the P __ u_bl-ic·---'---------_j 

b) What steps will the Commission take to increase transparency 

into the research office's activities? 

11 
32 


36163.026

ANSWER. 

The Commission is taking several steps to increase transparency of budgeting and program 

execution for the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES). Since FY 2017, RES has 

grouped distinct research projects into separate financial accounting structures referred to as 

Enterprise Project Identifiers (EPIDs). The EPIDs structure facilitates tracking and reporting on 

the use of staff time and contract funds and provides insights into trends where resources are 

increasing or decreasing within a research area. 

The Commission continues to emphasize transparency with respect to research progress and 

the anticipated outcomes of research activities. The Commission currently reports monthly to 

Congress on the initiation of new and significant research projects. Additionally, the 

Commission hosted a public briefing in May 2019 on the NRC research program and obtained 

external perspectives from representatives of industry, research laboratories, and academia. 

RES staff also regularly makes presentations on research projects to the public and peers in the 

technical community at conferences, at working meetings, and during public meetings. RES 

has begun conducting program reviews with internal and external stakeholders to inform 

decisions on program activities. Additionally, the staff frequently gives public briefings on 

research activities to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS). Also, the ACRS 

conducts a biennial review of the NRC research program with the findings reported to the 

Commission. These reviews are posted publicly on the NRC's website. 

ANSWER. 

c) How much of the research office's activities are conducted 

through contracts with non-NRC entities? 

RES has a total FY 2019 budget of $41.2 million contracting dollars and 208 full-time 

equivalents (FTE), which equates to a total budget of $79.6 million. Therefore, approximately 

12 
33 


36163.027

50 percent of the RES budget is used to fund contracts with non-NRC entities, the largest 

number of which are Interagency Agreements with Department of Energy (DOE) National 

Laboratories. 

ANSWER. 

d) How many active contracts for FY 2019 research are funded with 

FY 2018 money? 

As of April 2019, RES has 199 active contracts that were funded with either FY 2018 or FY 

2019 appropriations. Of those, 178 (89%) were funded, at least in part, with the FY 2018 

appropriation, and there are 21 (11%) new contract awards with funds appropriated in FY 2019. 

It is typical for RES commercial contracts or Interagency Agreements to have a period of 

performance extending over more than one fiscal year to undertake long-term tests or studies. 

The average RES contract length is approximately 40 months. 

QUESTION 4. NRC proposes an increase from its FY 2019 proposed budget of $6.2 

million to $53.3 million of the Operating Reactor budget proposal to 

the Research program. The bulk of work in the Office of Research 

originates with user need requests from the Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation (NRR). Given the overall reduction in licensing 

actions in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation from 2017 to 

present as well as the anticipated closures of existing operating 

reactors, what additional research is required and why is the 

research budget not reducing by an amount commensurate with 

anticipated reactor shutdowns and reduced work load? 

13 
34 


36163.028

ANSWER. 

The FY 2020 budget request for research activities within the Operating Reactors Business Line 

represents a decrease of $4.2 million when compared to the FY 2019 total budget authority for 

these activities. In FY 2019, research activities within the Operating Reactors Business Line 

were funded, in part, through the application of authorized prior-year carryover, which is not 

reflected in the FY 2019 enacted budget. Specifically, the total FY 2019 resources for these 

research activities included the enacted budget of $47.1 million and the authorized carryover of 

$10.4 million, resulting in a total budget authority of $57.5 million. Appendix I, "FY 2019 Total 

Budget Authority Comparison," in the FY 2020 Congressional Budget Justification provides 

additional details. 

The general direction of research needs for the Operating Reactors Business Line continues 

downward with the closure of existing plants and the maturity of existing technology. However, 

the remaining plants continue to invest in new technology, capabilities to support operational 

flexibilities, and extended plant lifetimes. Additionally, research is needed to support new 

inspection methods, confirmatory analysis to support changes in power operation, agency 

readiness for A TF designs, and advanced manufacturing methods. Furthermore, the agency 

continues to invest in advancing risk-informed tools with a goal of focusing licensing reviews on 

the most risk significant activities. 

QUESTION 5. Advanced nuclear reactor designs will need fuel enriched at levels 

above what is currently commercially available. This fuel is known 

as high-assay, low-enriched uranium (HA-LEU). 

a) Has NRC staff identified preliminary activities necessary to 

license, certify, and regulate HA-LEU fuel cycle facilities and 

transportation canisters? 

14 
35 


36163.029

ANSWER. 

b) Does NRC expect regulations of category-2 fuel cycle facilities 

will need revisions as part of HA-LEU efforts? 

a) Yes, the NRC staff has developed a strategy to ensure that it is ready to review potential 

applications for non-light water reactor technologies effectively and efficiently. In support of 

these activities, the NRC staff has reviewed available information on industry plans to produce, 

possess, and transport high-assay, low-enriched uranium (HALEU) material for use in light 

water reactors and advanced reactors. The staff has also discussed the fuel cycle industry's 

HALEU plans with industry representatives and potential applicants and intends to continue 

actively engaging stakeholders on these activities. Although not policy challenges, there are 

some issues that the industry would need to address to facilitate the production of HALEU and 

the fabrication of fuel using HALEU. Uranium enrichers produce uranium hexafluoride and ship 

it to fuel fabricators to be made into reactor fuel. Transportation shipping containers for HALEU 

in the form of uranium hexafluoride do not currently exist in a form that would make shipping 

economically feasible. Similarly, new shipping packages for fresh HALEU reactor fuel would 

need to be developed and certified. Additionally, there is currently a lack of criticality 

benchmarks, which are used in the verification of criticality computer codes, for uranium 

enrichments at the HALEU levels. Without these benchmarks, additional safety precautions 

would have to be added to ensure that an inadvertent criticality does not occur. The additional 

safety precautions, such as requiring smaller packages or less throughput in plant systems, 

could impact the design of the transportation packages themselves, as well as the facilities 

producing and using the HALEU. 

b) No, the NRC staff expects to be able to license and regulate facilities that produce, possess, 

or use HALEU material without revising the regulations that apply to Category II facilities. Any 

15 
36 


36163.030

necessary requirements for the existing enrichment and fuel fabrication facilities could be 

established through issuance of orders or through the use of license conditions. 

QUESTION 6. 

ANSWER. 

Please describe specific actions of NRC's Accident Tolerant Fuels 

(ATF) licensing project plan which have been completed since 

September. 

a) What are the upcoming key milestones for NRC's ATF activities? 

Since issuance of the ATF Project Plan in September 2018, the NRC has been actively 

implementing the preparation strategy outlined in the plan. The NRC staff has completed the 

following activities since that time: 

Issued a draft regulatory issue summary (RIS) to solicit schedule information and to 

promote early and frequent communication with potential ATF applicants. 

Approved three transportation package authorizations to allow for the safe shipment of 

A TF lead test assemblies (L T As) to reactor sites. 

Finalized a letter to industry documenting the NRC staffs position on the regulatory 

paths associated with the use of L T As and submitted the letter to the Office of 

Management and Budget for review under the Congressional Review Act. 

Participated in and presented at six industry and NRC workshops and conferences to 

keep stakeholders aware of current activities related to implementation of the A TF 

Project Plan. 

Continued updating code architecture and incorporating materials property data of nearterm ATF concepts in the NRC's suite of computational tools (e.g., FAST, TRACE, 

SCALE, and MELCOR) and began assessment activities. 

16 
37 


36163.031

Held eight meetings with the nuclear fuel vendors to discuss and provide feedback on 

fuel qualification plans, testing matrices, phenomena important to safety, and licensing 

strategies for near-term A TF concepts. 

Held an internal NRC seminar to inform NRC staff of preparatory activities related to 

licensing ATF and potential future impacts on its work. 

Held monthly meetings with DOE ATF leads to enhance awareness of activities and 

promote early understanding and resolution of issues. 

Engaged the DOE CASL team on opportunities to leverage CASL tools in ATF 

confirmatory calculations and licensing reviews. 

Initiated the phenomena identification and ranking table (PIRT) exercise for the 

chromium-coated cladding ATF concept. An initial report was issued in January 2019, 

and a PIRT panel discussion with externally solicited experts was held in April2019. 

a) The following table outlines key upcoming milestones, through the end of the calendar year, 

for continued implementation of the ATF Project Plan. Note that this schedule was devised to 

enable ample external stakeholder engagement. 

Upcoming Milestone Date 

Complete Final PIRT Report for June 2019 Chromium-Coated Cladding 

I 

I Issue Final Letter to Industry on June 2019 

I Regulatory Paths for L T As I 

Issue RIS Soliciting ATF Information from July 2019 Fuel Vendors 

Issue Draft Staff Review Guidance for 

Chromium-Coated Cladding for Public September 2019 I 

Comment 

Complete Initial Plans for Enabling October 2019 Burnup and Enrichment Extension 

17 
38 


36163.032

Issue Final Staff Review Guidance for 

Chromium-Coated Cladding December 2019 

Receive First Chromium-Coated Cladding 

Topical Report for Review 

December 2019 j 

'--------------------' 

QUESTION 7. Last year, the NRC established a "Transformation Initiative" to 

identify new and modern approaches to achieve the Commission's 

mission in the 21st Century. In March, the Commission held its 

second meeting in six months to discuss this initiative. 

a) What are the next steps to develop and implement the initiative? 

ANSWER. 

The NRC transformation initiative is a broad-based effort to prepare organizational culture and 

processes to address a dynamic environment and become a modern, risk-informed regulator. 

Key ongoing activities that will facilitate transformation, and their next steps, are as follows: 

Futures Assessment- The Futures Assessment is an effort to gain insights into the NRC's 

future beyond 2025 by considering a range of scenarios that will affect workload, workforce, and 

opportunities to innovate. Those insights will better inform decisions about how and when to 

adjust to those changes that might occur in 2025 and beyond. The next step is seeking broad 

agency staff input via the NRC Futures Jam, a multi-day, agencywide conversation in a virtual 

environment to discuss how we can prepare for the various ways the future may unfold and 

identify some actionable items. The NRC Futures Jam is scheduled for June 18-20, 2019. 

Strategic Workforce Planning, Competency Modeling, and Learning Transformation -

Enhanced strategic workforce planning (SWP) is an NRC initiative to systematically integrate 

the agency's workload projection, skills identification, human capital management, individual 

development, workforce management, and organizational size and structure decisions to 

improve the accuracy of estimated resource needs, as well as to develop insights on the 

18 
39 


36163.033

appropriate size, function, and number of offices and regions. In addition, the NRC has initiated 

competency modeling and learning transformation projects to identify tasks and behaviors that 

define successful performance for key regulatory skills and positions and set a baseline for 

agencywide training and qualification requirements. The next step is to complete SWP Phase II 

by the end of July 2019 and make a determination on SWP Phase Ill (full implementation). 

Building on the previous pilot, Phase II covers 11 offices that account for approximately 79 

percent of the NRC workforce. Competency models for key skills are being developed in 

conjunction with SWP needs. 

Transformation Paper -In May 2018, the NRC staff provided SECY-18-0060, "Achieving 

Modern Risk-Informed Regulation," to the Commission. In this paper, the NRC staff has 

requested Commission approval of several significant and specific revisions to the NRC's 

regulatory framework and approaches to better enable the safe and secure use of new 

technology in civilian nuclear applications. This paper also provided information on several 

activities that are currently underway or will be implemented as a result of the transformation 

initiative, including actions to enhance and sustain a culture that embraces transformation at the 

NRC. The Commission has held two public meetings to gather insights and opinions to inform 

its deliberations on the paper as well as broader transformation issues. 

Innovate NRC Activities- In April 2017, the NRC created an Agency Innovation Forum with the 

mission to promote and foster innovation at the NRC and directed the creation of office-level 

innovation programs. The purpose of these innovation programs is to encourage the 

submission of ideas by staff; cultivate, evaluate. and process those ideas; provide feedback to 

staff on submitted ideas at each stage in the process; coordinate with other existing processes; 

and present staff-submitted ideas along with recommendations to management for decision on 

implementation. The next step is creation of an innovation engine (and process model) to set 

19 
40 


36163.034

clearer expectations for idea creation, adopt an enterprise-wide strategy for office forums, and 

ensure a process for prioritization and staffing of ideas. 

Collectively, these transformation initiatives represent the NRC's strategy to assure that the 

agency will have the workforce and tools to remain ready to accomplish its safety and security 

mission today and in the future. 

QUESTION 8. 

ANSWER. 

Last year, the Halden Research Reactor in Norway was permanently 

closed. This reactor provided unique testing capabilities. How is 

NRC collaborating, where appropriate, with the Department of 

Energy and industry stakeholders to replace capabilities lost due to 

the closure of Halden? 

The Halden Boiling Water Reactor (HBWR) provided irradiation and testing capabilities for 

nuclear fuels and materials experiments, primarily through international cooperation in the 

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Nuclear Energy Agency 

(OECD/NEA) Halden Reactor Project. The NRC sees the value and importance of irradiation 

testing capabilities for both fuels and materials data needs, particularly for currently licensed 

technologies, should a need arise for testing to confirm safety findings and for developing the 

safety basis for ATF. As a result, the NRC continues to engage DOE and industry stakeholders 

to pursue replacement capabilities for those lost due to the closure of the HBWR. 

The NRC participated in a DOE-led Halden Capability Gap Assessment Workshop in July 2018. 

This workshop informed a report published by Idaho National Laboratory (INL) in December 

2018, "Post-Halden Reactor Irradiation Testing for ATF: Final Recommendations." Revision 1 

(INL/EXT-18-46101). This report identified the key fuels and materials experimental capabilities 

available at the HBWR, assessed capability gaps relative to ATF, and recommended actions to 

20 
41 


36163.035

address the identified gaps, including the use of INL's Advanced Test Reactor and Transient 

Reactor Test Facility. NRC input was incorporated into this report through participation in the 

July 2018 workshop and review of the draft report prior to final publication. Through public 

meetings and other interactions, the NRC continues to be engaged with the progress made by 

DOE and its industry partners in completing the technical basis for ATF concepts and the 

associated testing needs, consistent with the memorandum of understanding addendum 

between the NRC and DOE on ATF. 

In addition, the NRC has been engaged and participated in workshops held by the OECD/NEA 

regarding a "Multinational NEA Framework for In-pile Fuel and Material Testing," including those 

held in January 2018, October 2018, and March 2019. These workshops have also been 

attended by DOE's national laboratory staff; U.S. industry researchers; U.S. fuel vendors; and 

international researchers, industry, and vendors. The objective of this NEA activity is to develop 

a framework to enable similar international cooperation as provided by the Halden Reactor 

Project for research at multiple test reactor facilities around the world. The NRC is closely 

engaged in these discussions and is considering options for participation as details become 

clearer. 

The NRC has continued to participate in technical and management meetings of the Halden 

Reactor Project. The current 3-year Halden Reactor Project Agreement started in 2018 and 

ends in 2020. The Halden members, which include DOE and U.S. fuel vendors, are interested 

in and continue to discuss options for initiating fuels and materials tests at other facilities. The 

NRC, through its continued Halden membership, participates actively in these discussions. In 

addition, the NRC maintains its membership in the OECD/NEA Studsvik Cladding Integrity 

Project (SCIP) in Sweden, which provides access to fuels testing capabilities through 

international cooperation. Obtaining data from SCIP will support the NRC's evaluation of the 

21 
42 


36163.036

future anticipated licensing applications for higher burnup fuels, higher enrichment fuels, and 

new fuel forms such as ATF. 

ANSWER. 

a) Does NRC foresee any gap in research and testing capabilities 

due to Halden's shutdown? 

Halden provided irradiation and testing capabilities for nuclear fuels and materials experiments 

through efficient international cooperation. For irradiated materials testing, the capabilities at 

Halden could be replicated at other facilities in the United States and internationally in the longer 

term (for example, at INL). However, the loss of Halden has significantly diminished the 

international capacity and expertise associated with conducting the long-term irradiation 

experiments necessary for materials research. It will take additional time and resources to 

reestablish appropriate capabilities at other facilities. In addition, the Halden Reactor Project 

afforded significant cost-sharing that enabled research at lower cost to the NRC and other U.S. 

members. As a result of these issues, the schedule and costs to implement the materials 

testing planned under the Halden Reactor Project will be substantially increased. 

For fuels testing, the NRC is aware of efforts by DOE and international research organizations 

to upgrade existing facilities with new capabilities to address gaps in the absence of the HBWR. 

With implementation of proposed improvements to existing DOE and international facilities 

combined with the use of lead test assembly and lead rod irradiations at U.S. operating 

reactors, the NRC does not foresee a gap in research and testing capabilities for fuels in the 

longer term. However, until enhancements can be made or new facilities begin operation, 

vendors may face challenges in performing prototypic loss of coolant accident, reactivity 

insertion accident, and ramp testing to support deployment of near-term ATF concepts in the 

mid-2020s. 

22 
43 


36163.037

QUESTION 9. 

ANSWER. 

In 2006, NRC initiated a rulemaking associated with the regulation of 

uranium recovery facilities. In 2010, that rulemaking was paused 

while EPA proceeded with their regulatory agenda. NRC staff 

recognized the uranium producing industry has dramatically 

changed over the last decade. In January, NRC requested public 

comments on whether to resume the rulemaking. I understand NRC 

staff granted a request to extend the public comment period by 60 

days. What is the path forward with this rulemaking and how long 

do you expect it to take? 

The NRC's purpose in initiating this rulemaking in 2006 was to standardize and streamline the 

licensing process for in situ uranium recovery facilities. On January 31, 2019, the NRC 

published a Federal Register notice (84 FR 574) requesting public comments on whether the 

NRC should resume this rulemaking. In response to a request by several non-governmental 

organizations, the NRC extended the closing date for the comment period by 60 days to May 3, 

2019 (84 FR 6979). The NRC staff is reviewing the comments and developing a 

recommendation to the Commission on whether to proceed with this rulemaking. If the 

Commission determines that rulemaking is warranted, a specific schedule for completing the 

rulemaking would be determined based upon its priority and the availability of resources. In 

general, NRC rulemakings take 3 to 4 years to complete. 

23 
44 


36163.038

QUESTION 10. 

ANSWER. 

The Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (NEIMA) 

requires that NRC report to Congress on the incorporation of 

consensus-based codes and standards into the regulatory 

framework to ensure predictability for the regulatory process and 

ensure timely completion of licensing actions. 

a) Is the Commission reviewing its process of accepting consensus 

standards? 

b) Has the Commission identified a path forward to identify needs 

for new, and or updated standards? 

c) Has the Commission reached out to scientific organizations, such 

as the American Nuclear Society, to assist in coordinating the input 

from the relevant Standards Developing Organizations? 

a) The NRC has an established process in place for accepting consensus codes and standards 

as described in the NRC Management Directive 6.5, "NRC Participation in the Development and 

Use of Consensus Standards," which was last updated on October 28, 2016. This process has 

been effectively applied to consensus standards for light-water reactors and is being utilized for 

consensus standards related to advanced non-light water reactors (non-LWRs). The process 

consists of three primary steps: (1) identifying and prioritizing the need for new and revised 

technical standards, (2) participating in codes and standards development, and (3) endorsing 

codes and standards. 

To assure that the NRC is ready to review potential applications for non-LWR technologies 

effectively and efficiently, the staff developed a strategy to facilitate industry codes and 

24 
45 


36163.039

standards needed to support non-LWRs: "NRC Vision and Strategy: Safely Achieving Effective 

and Efficient Non-Light Water Reactor Mission Readiness," published in December 2016. 

b) Working with DOE and the Standards Development Organizations (SDOs), the NRC is 

engaged in identifying and assessing gaps in standards for advanced reactors through various 

venues, including the NRC Standards Forum. the NRC Advanced Reactors Stakeholders 

Meetings, and SDO meetings. Based on stakeholder feedback. the NRC is currently placing a 

high priority on the endorsement of American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler 

and Pressure Vessel Code, Section Ill, Division 5, for high temperature materials and the nonLWR PRA standard being developed by the AS ME/American Nuclear Society (ANS) Joint 

Committee on Nuclear Risk Management. The NRC is also actively participating in several 

ANS standards working groups and consensus committees, such as the one developing ANS 

20.2, "Nuclear Safety Design Criteria and Functional Performance Requirements for Liquid-Fuel 

Molten-Salt Reactor Nuclear Power Plants." 

c) The NRC works with the SDOs, non-LWR designers, DOE, and other stakeholders to assist 

in the coordination of the development of new codes needed for non-LWR development. On 

September 11, 2018, the NRC held the third annual NRC Standards Forum, chaired by the 

NRC's Standards Executive. Approximately 70 attendees participated, representing SDOs such 

as ASME. ANS, the American Society for Testing and Materials, and the Institute of Electrical 

and Electronics Engineers: the industry; the Electric Power Research Institute; and DOE and 

DOE national laboratories. Several action items were initiated from the Standards Forum, 

including (1) the Nuclear Energy Institute volunteered to survey its members to identify and 

prioritize standards of interest. thus providing an industry "demand signal" for standards 

developers and the NRC, and (2) DOE offered to assist stakeholders in the nuclear power 

industry to find information to support standards development, particularly for non-LWRs, 

through the DOE Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear (GAIN) program. In addition, 

25 
46 


36163.040

the NRC worked with SDOs and other stakeholders during a May 2, 2018, workshop to develop 

a strategic vision for advanced reactors standards, This workshop provided an opportunity for 

designers, vendors, owners, regulators, and representatives of SDOs to discuss standards 

needs to support advanced reactors_ There were over 85 meeting attendees_ Insights from 

these workshops and other stakeholder engagement will inform NRC activities and priorities in 

the area of facilitating industry codes and standards needed to support non-LWRs and to inform 

the NRC's resource planning to prepare for NRC endorsement of consensus codes as 

appropriate_ 

QUESTION 11. NEIMA requires the NRC to use a risk-informed framework for the 

licensing and oversight of advanced nuclear technologies. FEMA's 

Technical Hazards Division (THD) provides input to NRC's 

emergency preparedness guidelines. The Radiological Emergency 

Preparedness (REP) Program coordinates planning, training and 

support policies for State, local, and tribal governments to respond 

to, and recover from potential incidents involving commercial 

nuclear power plants. 

a) Advanced nuclear technologies may offer significantly improved 

safety margins over existing large, light-water reactor designs. This 

allows for the revision of current emergency planning zone 

requirements. Is NRC communicating and sharing its risk-based 

process for advanced nuclear technologies with FEMA's REP 

Program? 

b) As NRC proceeds with implementing NEIMA, will NRC assure that 

emergency planning requirements are based on a risk-informed 

framework and communicate those requirements to FEMA? 

26 
47 


36163.041

ANSWER. 

a) The NRC staff has communicated and shared its risk-informed process for advanced nuclear 

technologies with the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) REP Program over 

the duration of the development of the consequence-oriented, risk-informed, performancebased, and technology-inclusive draft proposed rule on emergency preparedness for small 

modular reactors and other new technologies. The Commission is currently reviewing the draft 

proposed rule. The NRC engaged with FEMA during the development of the regulatory basis 

for the draft proposed rule and addressed FEMA's comments. Additionally, the NRC provides 

FEMA with regular briefings on the NRC's risk-informed process during the agencies' joint 

quarterly emergency preparedness steering committee meetings and annual In Progress 

Review meetings. 

b) The draft proposed rule is consequence-oriented, risk-informed, performance-based, and 

technology-inclusive. If the Commission approves publication of the proposed rule, the NRC 

staff will continue to engage with FEMA in discussions on the risk-informed emergency planning 

framework. In addition, the NRC emergency preparedness staff regularly presents updates on 

this rulemaking and other topics of interest to the Federal Radiological Protection Coordinating 

Committee, which is chaired by FEMA and has representatives from 20 Federal agencies. 

QUESTION 12. The Operating Reactors Business Line (ORBL) budget is reduced by 

barely 1% as compared to the FY 2019 enacted budget. This 

reduction does not seem commensurate with the reduction in 

operating plants as well as the resulting reduction in work. 

a) Why isn't the proposed ORBL budget reduced by an amount 

commensurate with the anticipated reactor shutdowns by FY 2020? 

27 
48 


36163.042

ANSWER. 

b) How did the NRC take future reactor shutdowns and decreased 

work load into account when formulating the ORBL budget? 

c) What is the NRC doing in formulating its FY 2021 ORBL budget to 

better account for anticipated plant shut downs and a corresponding 

decrease in work load? 

a) The FY 2019 total budget authority for the Operating Reactors Business Line included the 

application of authorized prior-year carryover (please refer to Appendix I, "FY 2019 Total Budget 

Authority Comparison," in the FY 2020 Congressional Budget Justification for a comparison of 

the FY 2020 budget request to the FY 2019 total budget authority). The FY 2020 request for the 

Operating Reactors Business Line represents a decrease of 4 percent, a decrease of $14 

million, including 48 FTE, when compared to the FY 2019 total budget authority. This decrease 

factored in the closures of Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, the announced closure of 

the Pilgrim and Three Mile Island nuclear generating stations, and the corresponding work 

associated with these closures. 

In addition, the FY 2020 request for the Operating Reactors Business line includes a $2 million 

increase in Information Technology (IT) resources largely due to a shift in IT resources from the 

Corporate Support Business Line to align Technical Library subscriptions and operations, and 

maintenance of the safeguards Local Area Network/Electronic Safe, with the mission area that 

they support. 

b) The Operating Reactors Business Line factored in reductions in the following areas because 

of the closure of Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station and the announced closure of the 

Pilgrim and Three Mile Island nuclear generating stations: (1) inspections, (2) licensing actions, 

(3) allegations and investigations, (4) research work, (5) rulemakings, (6) supervisory staff, and 

(7) administrative assistants. 

28 
49 


36163.043

c) The FY 2021 budget request will account for the closures of the Duane Arnold Energy 

Center and Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1. The NRC is using a systematic 

approach for reducing the Operating Reactors Business Line budget for FY 2021 and future 

fiscal years in response to announced plant closures and the impacted corresponding work. 

The agency will continue to monitor this approach and will adjust as needed. 

QUESTION 13. 

ANSWER 

The only NRC product line components of the Operating Reactors 

budget request that show an increase over FY 2019 are Oversight 

and Research. 

a) The Oversight product line proposed increase is $1.3 million to 

$115.5 million. With the number of plants decreasing in FY 2020, 

why is the amount of Oversight budget increasing? 

b) The NRC is currently considering a number of proposals through 

its Reactor Oversight Process enhancement effort that could 

potentially reduce inspection activities, and reduce the number of 

licensing actions that require NRC approval. How does the FY 2020 

budget request account for these potential improvements? 

a) The Oversight product line reflects an increase due largely to a shift in IT resources from the 

Corporate Support Business Line to align Technical Library subscriptions and operations, and 

maintenance of the safeguards Local Area Network/Electronic Safe, with the mission area that 

they support When excluding this increase, the Oversight product line decreased by $2.4 

million, including 15 FTE. This decrease is primarily due to the closures of Oyster Creek 

Nuclear Generating Station and the announced closure of the Pilgrim and Three Mile Island 

nuclear generating stations. 

29 
50 


36163.044

b) The NRC staff is currently preparing a paper to request Commission approval for changes to 

the Reactor Oversight Process (ROP}. That paper will be provided to the Commission in late 

June 2019. This proposal is not reflected in the FY 2020 budget request because it has not yet 

been considered by the Commission. 

Unrelated to the ROP enhancement effort, the NRC is pursuing various initiatives that could 

potentially reduce the future number of licensing actions that require NRC approval. These 

include risk-informed licensing approaches (e.g., Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF} 

Traveler TSTF-505 and 10 CFR 50.69, "Risk-Informed Categorization and Treatment of 

Structures, Systems and Components for Nuclear Power Reactors"} and the proposed 

rulemaking regarding facilities transitioning to decommissioning ("Regulatory Improvements for 

Production and Utilization Facilities Transitioning to Decommissioning," see SECY-18-0055}. 

These initiatives may result in a long-term reduction in licensing actions submitted to the 

agency, but those reductions are not anticipated to occur during FY 2020 and therefore are not 

reflected in the FY 2020 budget request 

QUESTION 14. 

ANSWER. 

NEIMA made a significant change to what can be recovered through 

NRC's fee process. In particular, the NRC will not be bound to 

recover approximately 90% of its appropriated funds in licensee 

fees, and will have significant flexibilities in defining off-fee-base 

activities. Has the NRC begun to assess how it will determine how it 

will identify these activities in its FY 2021 budget formulation? If so, 

please describe this effort. 

The NRC is proactively planning for the implementation of the budget- and fee-related 

provisions in NEIMA beginning in FY 2021 and is currently formulating its FY 2021 budget for 

30 
51 


36163.045

the Commission's consideration. This effort includes the identification of those excluded 

activities in accordance with the provisions of NEIMA. 

QUESTION 15. FY 2020 resources requested for NRC's Corporate Support 

activities are essentially flat compared to FY 2019 at $293M. 

This level is roughly 32% of the total request and includes an 

increase of two FTEs. NEIMA will cap the NRC's proposed 

Corporate Support budget at 30% of the budget starting in FY 

2021. It would seem appropriate to show progress to the 30% 

cap in FY 2020. How will NRC make the transition to this 

lower cap from FY 2020 to FY 2021? 

ANSWER. 

The FY 2020 President's Budget represents the required resources needed to support the 

agency's Corporate Support activities in FY 2020. The agency is continuing efforts to reduce 

the Corporate Support budget, and significant progress has been made in recent years. Since 

FY 2016, Corporate Support resources have declined by $27.4 million, almost 9 percent, 

despite increased salaries and benefits costs. Due to the significant decline in programmatic 

resources over the past five years, the Corporate Support budget has remained at 32 percent. 

FY 2020 President's Budget• 

FY 2019 Enacted llllllllllilllilllilllilllilllilblillRIIlU.li~ 

FY 2018 Enacted 

FY 2017 Enacted 

FY 2016 Enacted 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

"Corporate Support '*Program Business Line 

31 
52 


36163.046

I Total ($K Percentac e I TOTAL I Program Program 

I 

Fiscal Year OIG Corporate Business (Includes OIG Corporate Business Support Lines OIG) Support Line 

I FY 2020 President's Budoet* 13.3 292.6 615.2 921.1 1% 32% 67% 

I FY 2019 Enacted 12.9 292.9 605.4 911.2 1% 32% 66% 

I FY 2018 Enacted 12.9 301.4 637.8 952.1 1% 32% 67% 

I FY 2017 Enacted+ 12.1 300.1 604.9 917.1 1% 33% 66% 

I FY 2016 Enacted 12.1 320.0 670.0 1002.1 1% 32% 67% 

*H!gh~Level Waste resources were requested for th!s FY 

+Beginntng in FY 2017, resources for the Integrated Universtty Program were included as part of the Program Bus1ness L1ne 

NEIMA requires that the annual budget justification submitted to Congress by the NRC in FY 

2021, to the maximum ex1ent practicable, request funding for corporate support costs in an 

amount that does not exceed 30 percent of the total budget authority requested for the NRC. 

Accordingly, as part of the FY 2021 budget formulation, the Commission is developing resource 

needs and is working to meet this cap for corporate support costs. 

Senator Gillibrand: 

QUESTION 16. Indian Point Unit 2 is scheduled to begin shutting down in roughly a 

year and will start decommissioning, and Unit 3 will follow a year 

later. I am concerned that the NRC's proposed decommissioning 

rule would put in place a standard timeline for reducing emergency 

preparedness and security requirements once a reactor has been 

shut down and the plant enters the decommissioning process. 

While I understand that the risks associated with a plant that is shut 

down are different from those for a plant with an operating reactor, I 

remain concerned about the prospect of spent fuel staying in the 

spent fuel pool for an unlimited period of time determined by the 

licensee. 

a) Does the NRC intend to require licensees to have a plan for the 

on-site storage of spent nuclear fuel? 

32 
53 


36163.047

ANSWER. 

b) To what extent has the Commission examined the potential 

impacts of flooding, seismic events, natural disasters or potential 

acts of terrorism or sabotage on spent fuel pools at 

decommissioned plants? 

c) Are there vulnerabilities that could be mitigated by transferring 

the spent fuel to dry cask storage? 

a) As described in its 1984 rulemaking (Requirements for Licensee Actions Regarding the 

Disposition of Spent Fuel Upon Expiration of Reactor Operating Licenses, 49 Fed. Reg. 34,688 

(Aug. 31, 1984)), the Commission added 10 CFR 50.54(bb) to establish requirements that the 

licensee for an operating nuclear power plant reactor shall no later than 5 years prior to 

expiration of the reactor operating license submit plans for NRC review and approval of the 

actions that the licensee proposes for management of all irradiated fuel at the reactor upon 

expiration of its operating license. The licensee's plans must specify how the financial costs of 

extended storage or other disposition of spent fuel will be funded and the proposed disposition 

of all irradiated fuel from the reactor. The Commission's review will focus on the identification of 

discrepancies or omissions, and its approval will signify that, based on the information available 

at the time of filing the notification, the licensee's plans are sound and will provide adequate 

protection of the public health and safety and the environment. Between the Commission's 

preliminary approval of the plans and the date of expiration of the operating license, the licensee 

may propose for Commission consideration modifications or supplementation of its 

plans. Extended storage of spent fuel at a reactor beyond the expiration date of the operating 

license will require an amendment to the operating license to cover possession of the reactor 

and spent fuel under the requisite provisions of the Commission's regulations. 

33 
54 


36163.048

b) The NRC staff has taken extensive actions to understand and mitigate any challenges to the 

safety of fuel stored in spent fuel pools resulting from the effects of natural phenomena and 

postulated acts of terrorism or sabotage. These actions include the following: 

Reevaluated the effects of seismic events and flooding to ensure that the spent fuel pool 

and reactor are appropriately protected. 

Studied the response of the spent fuel pool structures to extreme seismic events and 

postulated acts of terrorism or sabotage. 

Developed models and performed tests to understand the response of fuel to pool 

drainage events and the effectiveness of various measures to maintain or restore 

effective cooling. 

Required licensees to implement reasonable and effective strategies to prevent or 

mitigate challenges to effective cooling of stored fuel, including 

o Controlling the configuration of fuel assemblies to enhance fuel cooling and 

expedited recovery from damage to the pool. 

o Staging equipment nearby to cool the spent fuel in an emergency. 

These actions are applicable at both operating and decommissioning sites. 

c) There are no design vulnerabilities that would be mitigated by transferring spent fuel to dry 

cask storage. Spent fuel must be stored in pools for a certain period of time, usually several 

years, before it has cooled enough to be placed in dry cask storage. As concluded in 

COMSECY-13-0030, "Staff Evaluation and Recommendation for Japan Lessons-Learned Tier 3 

Issue on Expedited Transfer of Spent Fuel," the expedited transfer of spent fuel to dry cask 

storage would provide only a minor or limited safety benefit, and its expected implementation 

costs would not be warranted. 

34 
55 


36163.049

QUESTION 17. 

ANSWER. 

I am aware of the NRC's recent announcement that it will be holding 

a number of public meetings in communities near existing nuclear 

power reactors to inform the development of a report identifying the 

best practices for establishing local community decommissioning 

advisory boards. Will the NRC hold one of those public meetings in 

Westchester County, New York, near the Indian Point Energy Center, 

which is currently scheduled to begin shutting down and entering 

the decommissioning process a year from now? 

Over the next several weeks, the NRC staff will evaluate the requests that have been received 

in response to the NRC's recent Federal Register notice, using the direction provided in NEIMA 

regarding selection of meeting locations. We will consider a meeting near Indian Point Energy 

Center as we work through the site selection process. 

QUESTION 18. I am very concerned about the shipments by truck on public roads 

of liquid high-level waste from Canada to South Carolina through 

communities in Western New York. I was particularly alarmed that 

these shipments were approved without a full Environmental Impact 

Statement to examine the potential risks of shipping liquid uranium. 

a) What analysis has been done to examine the safety of shipping 

liquid high-level waste by truck over public roads? 

b) To what extent does the NRC inspect these shipments to ensure 

that they are being done safely? 

35 
56 


36163.050

ANSWER. 

a) The shipments of liquid high-level waste are being made under DOE's authority. While not 

required to meet NRC regulations to ship material, in the past, DOE has elected to meet both 

NRC and U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) requirements when it makes shipments of 

spent fuel and other radioactive materials over the nation's highways. In its Radioactive 

Material Transportation Practices Manual, DOE indicates that it is committed to meeting or 

exceeding all NRC or DOT requirements that apply to comparable commercial shipments. 

The NRC and DOT share oversight of domestic radioactive material transport when NRC 

licensees ship materials. DOT regulates shippers, vehicle safety, routing and emergency 

response, and shipper training. The NRC requires the shippers to develop detailed 

transportation safety and security plans before shipments can proceed over authorized routes. 

Although not required to do so, DOE seeks NRC approval of its chosen transportation route 

when seeking to ship spent fueL The NRC's analysis includes reviewing factors such as 

whether the proposed route includes locations of safe havens, transfer points for escorts, and 

provisions for sufficient and appropriate communication and coordination with local law 

enforcement 

b) The NRC does not inspect these shipments, which are being made under DOE's authority. 

For the commercial shipments of radioactive material that are regulated by the NRC, the NRC 

certifies shipping containers for the more hazardous radioactive materials, including spent fuel 

and liquid radioactive waste. To be certified, a container must provide shielding from radiation 

exposure, dissipate heat, and prevent a nuclear chain reaction. In the United States and 

internationally, the containers must pass a series of tests that mimic normal and accident 

conditions. The NRC will issue a certificate of compliance (CoC) only if it determines that the 

36 
57 


36163.051

transportation cask design meets all applicable requirements, including requirements designed 

to prevent the loss of radioactive contents under both normal and accident conditions. 

NRC regulations state that the licensee, certificate holder, and applicant for a CoC shall be 

responsible for the establishment and execution of a quality assurance program (QAP), which is 

reviewed by the NRC during the certification process. Before any domestic shipment can occur, 

the shipper is required to review the cask CoC to determine if any testing or maintenance is 

required to use the cask for the specific material being shipped. The shipper may be required to 

check or change package seals and other components or perform leak testing to ensure 

confinement In addition, the shipper must take radiation measurements at specific locations on 

and around the package to make sure that the levels are below the required limits. The 

licensee, certificate holder, and applicant's execution of the QAP ensures that these activities 

are conducted appropriately. 

QUESTION 19. 

ANSWER. 

What steps does the NRC take to ensure that there are proper 

emergency preparedness measures in place to protect the 

communities that these shipments travel through? 

DOE has the responsibility to ensure that there are proper emergency preparedness measures 

in place for these liquid high-level waste shipments from Canada to South Carolina. In its 

Radioactive Material Transportation Practices Manual, DOE indicates that it is committed to 

meeting or exceeding all NRC or DOT requirements that apply to comparable commercial 

shipments. 

For the domestic transport of radioactive materials, the NRC shares oversight authority with 

DOT The DOT regulates shippers and oversees vehicle safety, routing, shipping papers, 

37 
58 


36163.052

emergency response, and shipper training. The NRC requires the shippers to develop detailed 

transportation safety and security plans before shipments can proceed over authorized routes. 

States are responsible for responding to accidents and incidents within their respective 

jurisdictions. Federal agencies, including DOT, DOE, and FEMA, provide support to States in 

the form of training and grants. The NRC requires the shipper to make advanced notification to 

the affected State and Tribal governments for this type of radioactive waste. 

Senator Markey: 

QUESTION 20. The NRC recently decided to approve a license amendment to 

extend the operating life of the Seabrook Nuclear Power plant. The 

concrete at the plant is degrading, and some Massachusetts 

stakeholders have concerns about the scientific methodology 

underpinning the proposed new monitoring plans. The Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) agreed to hear those concerns, 

but the NRC extended Seabrook's license before allowing that 

hearing to take place. They did not even wait for a decision on an 

emergency petition filed by C-10, a Massachusetts-based monitoring 

group. 

a) Please provide the timeline for when the Commission will decide 

on the emergency petition filed by the Massachusetts stakeholders. 

b) What will the NRC do to ensure that C-10's contentions and the 

opinion of their expert witness will be fully considered as the agency 

weighs the ability of Seabrook's concrete to protect the public as 

designed? 

38 
59 


36163.053

ANSWER. 

c) If the ASLB decides that C-1 O's contentions have merit, will the 

NRC require adjustments to the license amendment and license 

renewal that address the issues raised by the contentions? 

a) The emergency petition filed by C-1 0 is currently under active consideration by the 

Commission. 

b) NRC adjudicatory proceedings are governed by the agency's rules of practice and procedure 

in 10 CFR Part 2. Under these rules, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board-consisting of 

three administrative judges, one legal and two technical-will preside over the Seabrook 

hearing, which will be held in late September 2019. As the presiding officer for the proceeding, 

the Board ensures that each party, including C-1 0 and its experts, has an opportunity to submit 

written direct testimony, statements of position, and exhibits; C-1 0 will also have an opportunity 

to file written rebuttal testimony. The Board will then consider all of the evidence from the 

written filings and evidentiary hearing and issue its decision, which may be appealed to the 

Commission. 

c) If the Board rules in favor of C-10 following the evidentiary hearing, the other parties 

(NextEra and the NRC staff) may appeal the decision to the Commission. While the NRC's 

rules and the Atomic Energy Act (through a procedure specifically contemplated by the 1983 

amendment of section 189a. of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2239(b)(2)(A)) allowed the 

staff to issue the amendment prior to the hearing, if the hearing process (including the outcome 

of any appeal) results in a decision in favor of C-10, the NRC staff will take appropriate action to 

implement the decision with respect to the amendment and, if necessary, with respect to the 

renewed license. 

39 
60 


36163.054

QUESTION 21. 

ANSWER. 

The NRC granted proprietary status to parts of the Seabrook 

License Amendment Request. 

a) Does this mean that the testing procedures and the test results 

cannot be peer-reviewed or assessed by the public? 

b) What was the process by which the Ferguson Structural 

Engineering Lab at U-Texas Austin (FSEL) testing and results were 

granted proprietary status by the NRC? 

a) A majority of the content found in the documents submitted by NextEra to support its alkalisilica reaction (ASR) license amendment request is publicly available, and a member of the 

public is able to review and assess all of the publicly available material. The portions of the 

application that were considered proprietary to the licensee (proprietary commercial information) 

had to do with specific values related to the testing setup and results, such as the number of 

test specimens, exact size and other characteristics used to create the test specimens, the 

number of anchor bolt tests, and expansion limits. The NRC reviewed the application submitted 

by the licensee and, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.390, determined that the information sought 

by the licensee to be withheld was proprietary commercial information and should be withheld 

from public disclosure. 

Although this information is withheld from the general public, those that filed for and were 

granted an opportunity for a hearing on this license amendment have been provided the 

withheld information subject to a protective order. This includes experts hired by the parties 

who would then have the opportunity to peer-review the information. 

Prior to the staff's issuance of the ASR license amendment on March 11, 2019, the NRC staff 

presented its safety evaluation findings to the ACRS. The ACRS is independent of the NRC 

40 
61 


36163.055

staff and reports directly to the Commission. It is composed of outside experts in various 

technical fields. One of the ACRS's purposes is to review and report on safety studies and 

reactor facility license and license renewal applications. On December 14, 2018, the ACRS 

issued a letter to the Commission stating that the NRC staffs safety evaluation of the license 

amendment request provided thorough assessments and findings and that the ACRS agreed 

with the staff's conclusion that the proposed program for monitoring and managing the effects of 

ASR is acceptable. 

b) The process set forth in 10 CFR 2.390 was used to determine whether the information 

sought by the licensee to be withheld was proprietary commercial information. As further 

discussed above, the NRC reviewed the application submitted by the licensee and, in 

accordance with 10 CFR 2.390, determined that the information sought by the licensee to be 

withheld was proprietary commercial information and should be withheld from public disclosure. 

QUESTION 22. 

ANSWER. 

The latest annual assessment for Seabrook, which came out on 

March 4, shows only one more planned assessment of the degraded 

concrete, with no other samples planned beyond 2019. Over time, 

the structural damage is only likely to increase. Is the NRC no 

longer going to take samples of the concrete at Seabrook as part of 

its inspections at the plant? If not, why not? 

The issuance of the license amendment and renewed license for Seabrook established the 

programmatic requirements for monitoring and managing the effects of ASR in concrete 

structures at the facility. As part of its approval, the NRC added a condition to the Seabrook 

license ensuring that the licensee continues to gather and analyze expansion data of in-situ 

structures and that the structures' expansion behavior continues to align with the expansion 

41 
62 


36163.056

behavior seen in the test specimens. The NRC does not take concrete samples as part of the 

assessment of the degraded concrete, nor does the NRC take samples as part of its routine 

inspections. 

Beginning in 2020, NRC oversight in this area will be integrated into the baseline inspection 

program. The NRC will consider those ASR-related activities planned by NextEra and input 

from NRC inspectors to determine what inspections are most appropriate to independently 

assess ASR-related activities at Seabrook. During inspections, the NRC staff assesses the 

licensee's implementation of its ASR program. If the licensee's program directs the licensee to 

take further concrete samples, then the NRC would assess whether the licensee properly 

followed its program (e.g., how it took the sample, how it evaluated the sample, and how the 

results were fed back into the program). 

QUESTION 23. 

ANSWER. 

The storage facility for high-level radioactive waste at Seabrook is 

already over-full. What is the plan going forward to deal with the 

more than double amount of waste that will be generated if the plant 

continues in operation until 2050? 

Seabrook has an NRC-licensed Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) where 

spent fuel is stored in dry casks on site. The ISFSI can hold a total of 78 casks on its concrete 

pad. The ISFSI currently has 24 casks on the pad; 22 of these are full. Should the plant 

operate until the end of its license (2050), the current ISFSI would not be of sufficient size to 

hold the amount of spent fuel that would be generated. The licensee could apply for an 

amendment to its NRC license to expand the capacity of the current ISFSI (i.e., construct a 

second pad) to accommodate additional casks if an alternative solution for spent fuel storage is 

not available before it reaches capacity. 

42 
63 


36163.057

QUESTION 24. 

ANSWER. 

Press reports indicate that the update to the Reactor Oversight 

Process might come as soon as June. Can you commit to allowing 

the public to comment on the proposal before deciding on any 

changes? If not, why not? 

The ROP has elements that change every year based on feedback from the public, industry, 

and staff. In the June 2019 timeframe, recommendations for a number of changes will be sent 

to the Commission. Last year, the NRC received a number of recommendations from both 

internal and external stakeholders on ways that it could improve the ROP. While a majority of 

the feedback indicated that the ROP is a strong and effective oversight program, the NRC staff 

has evaluated the recommendations and identified several discrete, focused improvements that 

it plans to propose to the Commission. As discussed below, the NRC staff has provided a 

number of opportunities for public input into the recommendations. 

In evaluating the recommendations, the NRC staff engaged in extensive outreach efforts to 

solicit input from external stakeholders, including the public and the nuclear industry. For 

example, the staff held over a dozen public meetings on the ROP enhancement project, 

including several ali-day meetings. The NRC staff conducted targeted outreach with members 

of the public and non-governmental organizations with a known interest in the ROP before these 

meetings, and each meeting included time for public comment and discussion with NRC staff. 

The NRC staff also routinely provided information on the results of its review of the 

recommendations to external stakeholders through the NRC's public website in advance of 

those meetings to enable a more productive dialogue. The comments received during these 

meetings have been an integral component of the NRC's decisionmaking. 

43 
64 


36163.058

Overall, the NRC believes that the approach used to date has allowed ample opportunity for 

public comment, and the NRC commits to continuing such outreach activities as the proposed 

changes are dispositioned and as the NRC assesses the need for any additional ROP changes 

in the future. 

QUESTION 25. 

ANSWER. 

If a nuclear plant operator with control of a plant's Decommissioning 

Trust Fund does not spend all of the money in the trust fund during 

the decommissioning process, do current laws and regulations 

allow that company to keep the remaining funds, or are they 

returned to the ratepayers? 

The NRC's authority as it pertains to funding for decommissioning ceases when a licensee has 

completed decommissioning as defined in 10 CFR 50.2 and the license has been terminated. 

At that time, the decommissioning trust fund would not be restricted by NRC regulations, and 

the decommissioning trust fund, including any remaining monies, would remain the 

responsibility of the licensee and be subject to applicable law, regulations, and the terms of any 

governing trust agreement. 

QUESTION 26. 

ANSWER. 

If a nuclear plant operator with control of a site's Decommissioning 

Trust Fund does not have enough money within the fund to pay for a 

plant's decommissioning, what tools does the NRC have to ensure 

that the licensee is responsible for all financial costs relevant to the 

decommissioning process? 

At all times, the licensee has full responsibility to provide adequate funding for all NRC required 

decommissioning activities. The NRC oversees decommissioning activities and funding for all 

44 
65 


36163.059

licensees. Typically, nuclear power plant licensees demonstrate financial assurance for 

decommissioning through establishment of an external fund (commonly referred to as the 

decommissioning trust fund, or DTF), which is an account segregated from the licensee's assets 

and outside the administrative control of the licensee and its subsidiaries or affiliates. In the 

event of a shortfall, the NRC can require licensees to provide additional funding or guarantees 

from parent companies to ensure sufficient funds are available. 

If a licensee decides to permanently cease operations before the scheduled end of its facility's 

operating life and, therefore, has not yet accumulated sufficient funds to decommission the plant 

immediately, the licensee may choose to place the plant into a safe storage condition 

(SAFSTOR) for an extended period (up to 60 years), as contemplated by NRC regulations. The 

SAFSTOR method allows for growth of the decommissioning trust fund over time for the 

licensee to accumulate sufficient funds to complete decommissioning and terminate the license. 

In the event that a licensee files for bankruptcy under any chapter of Title 11 of the United 

States Code, the NRC's regulations (in 10 CFR 50.54(cc)(1)) require that licensees immediately 

notify the NRC of its filing, indicating the bankruptcy court in which the petition for bankruptcy 

was filed and the date of the filing. Licensees who have filed for bankruptcy remain responsible 

for all regulatory requirements and must comply with all applicable NRC requirements, including 

completing decommissioning. The NRC would continue to oversee decommissioning activities 

for licensees who have filed for bankruptcy throughout the bankruptcy proceeding and 

throughout decommissioning until the license is terminated. Any violations of NRC 

requirements, including decommissioning funding assurance requirements, would be subject to 

the NRC's enforcement authority. 

In the event of a DTF shortfall, the NRC could increase its oversight of the decommissioning 

process and increase the licensee's reporting periodicity. Taken together, the NRC's regulatory 

structure, which requires annual decommissioning reports from the licensee, and the NRC's 

45 
66 


36163.060

enforcement authority allow the NRC to (1) detect DTF shortfalls early and (2) ensure that the 

licensee corrects these shortfalls. 

Prior to entering decommissioning, licensees must certify to the NRC every 2 years that they 

have provided financial assurance for decommissioning in an amount that may be more, but not 

less, than the amount stated in the table of minimum amounts found in section (c) of 10 CFR 

50.75, "Reporting and recordkeeping for decommissioning planning." Contributions and growth 

of the decommissioning trust fund are expected to be sufficient for radiological decommissioning 

and license termination. 

While in decommissioning, the NRC oversees the licensee's decommissioning, including 

decommissioning funding. Specifically, the NRC staff reviews the licensee's decommissioning 

funding status reports, submitted to the NRC annually by March 31 of the reporting year. These 

reports include information on: (1) the amount spent on decommissioning, both cumulative and 

over the previous calendar year, the remaining balance of any decommissioning funds, and the 

amount provided by other financial assurance methods being relied upon; (2) an estimate of the 

costs to complete decommissioning, reflecting any difference between actual and estimated 

costs for work performed during the year, and the decommissioning criteria upon which the 

estimate is based; (3) any modifications occurring to a licensee's current method of providing 

financial assurance since the last report submitted; and (4) any material changes to trust 

agreements or financial assurance contracts. If the sum of the balance of any remaining 

decommissioning funds, plus earnings on such funds calculated at not greater than a 2 percent 

real rate of return, together with the amount provided by other financial assurance methods 

being relied upon, does not cover the estimated cost to complete the decommissioning, the 

decommissioning funding status report must include additional financial assurance to cover the 

estimated cost of completion. 

46 
67 


36163.061

QUESTION 27. 

ANSWER. 

Does the NRC require licensees to update environmental impact 

statements to include relevant climate impacts and other new data 

during the decommissioning planning process? If not, why not? 

No. Licensees are not required to update NRC environmental impact statements (EISs) during 

the decommissioning planning process. The NRC previously considered the environmental 

impacts of the nuclear plant and prepared these documents prior to the issuance of the 

construction permit and operating license(s). In conjunction with these licensing actions, 

licensees are required to prepare and update environmental reports - providing information that 

will aid the Commission in complying with section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA). Under NRC regulations, licensees do not need approval from the NRC to begin 

decommissioning activities, and there are no licensing actions associated with decommissioning 

that trigger NRC responsibilities under NEPA. Therefore, the NRC does not require licensees to 

provide climate impact information and other climate-related data during the decommissioning 

planning process. However, the NRC's decommissioning framework contemplates that sitespecific decommissioning activities will be bounded by appropriate previously issued EISs (for 

example, EISs prepared at the time of initial licensing and, as applicable, license renewal). 

In its 1996 final rule, the Commission determined that decommissioning activities would not 

likely result in significant site-specific impacts not previously reviewed in an EIS. Any 

decommissioning activities that could result in significant environmental impacts not previously 

reviewed would require a license amendment. During the decommissioning planning process, 

licensees are therefore required by NRC regulations, 10 CFR 50.82(a)(4)(i) and 10 CFR 

52.11 O(d)(1 ), to discuss the reasons for concluding that the environmental impacts of 

decommissioning activities are bounded by previously issued EISs in their Post-Shutdown 

Decommissioning Activity Report (PSDAR). After submitting the PSDAR, the licensee must 

47 
68 


36163.062

remain in compliance with NRC regulations (10 CFR 50.82(a)(6)(ii) or 52.110(f)(2)). These 

regulations state that licensees may not perform any decommissioning activities that could 

result in significant environmental impacts not previously reviewed. 

QUESTION 28. 

ANSWER. 

Does the NRC require preliminary reporting by license holders on 

the possible use of financial assets gained through legal avenues, 

such as suits brought against the DOE to use Nuclear Waste Funds, 

to be included as part of the overall plan and portfolio of license 

applicants? 

a) Please provide any specific guidance issued by the NRC to this 

effect. 

There is no requirement for a licensee to report to the NRC its plans to use any assets acquired 

through legal proceedings. Moreover, there is no requirement that such assets be used for any 

specific regulated activity, such as decommissioning, spent fuel management, or other plant 

activities. However, should a licensee report to the NRC identification of such acquired assets, 

or soon-to-be acquired assets, as part of its plan to meet NRC decommissioning funding 

requirements, including a commitment to contribute such assets to its decommissioning trust 

fund, the NRC will assume that such funds will be used to meet such decommissioning funding 

requirements. Should the licensee alter its plan and choose not to use such funds for this 

purpose, the licensee would be required to provide alternative financial assurance to ensure the 

decommissioning trust funding requirements are met. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(bb), licensees are also required to submit to the NRC an irradiated 

fuel management plan (IFMP) within 2 years following permanent cessation of operation or 5 

years before expiration of the reactor operating license, whichever occurs first. The IFMP must 

48 
69 


36163.063

describe the program by which the licensee intends to manage and provide funding for 

irradiated fuel until the fuel is transferred to DOE for ultimate disposal. In addition, pursuant to 

10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(vii), licensees in decommissioning must annually submit a report to the 

NRC on the status of its funding for managing irradiated fuel. As noted above, there is no 

requirement for a licensee to use any assets acquired through legal proceedings for spent fuel 

management. However, the licensee may choose to report to the NRC identification of such 

acquired assets, or soon-to-be acquired assets, as part of its spent fuel management funding 

plan. 

The NRC has not issued guidance on this matter. 

QUESTION 29. 

ANSWER. 

Please describe any specific requirements of license applicants for 

information that could affect their access to funds that were created 

with taxpayer dollars, including the Nuclear Waste Fund or the 

Pilgrim Decommissioning Trust Fund. 

NRC regulations governing issuance of a license require applicant information to be reviewed 

by NRC staff to determine the applicant's technical and financial qualifications and to ascertain 

that the proposed activities will not adversely affect public health and safety. Specific financial 

qualification requirements of applicants are located at 10 CFR 50.33, "Contents of applications; 

general information"; specific decommissioning funding requirements of applicants are located 

at 10 CFR 50.33(k)(1) and 10 CFR 50.75, "Reporting and recordkeeping for decommissioning 

planning"; and specific requirements governing the transfer of a license are located at 10 CFR 

50.80, "Transfer of licenses." Both financial qualification and decommissioning funding 

requirements seek to ascertain that there is reasonable assurance that the applicant has access 

to funding to operate and decommission the facility. Should staff determine that the applicant 

49 
70 


36163.064

does not meet NRC licensing requirements and qualifications, including the financial 

qualification and decommissioning funding requirements, a license will not be issued. 

Should an applicant meet the NRC's requirements for a license, access by the licensee to 

decommissioning funds is authorized by 10 CFR 50.82, "Termination of license." 

Decommissioning trust funds may be used by a licensee if the withdrawals are for expenses for 

legitimate decommissioning activities consistent with the regulatory definition of 

decommissioning, the expenditures would not reduce the value of the decommissioning trust 

below an amount necessary to place and maintain the reactor in a safe storage condition if 

unforeseen conditions or expenses arise, and withdrawals would not inhibit the ability of the 

licensee to complete funding of any shortfalls in the decommissioning trust needed to ensure 

the availability of funds to ultimately release the site and terminate the license. 

Taxpayer dollars do not fund the licensee's decommissioning trusts or the Nuclear Waste Fund. 

Power reactor decommissioning trusts are funded by electricity ratepayers. The Nuclear Waste 

Fund, established under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, is funded by fees collected from 

electric utilities on nuclear-generated electricity. 

50 
71 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Commissioner Baran. 

Senator CARPER. That was lovely. That was lovely. I hope when 

we leave as members that our colleagues say things about us that 

was as poignant and as meaningful as that. Thank you for that. 

Senator BARRASSO. Commissioner Baran. 

STATEMENT OF JEFF BARAN, 

COMMISSIONER, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Mr. BARAN. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. It is 

wonderful to be here with my colleagues. 

During the past year, NRC received a number of ideas for transforming the way we do our work. I would like to briefly share my 

thoughts about how NRC should approach transformation. 

In my view, it makes sense to consider transformational change 

when a new technology challenges NRC’s existing regulatory approach or when the agency has historically struggled to regulate effectively in a particular area. For example, a strong case can be 

made for updating NRC’s regulations to account for non-light water 

reactor technologies. 

But when a regulatory process has worked well over the years, 

it is better to pursue targeted refinements aimed at solving clearly 

defined problems. Whether NRC is considering a major transformational change or a more modest incremental change, we must 

keep our focus squarely on our safety and security mission. Transformation at NRC can’t be about rolling back safety and security 

standards to save money, and it can’t be about fewer inspections 

or weaker oversight. That would take NRC in the wrong direction. 

Several of the transformational ideas being discussed involve the 

reactor oversight process. This is NRC’s basic framework for overseeing the safety of the Nation’s nuclear power plants. It affects 

every power reactor in the country. I would be wary of making any 

radical changes to this program because it has generally been an 

effective safety framework. 

One of the proposals I am particularly concerned about is to replace some core NRC inspections with self-assessments performed 

by licensees. These baseline inspections are essential, and NRC inspectors need to be independently conducting them. We should not 

allow licensees to inspect themselves. Doing so would be fundamentally inconsistent with our role as an independent nuclear safety 

regulator. 

To do the best job for the American people, NRC needs to be 

open to new ideas and new approaches. But we also need to carefully and thoroughly evaluate the proposed regulatory changes to 

ensure that they will have a positive impact on safety. That is our 

core mission and must remain our top priority. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Baran follows:] 

72 


36163.065

Jeff Baran 

Commissioner 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

The Honorable Jeff Baran was sworn in as a Commissioner of the 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on October 14, 2014. He is 

currently serving a term ending on June 30, 2023. 

Since joining the Commission, Commissioner Baran's priorities have 

included ensuring effective implementation of safety enhancements 

in response to the Fukushima Daiichi accident, improving oversight of 

power reactors entering decommissioning, and boosting the 

openness and transparency of agency decisionmaking. He has 

visited a number of NRC-licensed facilities, including operating power reactors, a nuclear plant 

undergoing active decommissioning, research and test reactors, fuel cycle facilities, a low-level 

waste disposal facility, and a variety of facilities using radioactive materials for medical and 

industrial purposes. Commissioner Baran also traveled to Fukushima Daiichi for a first-hand 

look at conditions and activities at the site. 

Before serving on the Commission, Commissioner Baran worked for the U.S. House of 

Representatives for over 11 years. During his tenure with the Energy and Commerce 

Committee, oversight of NRC was one of his primary areas of responsibility. As a senior 

counsel and later as Democratic Staff Director for Energy and Environment, Commissioner 

Baran worked on a range of NRC issues, including new reactor licensing, existing reactor 

oversight and decommissioning, high-level and low-level waste, and uranium mining, milling, 

and enrichment. He worked to coordinate the efforts of six federal agencies, including NRC, 

and two Native American tribes to clean up uranium contamination in and around the Navajo 

Nation. He also helped negotiate bills related to pipeline safety, energy efficiency, hydropower, 

and medical isotopes that were enacted with bipartisan support. From 2003 to 2008, he was 

counsel to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. 

Prior to his work on Capitol Hill, Commissioner Baran served as a law clerk for Judge Lesley 

Wells of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. 

Born and raised in the Chicago area, Commissioner Baran earned a bachelor's degree and a 

master's degree in political science from Ohio University. He holds a law degree from Harvard 

Law School. 
73 


36163.066

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Hearing entitled, "Oversight of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission" 

April2, 2019 

Questions for the Record for Commissioner Baran 

Senator Gillibrand: 

I . It is my understanding that some industry stakeholders are advocating for changes 

to the NRC's process for conducting baseline inspections of nuclear plants to 

reduce the number and frequency of inspections. and also allow for licensee selfassessments in areas including emergency preparedness. I am concerned about 

the potential safety implications of making baseline inspections less frequent should 

the NRC decide to go in that direction. 

a. Are industry self-assessments an acceptable substitute for inspections 

conducted by NRC inspectors? 

b. Should cost considerations factor into the NRC's decision-making on whether 

to adopt proposals that would reduce baseline inspection requirements? 

Response: 

No, NRC should not replace NRC inspections with self-assessments performed by 

licensees. Since the beginning of the Reactor Oversight Process, these foundational, 

baseline inspections have always been viewed as necessary for every nuclear power plant in 

the country. These inspections are essential, and NRC inspectors need to be independently 

conducting them. Our independent inspectors find problems that licensees do not. And 

licensees perform better and more safely with NRC performing rigorous independent 

oversight. I do not support reducing safety inspections in order to save money. 

2. The NRC recently voted 3 to 2 that nuclear licensees would not have to use the 

most up- to-date data on flooding and earthquake hazards when preparing for 

disasters. I was alarmed by this decision, particularly considering the fact that the 

Fukushima accident was caused in part by flawed, decades-old calculations that 

were not required to be updated along with progressions in science. As one of the 

dissenters in that vote. can you speak to why it is necessary to use the most recent 

scientific data in order to assure that our nuclear power plants operate safely? 

Response: 

In the aftermath of the Fukushima accident, licensees and the NRC staff spent years 

using the latest science and modern methods to determine the present-day flooding and 

earthquake hazards for the nation's nuclear power plants. The final rule approved by the 

Commission majority allows licensees to ignore these reevaluated hazards with their 

strategies to mitigate beyond-design-basis events. Instead of requiring nuclear power plants 

to be prepared for the actual flooding and earthquake hazards that could occur at their sites, 

NRC will allow them to be prepared only for the outdated hazards typically calculated 

decades ago when the science of seismology and hydrology was far less advanced than it is 

today. As a result, the final rule developed by the majority does nothing to enhance the 

safety of nuclear power plants. 

The natural hazards facing nuclear power plants are not static. We know from the 

Fourth National Climate Assessment and other authoritative climate science reports that 

climate change will impact some of these hazards, such as flooding, hurricanes. and drought. 

NRC's safety standards need to account for the changing frequency, intensity, and duration 

of these events. But this rule instead allows licensees to rely on decades-old flood hazard 

estimates. In my view, that moves NRC in exactly the wrong direction. 
74 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Commissioner Baran. 

Commissioner Burns. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN BURNS, 

COMMISSIONER, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Mr. BURNS. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and 

other members of this Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to 

testify today, and I also appreciate very much your very kind remarks. It has been hard to believe it has been 40 years or more, 

and I want to thank the Chairman for also her eloquent statement. 

Senator CARPER. Were you in the third grade when you started? 

Mr. BURNS. Yes, I was in third grade. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BURNS. Anyway, as noted, in the near future I will complete 

my service as a Commissioner at the NRC. My service began at the 

agency in 1978, when I graduated from law school here at George 

Washington University, and continued from that time except for a 

brief respite at the OECD Nuclear Agency in Paris from 2012 to 

2014. I am honored that President Obama appointed me as Commissioner and designated me as Chairman during the last years of 

his Administration. I am proud to have served the NRC and particularly the people I have gotten to know who are dedicated to our 

mission. 

I know there are times when we have had to learn from our experience, learn to do better and to improve our performance as a 

regulator, but on the whole I think we hit the mark the vast majority of the time in achieving a high level of performance and holding 

the regulated industry accountable. This is a better agency today 

than it was when I walked into it in 1978. 

We can always strive to better perform our safety and security 

mission, and to better risk-inform our decisions, but the safety and 

security of the public must always be the central focus. Credit belongs largely, again, to the day to day work of our dedicated staff 

in achieving those goals. I appreciate their day to day focus on ensuring adequate protection to the public. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you and 

the work you do in oversight of our agency, and I look forward to 

answering any questions you may have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Burns follows:] 

75 


36163.067

Stephen G. Burns 

Commissioner 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

The Honorable Stephen G. Burns was sworn in as a Commissioner of 

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on November 5, 2014, to a 

term ending June 30, 2019. He served as the 16th Chairman of the 

NRC from Jan. 1, 2015, through Jan. 23, 2017. As a Commissioner, he 

continues to be engaged in the work of the agency, and its safety and 

security mission. 

Commissioner Burns has had a distinguished career as an attorney 

both within the NRC and internationally. Before returning to the NRC, he was the Head of 

Legal Affairs of the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris. In that position, which he held since April2012, 

Commissioner Burns provided legal advice and support to NEA management, carried out the 

legal education and publications program of the NEA, and provided advice and secretariat 

services to the Nuclear Law Committee and to the Contracting Parties to the Paris Convention 

on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy. 

Commissioner Burns joined the NRC as an attorney in 1978. Prior to assuming his post at the 

NEA, he served as General Counsel of the NRC from May 2009 until April2012 after having 

served as the NRC's Deputy General Counsel from 1998. He also served as Executive 

Assistant to former NRC Chairman Kenneth M. Carr. 

Commissioner Burns received a bachelor's degree, magna cum laude, in 1975 from Colgate 

University in Hamilton, N.Y. He received his law degree with honors in 1978 from the George 

Washington University in Washington, D.C., where he was an editor on the George 

Washington Law Review. 

Commissioner Burns received the NRC's Distinguished Service Award in 2001 and the 

Presidential Meritorious Executive Rank Award in 1998 and 2008. 
76 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you so very much for your testimony 

and your service. 

Commissioner Caputo. 

STATEMENT OF ANNIE CAPUTO, 

COMMISSIONER, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Ms. CAPUTO. I would like to add my thanks to the Committee for 

inviting us here to testify. As the Chairman said, it is absolutely 

essential and very much appreciated, the rigorous oversight that 

this Committee brings to the work of our agency. 

There are many diverse views about transformation and the 

changes that the agency should pursue, so I would like to just add 

a couple of my own thoughts just in the area of budgeting and 

transformation. 

Our mission doesn’t change, our high level standards of safety 

and security don’t change, and our principles and values don’t 

change. But our workload and how we manage it will be different 

in the future. To manage a changing workload, I think it is necessary to modernize how we budget and allocate resources. The 

Treasury Department’s white paper entitled The Future of Financial Management states, ‘‘The use of data is crucial to the future 

of Federal financial management.’’ 

Currently, we use a budget developed 2 years ago to formulate 

a budget for 2 years from now. During that process, we use very 

little data on actual expenditures and performance to inform our 

budget development. This results in a budget that is slow to reflect 

our changing environment. 

The Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act is a 

strong statement on the NRC’s need to reform. The new budget 

and fee recovery structure in NEIMA provides an opportunity for 

us to harness analysis of actual expenditures to better inform our 

budget decisions and rethink how we allocate our resources, particularly in light of the fact that we anticipate retirement of an additional 13 reactors by the year 2025. 

I look forward to working with the Committee, my fellow Commissioners, the NRC staff, and our stakeholders to shape a modern, 

successful NRC. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Caputo follows:] 

77 


36163.068

Annie Caputo 

Commissioner 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

The Honorable Annie Caputo was sworn in as a Commissioner of the 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on May 29, 2018, and is currently 

serving the remainder of a five-year term ending June 30, 2021. 

Commissioner Caputo previously served as senior policy advisor for 

Chairman John Barrasso (R-WY} on the Senate Environment and 

Public Works Committee. She also held this position for then-Chairman 

James lnhofe (R-OK) from 2007 to 2012. From 2005-2006 and 2012-

2015, Commissioner Caputo worked for the House Committee on Energy & Commerce, 

handling nuclear energy issues. 

Prior to her positions on Capitol Hill, she worked for Exelon Corporation. 

A graduate from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, she holds a bachelor's degree in 

nuclear engineering. 
78 

Senator BARRASSO. Thanks so much for your testimony. 

Commissioner Wright. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID WRIGHT, 

COMMISSIONER, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you. 

Good morning, Chairman Barrasso, and Ranking Member Carper, and esteemed members of this Committee. Thank you for the 

opportunity to testify today. 

I have been on the Commission about 10 months now, and I am 

grateful for the warm welcome and collegiality of my colleagues, as 

well as the staff’s efforts to bring me up to speed. I view the NRC 

as a team and one I am proud to be a part of. 

As I promised, I have gotten out of my office and spent considerable time walking the halls of the NRC and visiting plants. I visited every office on every floor at NRC headquarters at least once 

now. These meetings and visits with the NRC staff and our licensees have given me invaluable insights into the agency’s critical 

safety mission, their priorities, successes, and challenges. I am 

humbled and impressed by the people that I have met, as well. 

I come to this position as a former State regulator, and I am, 

therefore, mindful of the impact regulation has on regulated utilities. When I make decisions as a Commissioner, I combine that 

perspective with my dedication to the NRC safety mission and the 

agency’s principles of good regulation, particularly the principle of 

efficiency. 

While I am not yet an expert on the NRC’s budgeting and licensing process, I do see room for improvement in both areas when it 

comes to efficiency. I also know the agency is busy analyzing and 

preparing for changes required by the Nuclear Energy Innovation 

and Modernization Act, so I am also interested in how this law will 

motivate other changes in how we do our work. 

I view change—in particular changes how we perform our work— 

as an opportunity. Change is an opportunity to transform, innovate, and recalibrate the things we do to achieve our important 

safety mission in the most efficient and effective way possible. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wright follows:] 

79 


36163.069

David A. Wright 

Commissioner 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

The Honorable David A. Wright was sworn in as a Commissioner of the 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on May 30, 2018, and is currently 

serving the remainder of a five-year term ending June 30, 2020. 

Since 2013, Commissioner Wright served as Owner/President of Wright 

Directions, LLC, a strategic consulting, policy development and 

communications business focusing on energy and water. During this 

time, he also was a member of the Advisory Council of the Bipartisan 

Policy Center's Nuclear Waste Initiative; and an Ex Officio Member and Chairman Emeritus of 

the Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition, an ad hoc organization representing the interests of 

industry, state officials, local governments and tribes, and consumer advocates. 

From 2004-2013, Commissioner Wright served the South Carolina Public Service Commission 

in a variety of capacities, including Vice Chairman and Chairman. From 2011-2012, he served 

as President of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners; he had 

previously served the association in other capacities, including as a member of the Executive 

Committee and Board of Directors. From 2010-2013, Commissioner Wright was a member of 

the Advisory Board of the Board of Directors of the Electric Power Research Institute. 

Previously, he was elected councilman and mayor in lrmo, S.C., and to the South Carolina 

House of Representatives. 

A colon cancer survivor, Commissioner Wright is an advocate for cancer awareness and 

education, and a former member of the Leadership Council for the Cancer Centers at the 

University of South Carolina. He was presented with the Community Champions Award by 

Molina Healthcare of South Carolina in 2016 and the Blue Star Service Excellence Award by 

the USC Center for Colon Cancer Research in 2014. In 1996, he received South Carolina's 

highest citizen honor, The Order of the Palmetto. 

Commissioner Wright received a bachelor's degree in political science from Clemson 

University. 
80 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you very much, all of you, for 

your testimony and your service. 

We will start with a couple rounds of questions, and I would like 

to start first with Chairman Svinicki. 

In January, the Commission approved the final rule known as 

the Mitigation of Beyond Design Basis Events. The rule codifies a 

number of existing requirements imposed on nuclear power plants 

following the 2011 Japanese nuclear accident. Would you please 

summarize the key provisions of that rule for us? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Thank you for the question, Chairman Barrasso. I 

would note that yesterday I received a correspondence from Senators Carper and Whitehouse asking a series of questions. We look 

forward to responding to the Committee’s questions on the Commission’s action on the rule. 

It is not easy to summarize a lengthy rule, but let me attempt. 

After Fukushima, the Commission mandated a host of changes 

and reevaluations of the hazards that U.S. plants face. We did that 

through other instruments like immediately effective orders and 

demands for information. 

As a matter of rigor, agencies such as ours typically follow that 

up with a rulemaking process afterward so that those measures 

can go through the Administrative Procedure Act process of being 

promulgated as a formalized rule. 

As laid before the Commission, the rule went beyond the measures that had previously been mandated and included a set of additional measures that the staff proposed that the Commission adopt 

and make into requirements on the basis of what is called our adequate protection authorities under the Atomic Energy Act, which 

do not require an analysis. If we invoke adequate protection, there 

is not a legal requirement to do an analysis of the safety benefits 

and the costs and benefits of the new requirements. 

The majority of the Commission, in looking at the provisions beyond those already mandated, was not willing to adopt or invoke 

the adequate protection basic summary conclusion for the additional measures and indicated that they would move forward with 

the rule with the measures that had been mandated and the continuation of the site specific evaluation of the flooding and seismic 

hazard at U.S. plants. 

In addition, the Commission, in 2016, had established a center 

of expertise for the ongoing continual evaluation of external hazards to U.S. nuclear facilities. This group has been stood up and 

will contain a library of information where we will go out to the 

USGS, to the climate change experts, and others and look at the 

hazard information as it changes over time. 

So, I would depict it as a way to bring visibility and focus to new 

information as it comes in. And of course, we would assess that and 

take action. 

We did have a very severe difference of opinion on the Commission over the final rule, and I have deep respect for my colleagues 

who differed on the outcome, but in totality, looking at all of the 

measures that the NRC enacted since Fukushima, and again, I had 

direct and personal involvement going all the way back to the accident in 2011, the outcome of the Commission majority I think was 

an acknowledgment of this efficiency of the measures in place. 

81 

There was a particular difference of opinion over the forward 

going regulatory treatment of certain of the changes and what we 

call the flex equipment. This is the surplus sets of equipment that 

are now at every U.S. nuclear power plant to deal with hazards or 

events that would go beyond the design basis. 

The majority of the Commission felt that the industry’s commitment previously given to maintain that equipment was sufficient, 

and I know that other members of the Commission would have 

turned that into a regulatory requirement. 

There were other differences, but that was, I think, the most 

pointed difference that we had. 

Senator BARRASSO. In October, the EPA withdrew an Obama administration midnight rule. The midnight rule, of course, would 

have added unnecessary red tape, in my opinion, to the principle 

method of uranium production. In 2015, the NRC staff communicated substantial jurisdictional concerns to the EPA about the 

proposal, and the EPA proceeded despite the concerns that the 

NRC had come up with. These jurisdictional issues I think need to 

be resolved. Accordingly, in 2017 I asked EPA to sign a Memorandum of Understanding with the NRC clarifying the EPA’s regulatory authorities. 

Madam Chairman, could you please provide an update on the 

status of the NRC’s engagement on that Memorandum of Understanding? 

Ms. SVINICKI. My understanding of the current status is that 

upon the withdrawal of the rule by EPA, NRC and EPA staffs have 

been engaging over the renewed interest in the Memorandum of 

Understanding. There are, as you note, I think some statutory interpretation differences that are being worked out, but the experts 

do continue to engage on this matter. As a matter of fact, I believe 

there is a meeting that will be held yet this month between the 

EPA and NRC on the MOU development. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thanks so very much. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Just very briefly to the Chair, quickly, how are 

we doing in terms of retention, attracting new folks to come to 

work at the NRC? How is morale? Just very briefly. 

Ms. SVINICKI. Very briefly, I would characterize the concern 

about our demographic shift to more senior workers, while we are 

very, very grateful to have them, and they have a lot of expertise, 

we are realizing now that the front end of the pipeline and entry 

level workers I think I would characterize that as an increasing 

concern for the agency. While we wouldn’t take a broad brush to 

it, for myself alone, I think it is imperative that we begin to look 

at strategic hires of recent university graduates and things like 

that. 

I will say, on morale, you know, transformation and change is 

hard. Human beings have a lot of concerns over what it might 

mean for them, so the leadership team at NRC has a strong focus 

on messaging and outreach and communications regarding changes 

that are or might be in the future coming for NRC. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thank you. 

Do the other Commissioners agree? If you agree, raise your hand. 

Do you agree with that assessment? 

82 

All right, let the record show four hands. All right, good. Thank 

you very much. 

Question for Commissioner Baran. With the President’s NRC 

budget for fiscal year 2020, in your judgment, will the NRC have 

the resources needed to do its job to ensure safety for current nuclear reactors and to be ready for the next generation of them? 

Mr. BARAN. I believe it will. I would just provide a little bit of 

context, though, and say since fiscal year 2014 NRC’s budget has 

decreased by 15 percent and our work force has declined by 21 percent. That is a huge amount of change in a short period of time, 

so I think we have adjusted well. 

Our budget and staff need to reflect our workload, but I share 

the Chairman’s concern that one of the things that has been sacrificed in that period of time is entry level hiring. We are at a point 

now where only 2 percent of the people who work at NRC are 

below 30 years old. That is really low, and it is an indication, I 

think, that we are not doing much entry level hiring, and we have 

to get back to that, I think, in the near future for the long term 

health of the agency. 

Senator CARPER. OK, thank you. 

To our Chair, you mentioned that Senator Whitehouse and I recently sent you a letter regarding the post-Fukushima rule that the 

Commission finalized I think back in January. We appreciate your 

attention to that and your timely response. Senator Whitehouse 

and I are concerned that the changes to the final rule made by the 

Chair may have missed the mark in addressing the lessons learned 

from the Fukushima nuclear accident, and we need answers regarding why changes were made to the final rule, changes that I 

think went against the career staff’s recommendations. 

Just a quick yes or no on this one. I don’t ask a lot of yes or no 

questions, but I want to be mindful of my time. 

Madam Chair, did the NRC career staff recommend changing the 

mandatory safeguards against seismic and flooding hazards to voluntary ones? Did they recommend that? 

Ms. SVINICKI. No, but there were expert staff that had—they 

didn’t go through the former differing views process, but we did 

have a handful of agency experts that disagreed with the proposal 

as it was laid before the Commission. And I have spoken with 

those individuals who were in disagreement. 

Senator CARPER. A follow up to that. Did public comments during 

the rulemaking process ask the Commission to make the mandatory safeguards against seismic and flooding hazards voluntary? 

Ms. SVINICKI. No, they did not. 

Senator CARPER. A follow up on the same issue, a follow up to 

Commissioner Baran and maybe Commissioner Burns. You both 

voted against the changes. Would you please take a moment and 

explain your concerns with the final rule? And in your answer 

please verify if you know of any party that asked for this change. 

Mr. Baran. Mr. Burns, go ahead. 

Mr. BURNS. Essentially, Senator, I thought that the rule as proposed, as commented on, and as then offered to the staff in final 

form was a more direct, in fact, a direct and elegant solution to the 

issue that had been identified; that is, looking at current seismic 

and flooding type hazards and assuring that they were addressed 

83 

during the course of a lifetime by licensees, and there wasn’t, to my 

understanding, adverse comment on that from the external stakeholders who would have commented on the rule. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

Mr. Baran. 

Mr. BARAN. I think everyone agrees that the flex equipment that 

the Chairman mentioned is the single biggest post-Fukushima 

safety improvement, but the equipment doesn’t do us any good if 

it is not there and available when called upon, and that means protecting the equipment from entirely predictable natural hazards. 

We spent several years, the staff and licensees, using the latest 

science to figure out what are the current modern day hazards, 

flooding and seismic hazards, at the power plant sites across the 

country. 

From my point of view, and I think Commissioner Burns agreed 

with this, it makes sense to protect that equipment from those 

modern understood hazards, and not the old outdated hazards. It 

is the biggest improvement we had. You want to protect that equipment. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thanks. 

All right, thanks for those responses, and we look forward to a 

second round. 

Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

Senator Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is nice to see the full Commission here. I want to give a shout 

out to Commissioner Caputo, because we worked together on the 

Subcommittee, so welcome. He says we are confusing him because 

it is Caputo and Capito, but we know what it really is. 

Ms. CAPUTO. I can keep us straight. 

Senator CAPITO. I am going to ask a question I think I ask every 

year, and I still don’t understand. 

I understand that you are making great strides to right sizing 

the Commission, and I thank the NRC, and that is a question that 

comes up every year, but there is a significant amount of carryover 

funding, which suggests there is a mismatch I don’t understand. In 

fiscal year 2017 carryover was $37 million, at the end of fiscal year 

2018. Per your budget, carryover from the prior year totaled $40.4 

million, with $22.7 million still wholly unallocated. 

And then again, the request is for more carryover, which is described to be in the budget to jump starting licensing around Yucca 

Mountain. But I understand that that cannot be funded by a carryover. 

So, could you help me with what do you do with all these millions of dollars that you are carrying over, and are you overprescribing your budget to allow for a carryover to give you some flexibility that maybe your regular budget doesn’t provide for you? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Thank you for that question, Senator. We have engaged in previous years on the NRC’s efforts to develop and end 

the year with a more accurate figure so that it does not have this 

surplus at the end of the year. There are a number of factors that 

contribute to ending the year without the amount of outlay that 

one predicted. Receiving the budget later, after the beginning of the 

84 

fiscal year, can often be a contributor, but we did not experience 

that this year. So, as of right now, being approximately midway 

through the fiscal year, we estimate that we would have about $20 

million of carryover on the fee base. 

So, as happened with the appropriations bill last year, when we 

had about $25 million, appropriators directed us to use $20 million 

of that as an offset. So, I can’t speak for what appropriators will 

do, where we will end the fiscal year and what they would do. We 

have had an effort on improving our budgeting and trying to get 

greater fidelity and end the year with less of a surplus. I don’t 

know that we would ever get to having it be down to the penny, 

but we have driven down the figure in recent years, and I think 

we continue to look at what we end the year with. 

Senator CAPITO. Was last year the first year that the appropriators had asked you to use that as an offset? 

Ms. CAPUTO. No, it was not. 

Senator CAPITO. That is pretty much standard, then? OK. 

The other question I think is with the anticipated shrinking 

number of reactors and the fees associated. You are raising the 8 

percent annual increase this year, what, 6.5. What steps are you 

making to make sure that that is not just an incremental thing 

over years as we see more of these being retired? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Well, I think the most prominent change to that 

will be arising out of the NEIMA bill that is now enacted law. Of 

course, it has a number of measures that have interrelated effects 

on the agency’s budget, but one of which is to create a ceiling for 

the operating reactor fee. In addition, there are other measures 

that exert budget discipline on the agency that arise out of NEIMA. 

I will say that embedding some of that statutory—again, those 

provisions, kind of by virtue of mathematics, affect different parts 

of the budget. We are working to build that into our accounting 

and budgeting systems, so I can’t testify to the totality of the impact of the provisions. Of course, there are a number of provisions 

on our corporate support costs as well. 

I think it would probably take 1 year through the budget cycle 

to have a complete picture of how those provisions impact each 

other, so in future appearances we should be able to give you a better sense of that. 

Senator CAPITO. Commissioner Caputo, I am going to put you on 

the spot here because you have spent years on the other side of the 

dais here. What perspectives could you say becoming a Commissioner has changed your view from where we sit to where you sit 

now? 

Ms. CAPUTO. Well, I think this budget, the 2020 budget that is 

before you now, is my first budget on the Commission, so it is an 

introduction to how the Commission develops its budget, and that, 

I think, largely is what lies behind my remarks about the fact that 

I think the Commission could use data and data analytics to a 

much greater extent to inform our resource allocation decisions. 

I think the increase in the fee that you are talking about, this 

year in particular, is driven by the retirement of a few reactors. 

But if you look at a 2-year span, as an example, the 2020-2018 and 

the budget before you now, the 2020 budget, six plants will have 

85 

retired, and those six plants would be paying in $4.8 million, 

roughly, in an annual fee. 

So, when we look at the 2020 budget, 6 × 5 is $30 million. But 

we don’t see a decrease in the operating reactors’ budget in that 

order; we see a decrease of $5.4 million. So I think that is evidence 

of our struggle to sort of right size in advance of the cessation of 

those fees coming in. And this will continue to be a struggle, I 

think, going forward, but one that hopefully the new fee structure 

under NEIMA will help with. 

Senator CAPITO. OK. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thanks so much, Senator Capito. 

Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for calling this hearing. 

I want to thank the entire Commission for being here. It is impressive to see you all out there. We thank you very much for your 

work. 

I want to follow up on Senator Carper’s point in regard to the 

personnel issues. Since fiscal year 2010, there has been approximately a 23 percent reduction in the work force at the Commission. 

The past fiscal year saw another decline. I first would like to know 

whether we should anticipate a further reduction in the work force, 

or do we have the right numbers now? 

Why don’t I ask that question first. What is your game plan on 

downsizing, Madam Chair? 

Ms. SVINICKI. We continue to trend down. Again, our demographic is we have a very, very senior work force. A substantial 

portion of our employees are retirement eligible. Now, many of 

them stay well beyond their retirement eligibility, but it is a growing concern that the front end of the pipeline—Commissioner 

Baran was mentioning a statistic that only 2 percent of NRC employees are younger than the age of 30, which is an extreme figure. 

Senator CARDIN. You are getting to my second question. My first 

question is the size that you are attempting to get to; the second 

is retaining good people. My staff tells me that by 2023, 42 percent 

of your work force will be eligible for retirement. I know that Commissioner Baran already mentioned the 2 percent under the age of 

30, which is a very small number for any of our work force. 

Put on top of that the general challenge for Federal work force 

today as a result of attacks on the Federal work force on the budget and their benefits, as well as the shutdown impact. You may 

have been directly impacted, but you were indirectly impacted by 

the Government shutdown. It has caused a drain of some of our 

best from agencies that are not clear as to the future commitment 

of the Government to their mission. 

I worry that the same thing could be happening at the NRC as 

to whether you are attracting young people to this profession. Do 

they see a future here, and are we challenged in maintaining the 

capacity, moving forward, of the NRC to keep us safe and to be at 

the top of the game internationally on regulating nuclear energy? 

We really need to pay a little bit of attention to this, and it looks 

like the fact that you don’t have younger workers—I know at NSA, 

by way of comparison, we always are concerned that they can bring 

in the youngest, brightest people so they have a pipeline to the fuVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:16 Jul 15, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\36163.TXT SONYA
86 

ture. Are we missing this opportunity on the nuclear regulatory 

side? 

Mr. BARAN. I would just say that on the question of the overall 

size of the agency, personally, I think we should get to the point 

of stabilizing at this point. We have had a lot of reduction in a relatively short period of time. I do worry that, continuing on the 

track we are on, we are going to have problems maintaining our 

core capabilities, our core technical capabilities. I worry about that. 

Of course, the other issue is the lack of entry level hiring, which 

is significant. 

One of the things we are seeing is retaining. It is harder to retain folks because, with a smaller agency, an agency that has been 

shrinking, you don’t have the same promotional opportunities, the 

same career enhancement opportunities. We see folks leaving— 

great people, mid-career—who can’t really advance the way they 

want to. 

Senator CARDIN. So how do we counter this? How do we counter 

this? 

Mr. BARAN. Well, the staff is working very hard on that, and the 

Commission focuses on it a lot. It is challenge, but I think as long 

as the budget keeps declining steeply and the work force keeps declining steeply, it is difficult to counteract that. 

Senator CARDIN. I would just urge—Mr. Chairman, we are the 

authorizing Committee. I would like to get a game plan from you 

as to how we can attract the youngest, brightest talent for the future into your agency. 

Also, I would think from the appropriators’ point of view that 

they also need to have a game plan as to where you are heading 

so that we can try to assist. We understand the size is one thing, 

but not having the brightest minds coming out of our universities 

interested in a career in nuclear safety does present challenges for 

us moving forward. 

One of those challenges, and it might be the right thing, but the 

Nuclear Energy Institute has asked for a self-assessment, rather 

than inspection, in regards to some of their nuclear activities. We 

saw that didn’t work very well on airline safety with Boeing. The 

question is are we moving more toward reliance upon self-assessment rather than the work of the Commission in order to keep us 

safe, a down product of not having the capacity because of 

downsizing and the lack of recruitment. 

Mr. BARAN. Speaking for myself, I would just say I strongly believe we should not head in that direction. I think the role of NRC 

is to set the health and safety standards and to inspect to make 

sure those standards are met. The role of licensees is to operate the 

plant safely. We shouldn’t operate their plants; they shouldn’t be 

conducting our inspections. That is our job; it is a core responsibility of the agency, and we should be doing that. 

Senator CARDIN. I would just ask the Commission if you could 

just share with us your game plan for attracting the professionals 

that you need moving forward so that we can have that in our 

planning as authorizers and as appropriators. I think that would 

be helpful. 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes, Senator Cardin. We do have a detailed work 

on our strategic work force planning ongoing. We can provide an 

87 

update on where that stands to the Committee with a focus on the 

younger workers. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thanks, Senator Cardin. 

Senator Braun. 

Senator BRAUN. Thank you, Chairman. 

Especially interesting for me to be sitting in on this. I am the 

Chair of the Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, so I intend to do more work on this down the road. 

A two-pronged question, and this would be for any of the witnesses. No. 1, Purdue University has had research on some new 

technology, and it is with the digital version that has been in place 

in other countries. I am interested in what is going to get us across 

the threshold for using nuclear energy for all the pertinent topics 

that are in front of us, clean energy generation. 

Also, what is happening in other countries, because I know many 

other countries have put an emphasis on it, and I feel they are 

going to lead more than us due to the fact that there has been gun 

shyness about pushing forward with nuclear power for electric generation. 

In addition to what Purdue is working on, tell me about what 

else is happening, how that is going to lead in to where we have 

more confidence here, and then tell me about the competition 

across the world where they seem to be embracing nuclear energy 

for power generation more than we are. 

Ms. SVINICKI. If I may, Senator, I will just begin, and if my colleagues want to add to that broad question. 

But I would note that with respect to the modification to the Purdue research reactor, I was made aware that the agency has completed its review of that amendment and modification to that facility, and I think that the completion of that was communicated yesterday or may be communicated today to Purdue. I knew we were 

very close to the finish line, but I didn’t know what we had actually 

concluded our work on that. 

On your broader questions about the global energy picture, I 

think it doesn’t necessarily fall squarely in our domain. What we 

do is look at nuclear safety and security regulation. The United 

States is generally considered to have an extremely strong and set 

a high standard for nuclear safety and security. 

I know that there are countries that have looked closely, such as 

Spain, that has adopted, I think, a near replica of the U.S. nuclear 

safety regulations whole cloth. We do continue to try to advance 

global objectives on nuclear safety, not so much the penetration of 

the technology for energy production, but setting a strong, high 

level of expertise on the nuclear safety issues. 

Mr. BARAN. I agree with all that. I would just add on the new 

technology side, really, our role is licensing, so it is about having 

a good, efficient licensing process for new technologies, whether it 

be non-light water reactor technologies or innovations and fuel in 

other areas, so there is a lot of focus right now on that at NRC to 

make sure that we have the technical capabilities to do those reviews and have a good process in place and that we have the right 

standards. 

88 

If you take the example of non-light water reactors, all the existing fleet in the U.S. is light water reactors. Our regulations were 

really written for that. One of the big efforts at NRC now is adapting those regulations for other technologies so that we can have efficient and thorough and effective reviews of newer technologies 

unlike anything we have currently deployed across the country. 

Mr. BURNS. One thing I might add is that we do participate in 

international forums through the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency 

and also the International Atomic Energy Agency that are looking 

at, for example, on the small modular reactors or advanced reactors 

technologies, and there have been other cooperative efforts so that 

we learn from folks who are building, say, in Finland or France or 

in China through what is called the Multinational Design Evaluation Program, so I think those have been of benefit to us as regulators because it is really about what are the approaches for regulation; what types of things are they finding that can have 

learnings for us, and I encourage us to continue in those types of 

fora. 

Ms. CAPUTO. With regard to advanced designs, I haven’t been to 

Purdue, so I am not familiar with what Purdue is doing, but I have 

visited Texas A&M and the University of Wisconsin, and my observation from both of those visits is the universities are really conducting a lot of exciting work in developing both accident-tolerant 

fuel technology and advanced reactor designs. So I think there is 

a fair amount of exciting work being done in our universities to lay 

the foundation for ultimately the designs that come to the Commission for review. 

Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you, Senator. I agree with everything that 

you have heard, but I think there is another leg to this, too, and 

that is that if we are not efficient in our regulatory scheme at the 

NRC and get things done efficiently as well, we are possibly seeing 

ourselves around the world where other technologies are being 

sold, which would be a DOE or State issue and obviously a congressional issue, and that could have long term security impacts on our 

country, too. So, we have to do our part at the NRC to make sure 

that we are putting things in place for these new technologies to 

make them efficient so we can get them through the regulatory 

scheme effectively and efficiently. 

Senator BRAUN. Thank you. 

Senator CAPITO [presiding]. Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. 

Do any of you doubt that climate change is causing sea levels to 

rise around the globe and along our shores? 

[No audible response.] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Let the record reflect no doubts. OK. 

Does anybody contest that post-Fukushima it has been established that flooding interferes with nuclear plant operations? Pretty 

obvious statement, isn’t it? 

[No audible response.] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK, all agreed, let the record reflect. 

I represent a coastal State. For those of you aren’t from coastal 

States, let me let you know that we are all coastal States looking 

at dire and uncontested and best science predictions of significant 

sea level rise and harm to our coasts, just so you know. So it is 

89 

from that background that I wonder about the recent chain of 

events along this timeline. 

In November 2015, the NRC proposed its comprehensive postFukushima flooding preparation rule with full agreement of the 

Commission at the time. It is called the Mitigation of Beyond Design Basis Events Rule, and our Ranking Member just spoke about 

it. It went to public comment, and in 2016, after receiving public 

comments, the staff issued a draft final rule with mandatory requirements for flood preparation. 

At this time, the NRC Commission had two Democrats and one 

Republican appointees, and you couldn’t get three votes, so the 

order wasn’t finalized, but the staff recommendation was there. A 

month later, Commissioner Svinicki was designated Chairman. The 

Commission still did not move forward on a final order for the rule. 

In July 2017, the Nuclear Energy Institute sent this letter, which 

I ask unanimous consent to be made a part of the record—— 

Senator CAPITO. Without objection. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE [continuing]. Saying that all of its concerns 

had been addressed, and it was OK to go forward with the rule; 

still mandatory. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

90 


36163.070

JOSEPH E. POLLOCK 

Vice Prestdent and Intenm Chief Nuclear 

Officer 

J€p@nel.org 

ne1.oro 

NW, Su1te 1100 

20004 

July 12, 2017 

Mr. Victor McCree 

Executive Director for Operations 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

NUCLEAR 

~I ENERGY INSTITUTE 

Subject: Industry Concern with the Wording of the Drill and Exercises Requirements in the Draft Mitigation of 

Beyond Design Basis Events Rulemaking Package 

Project Number: 689 

As expressed in our February 9, 2016, comment letter on the draft Mitigation of Beyond-Design-Basis Events 

(MBDBE) Rulemaking Package, NEI and the industry support issuance of the proposed rule, and the comments 

we submitted at that time have been satisfactorily resolved. Recently, we identified an ambiguity in the 

wording of the drill and exercise requirements contained in 10 CFR 50.155(e), which could lead to 

misinterpretations of that paragraph in the future. 

Specifically, 10 CFR 50.155(e), Drills or exercises, describes the number of drills or exercises that must be 

completed within the initial 4-year period after the rule is effective and in subsequent 8-year intervals. The 

relevant language appears in slightly different forms in paragraphs (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), and (e)(4). Based on 

numerous interactions with the NRC staff, our understanding is that the language in paragraph (e) should be 

interpreted as requiring licensees to perform one drill or exercise of the strategies in either (b)(1), or (b)(2), or 

(b)(3) during the initial 4-year period. However, as currently written, the language could also be interpreted 

to require licensees to perform one drill or exercise of each of the strategies in (b)(1) or(b)(2), and (b)(3) 

during the initial 4-year period. 

This issue was initially discussed during a November 16, 2016, meeting with the Advisory Committee on 

Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) and NEI subsequently submitted, for the public record, a summary of our concern 

and our suggested resolution. Based on discussions since that time, we believe that the NRC staff's current 

interpretation of the provisions of section 50.155(e) is consistent with the "either" version provided above. 

That said, section 50.1SS(e) was not sufficiently clarified in the draft final rule provided to the Commission, 

and the issue recently resurfaced during industry discussions on rule implementation. 

Consistent with NRC's principles of good regulation, and in the interest of clarity and reliability, we suggest 

that editorial changes be made to clarify the intent of 10 CFR 50.155(e) prior to finalizing the rule. To that 

end, we have attached a marked-up version of 10 CFR 50.155(e) showing proposed editorial changes that will 

NUCLEAR. CLEAN AIR ENERGY 
91 


36163.071

Mr. Victor McCree 

July 12, 2017 

Page 2 

clarify the requirement and address our concern. Given our previous interactions with the staff, we believe the 

proposed changes do not alter the intent of the final rule, but, rather, are a technical correction/clarification. 

If you have questions or require additional information, please contact me at 202-739-8114; jep@nei.org. 

Sincerely, 

U-flZ~j_ 

Joseph E. Pollock 

c: Kristine L. Svinicki, Chairman 

Stephen G. Burns, Commissioner 

Jeff Baran, Commissioner 

Michael R. Johnson, Deputy Executive Director for Reactor and Preparedness Programs 

Brian Holian, Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

Jane Marshall, Acting Director, Japan Lessons-Learned Division 
92 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. In May 2018, after all this closed, two new 

Republican appointees joined the Commission, giving Republican 

appointees a three to two majority, and in January 2019 NRC 

weakened the rule, made it voluntary. The NRC has acknowledged 

that there were not any public comments calling for this change. 

Now, I am somebody who has worked to get you more authority. 

I have been a prime mover on two pieces of legislation to promote 

innovation and nuclear technology. I am the cosponsor, with our 

acting Chair, of another one that is working its way through the 

Senate right now. 

It is going to be a real problem for me to continue to trust in all 

of you if either of two things is true: one, there is some kind of an 

industry back door into the Commission that gets a change like 

this done after the public comment period is closed, without any 

public comment, and apparently outside of the APA public process. 

That would be a very unfortunate set of events, probably also illegal. So I think this Committee is entitled to an answer as to what 

exactly took place that caused that. 

The second is, you don’t take sea level rise seriously. You don’t 

think this is a real risk for the nine nuclear plants that are within 

3 kilometers of our coast or the four that have been deemed susceptible to sea level rise and flooding. That is not acceptable either. 

So I see this event as a potentially very significant bellwether as 

to the trustworthiness of this Commission, and I have been trusting this Commission. So I need some serious answers and we are 

going to follow up. We sent this letter, Chairman Carper and I, 

which I would ask to be put into the record as an exhibit. We need 

to get to the bottom of this. 

If there is some back door where industry people can come in and 

fix a rule without going through the APA process, that is just plain 

wrong. And if the reason for this is that you don’t take flooding and 

sea level rise seriously, that is just plain wrong. The first is wrong 

procedurally and legally; the second is wrong morally and factually. 

So I intend to pursue this, and I am just putting you on notice 

that I think this is really serious. And I say this as a person who 

has trusted you with very important new responsibilities. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

93 


36163.072

tinitcd States ~cnatc COMM!Htl: ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBUC WORKS 

Ms. Kristine Svinicki 

Chairman 

11555 Rockville Pike 

Rockville, MD 20852 

Re: SECY-16-0142 

Dear Chairman Svinicki: 

April I, 2019 

We arc writing concerning the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) recently issued Mitigation of 

Beyond-Design-Basis Events Rule. This rule stemmed out of an eight-year NRC process to improve 

nuclear reactor safety in the United States in response to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant 

accident in Japan. We are concerned that changes from the proposal, issued in 2015, unnecessarily 

backtracks from critical safety requirements to protect our nuclear reactors against the flooding and 

seismic hazards that they face today and in the future. 

While we are proponents of clean energy and believe nuclear power could be essential in helping us 

tackle the threats of climate change, our top priority for our domestic nuclear power industry remains 

public safety. 

Just last month, we marked eight years since a massive earthquake and tsunami triggered events that led 

to the nuclear meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, 230 miles northeast of Tokyo, 

Japan. The people of Japan are still recovering from this accident and public confidence in the nuclear 

industry has not recovered. 

Shortly after the events unfolded at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, the NRC committed to 

the EPW committee that it would conduct a comprehensive review of the causes of the Fukushima 

accident and review and address any potential risks that may exist at our own reactors. In particular, the 

review would focus on reactors of similar design, reactors near seismic fault lines, and reactors near 

coastlines or other possible flooding hazards. The NRC also committed to apply any lessons learned from 

the Fukushima Daiichi accident to our nuclear regulatory process to ensure we never experience a similar 

event in the United States. An independent NRC staff task Ioree issued twelve broad safety 

recommendations in July 20 I I and the Commission and nuclear industry have been working to 

implement these recommendations ever since. 

In implementing the Fukushima recommendations, the NRC requested that all U.S. nuclear power plant 

operators assess potential seismic and flooding hazards to their reactors and perform "walkdown" 

inspections of the currently installed seismic and flooding protection features. In these reviews and 

inspections, the NRC and industry came to realize that some of the protections in place were inadequate 

to meet the current seismic and flooding hazards. They realized that more work needed to be done across 

the nuclear industry to address possible natural disaster events that could overcome the safety designs of 

certain reactors, known as "beyond design-basis events." 
94 


36163.073

Since identifying these sati:ty gaps, the nuclear industry has spent several billions dollars to update and 

modify plant structures, systems and equipment to improve reactor safety to maintain safety in the event 

of flooding or seismic events. At the same time, the NRC forged ahead on regulatory actions to address 

these safety gaps and other lessons learned from Fukushima. 

ln November 2015, the NRC proposed a comprehensive post-Fukushima Rule, with full agreement of the 

Commission at the time, including you, called the "Mitigation of Beyond-Design-Basis Events Rule.·· In 

the proposal. NRC required the industry to take further steps beyond their licensed design to address 

seismic or flooding concerns that may not have been knm.vn at the time the reactor's license \vas 

issued, After receiving under 200 individual public comments, staff issued a draft final rule that kept 

these mandatoty requirements tOr the Commission to approve in December :w 16. It took tnorc than t\-vo 

years for the Commission to approve the rule and there were remarkable differences in the final rule from 

the 2016 draft final rule. We believe these ditfercnccs have significantly weakened the original proposal 

and compromised on safety. 

Under your leadership, the Commission finalized an order on Janumy 24, 20 !9 that backtracks on several 

components of the Mitigation of Beyond-Design-Basis Events Rulemaking. !n the final rule, NRC 

decided to ignore staff recommendations and make preventive actions to address beyond-design flooding 

and seismic events voluntary. Most of industry has already addressed these issues, but not requiring 

mandatory action to continually address the tv.'o main issues that arose during Fukushima seems liery 

concerning. These concerns are also reflected in the votes submined by your colleagues. Commissioners 

Baran and Bums. \Vhat is most peculiar is that when our staff asked the NRC about any public comments 

calling for these changes, they were told there were none. From what our staff have found, there seem to 

be no calls from outside groups or from career staff asking for the weakening of this rule. 

The new rule appears short-sighted to say the least. U.S. nuclear power plants should not only 

incorporate lessons leamed from one of the worst nuclear accidents in history, but the industry should 

also be preparing for the effects of climate change and sea-level rise. The Fourth National Climate 

Assessmentf1

1 issued in November 2018 found that global mean sea level has increased 16-21 centimeters 

(7-8 inches) since 1900 and is expected to rise up to l-4 meters by the end of the century. Before 2045. 

tidal flooding is expected to occur five times more lfequcntly flooding some coastal areas for over 50% 

of the year, fn the United States~ there are nine nuclear p!anb within three kilometers of the ocean and 

four of those reactors have been deemed susceptible to flooding and sea-level rise.ill The Fourth National 

Climate Assessment also found that extreme rain events and more intense hurricanes are likely to occur 

over the next century- making the recent flooding events in Nebraska, Maryland and Texas more nonna!. 

No\v is the time to harden our nuclear facilities tn deal with rising seas and more int-ense storms due to 

climate change, not weaken them. 

In order to better understand the Commission's decision to weaken this rule. we request answers to the 

following questions and related infonnation: 

Did you or anyone on the Commission receive any comments outside the comment period 

regarding the Mitigation of Beyond-Design-Basis Events Rule, SECY-16-0 142, asking for the 

I Ju!ed States,· Fotmh Xatttmal ( 'bmatt· A.~sessmcnt. l'ohmw If [Reidmilkr. DR C \\ 

!.cw1s. T K. Ma}cn~k m1d B C Stewart fcds }). t \S.. (il\lbal Change He-search Program. 

lD.7930rNCA4201S 
95 


36163.074

Commission to change mandatory requirements to voluntar:v requirements in the final rule from 

the draft final rule? 

According to correspondence and public comments from NEI, industry appears to hal'e agreed to 

the part of rule where plants must update their de~ign p!ans tn \\.ithstand extreme hazard 

events. We request that the Commission provide a list of all briefings and meetings. and provide 

cm·respondence (including electronic mail) hcl\\ccn Commissioners and NRC staff and any 

representatives ofNEl, on the Mitigation of Beyond,Dcsign-Basis Events nde after the comment 

period ended. 

How did the Commission take into account the latest warnings !rom Fourth National Climate 

Assessmen1 and other recent scientific reports on ho\v rising sea levels \Vill affect nuclear pmvcr 

plants near coastlines? 

How did the Commission take into account the climate change science that projects more intense 

precipitation and tlooding events across the U.S,? 

Hmv does the Commission's final rule ensure that plants vviil be protected against the most severe 

events that they may experience, today and in the future'' Please explain further than what you 

have included in your vote. 

Please provide a list of times when nuclear plants needed to be shut down- and how long those 

shut downs lasted" over the past ten years due to high winds, flooding events, or due to the lack 

of available cooling water. 

The events that struck Japan less than a decade ago were reminders that we are all vulnerable to 

unexpected disasters. whether an act of nature or a termrist attack. While we cannot predict when or 

where the next !11(\jor disaster will occur, we know adequate preparation and response planning are vital to 

minimize injury and death when it docs happen. 

We look forward to your response by May I, 2019. 

reach out to Laura Gillam on Senator Carper's EPW stafl~ .,.,, .. ,, . .,_. .. ,,, 

Goldner on Senator Whitehouse's staff. 

With best personal regards, we are 

Sincerely yours. 

~ 

Cc 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

Commissioner Baran 

Commissioner Bums 

Commissioner Caputo 

Commissioner Wright 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Clean Air and 

Nuclear Safety 
96 

Senator CAPITO. Is there any reaction? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Senator Whitehouse, I look forward to responding 

to the series of questions that you provided to the Commission yesterday. Thank you. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. We look forward to hearing your response. 

Senator CAPITO. Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant is set to close in June, and I 

know the Commissioners are not going to answer some specific 

questions as related to matters that are pending before the NRC, 

but we need more clarity. 

Chair Svinicki, does the NRC have the statutory or regulatory 

authority it needs to make sure that licensees bear all of the financial costs of decommissioning and site maintenance? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Thank you, Senator Markey. I believe that the decommissioning funds that are collected under our authority are 

principally for decommissioning of the radiological hazard. There 

may be amounts beyond that that State authorities require to be 

collected, and often these funds are comingled in the decommissioning fund. 

Senator MARKEY. Well, obviously the communities, including 

Plymouth, need assurance that all the financial costs are going to 

be borne, and they don’t want to get stuck footing the bill if costs 

go up, or businesses go under, so the proposed decommissioning 

rulemaking at the NRC would do even more to cut NRC approval 

and public comment out of the already flimsy decommissioning 

process, including by automatically granting exemptions to safety 

regulations. 

Commissioner Baran, do you think the proposed decommissioning rule might tilt the balance of power farther toward nuclear 

plant operators and away from the independent NRC staff? 

Mr. BARAN. I think the proposed rule needs a lot of work. I think 

we need to produce a balanced rule that considers the interests of 

a broad range of stakeholders, including States and local governments. I think in terms of who is making the big decisions about 

decommissioning; I don’t know that the proposed rule changes that 

much. Right now that is tilted heavily toward the licensees. NRC 

is pretty hands off when it comes to decommissioning. We, of 

course, do safety inspections, which are important, but licensees 

get to make most of the major decisions, and the proposed rule 

really wouldn’t change that. 

Senator MARKEY. And that is my concern, that the nuclear industry wants the NRC to turn a blind eye, but we actually need more 

independent oversight, not less. 

The Nuclear Energy Institute is pushing for major changes to the 

reactor oversight process, the cornerstone safety program at the 

NRC. The industry wants to inspect and assess itself more often, 

rather than allow the NRC to conduct independent inspections. If 

adopted, these changes would make inspections like a take home 

exam and leave the NRC just hoping that plants don’t cheat. 

Chair Svinicki, plants often do self-assessments before the NRC 

comes in for an inspection. Do the NRC inspectors find issues that 

the plants have missed? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes, they do sometimes. 

97 

Senator MARKEY. Yes, you do, because the NRC does frequently 

uncover issues that the operators don’t find themselves, and these 

could be problems that would be totally ignored if the nuclear industry could self-assess. 

One of the proposed changes is to take less of a look at ‘‘white 

findings,’’ which are safety issues that are less obviously severe 

than yellow or red findings, but white findings are incredibly important. Following a series of white findings, Pilgrim Nuclear 

Power Station in Plymouth was placed in the lowest active safety 

category after NRC inspectors followed up and found major safety 

issues. This designation triggered additional inspections and oversight, ultimately helping Pilgrim operate more safely and improve 

its rating. 

Madam Chair, if the proposal to ignore more white findings was 

adopted, would Pilgrim have gotten a closer look from NRC inspectors? 

Ms. SVINICKI. I think it is difficult for me to conclude one way 

or another on that, respectfully. It is a certain number of findings 

of a certain color that lead them to move to different performance 

categories, and I can’t, off the top of my head, kind of recreate what 

those triggers were back in 2014 and 2015. 

Senator MARKEY. Well, let me ask you, Commissioner Baran, 

does discounting low risk findings mean we might miss higher risk 

issues down the line? 

Mr. BARAN. Yes, I think white findings are very important for 

that. Since the beginning of the reactor oversight process, white 

findings, and even green findings, have been leading indicators of 

potentially more safety significant problems at plants, so Pilgrim is 

a good example of that; it got into column four with three white 

findings. There were no yellows, there were no reds; it ended up 

there on whites. And it absolutely needed to be in column four. I 

think everyone agreed that was a right safety outcome. 

So, if we moved in the direction of really reducing the significance of white findings, I would have significant concerns about 

that. 

Senator MARKEY. And I have that concern as well, because the 

NRC should not be giving take home exams to nuclear power plant 

operators, because the tendency on a take home exam is to always 

give yourself an A+, and obviously the history of this industry tells 

us that that temptation too often has been succumbed to by industry participants. So, I just think that we have to make sure that 

the industry doesn’t cut corners, doesn’t undermine public safety, 

so I am going to be following this very closely. 

I thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

Senator Van Hollen. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Thank all of you for your testimony today. As we have heard, the 

NRC plays a vital role in regulating the domestic nuclear industry 

by ensuring the secure and safe use of nuclear materials. That is 

the goal. You also play an important role in regulating nuclear exports, exports abroad, by ensuring that U.S. nuclear materials and 

technology do not fall into the wrong hands. In other words, you 

98 

are part of a mechanism that is supposed to pursue rigorous due 

diligence when it comes to these export controls. 

I am concerned that, when it comes to Saudi Arabia, this Administration is severely testing the strength of the alignment between 

the NRC’s role, the DOE’s role, and the goal of a nonproliferation 

policy. Reportedly, and I think they have confirmed they are pursuing a nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia, which 

has enforced the lowest standard of international safeguards, a 

country whose leaders have loosely talked about acquiring nuclear 

weapons and a country that we know consistently flouts international norms. And now this Administration wants to do nuclear 

business with Saudi Arabia. 

Last week, DOE confirmed that the Administration has deepened 

nuclear cooperation with Saudi Arabia. Secretary of Energy Perry 

acknowledged that the Department of Energy has issued seven undisclosed part 810 authorizations to American companies to transfer unspecified nuclear technology and know-how to Saudi Arabia. 

In my view, it doesn’t appear that the Administration is exercising 

due diligence. 

I know the NRC is not the lead agency here, but under the statute and regulations you play a consulting role. In fact, it is required that DOE consult with you on these, so my question, 

Madam Chairman, is when did the Department of Energy consult 

with the NRC on issuing these seven part 810 authorizations? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Thank you, Senator. As you have described, under 

the Atomic Energy Act, the NRC does have a consultative role, it 

is not a concurrence role; and again, it is not an opinion on U.S. 

foreign policy. We have a consultative role under the law because, 

as you note, should the U.S. get to a point where they are exporting components and nuclear materials, the NRC is the central export licensing authority for that. 

The NRC’s consultative role I would generally describe as something that they are looking at whether matters of law and under 

an 810 or whether or not you could effectuate the export licensing, 

should you get to that point, so it is a narrow consultation on some 

matters of expertise of the agency, but it differs from our role in 

the—— 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. No, Madam Chairman, my question was 

not what is the nature of your role. You have a role. My question 

was when did the Department of Energy consult with the NRC 

with respect to the part 810 authorizations to Saudi Arabia. 

Ms. SVINICKI. I don’t have that answer for you today, Senator. I 

would need to get back to you. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. I would like you to get back as soon as 

possible. I mean, these 810 authorizations were apparently kept secret, and I must say I am surprised. Were you involved in the consultation? 

Ms. SVINICKI. In general, since the role is narrow—— 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. I mean specifically on the 810 authorizations. 

Ms. SVINICKI. Members of the Commission. This is a delegated 

staff process. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. Were any of you individually involved? Nobody at the table was part of that 810 consultation process. 

99 

All right, so then you wouldn’t know when it took place. I see. 

I must say that is staggering. So you don’t know whether or not 

the NRC raised any concerns as part of this consulting—I know 

you don’t have sign off authority, but none of you at this table 

know whether the NRC raised any concerns about entering into 

these 810 authorizations. 

Ms. SVINICKI. I do not. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. OK. 

Madam Chairman, I would request that you get this information 

as soon as possible. This just came to light. You have a statutory 

and regulatory role to play here, and I have to say it is astounding 

that not a single one of you is aware of whether, when, and what 

role the NRC played in that particular authorization. 

Senator CAPITO. Well, if there are no more questions for today— 

oh, yes, Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. I want to come back to the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act from when we talked about it earlier in the hearing. My question for you, just a little bit different, 

could you all take a moment and tell us how you believe NEIMA 

implementation is going, and will the changes help the advanced 

nuclear technologies, and do you have any concerns with implementing any of those new changes? 

Madam Chair. 

Ms. SVINICKI. If I may start, Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Please. 

Ms. SVINICKI. Candidly, with Congress passing it in December 

and its signature in January, it is candidly off-cycle from the development of the fiscal year 2020 budget that lies before the Congress 

right now. That being said, we moved out very quickly on it in January to do kind of a diagramming of all the different provisions, 

and it is our assessment today, based on where we are, that with 

a shifting of some priorities and other things we are confident that 

within the budget request that pends before you, even though we 

didn’t have NEIMA enacted at the time that we formulated that 

request, we are confident that we could perhaps reprioritize a bit 

within fiscal year 2020 activities in order to accommodate the 

NEIMA requirements under the budget we have. 

As I had mentioned to Senator Capito, there are a number of 

provisions that are interrelated by their mathematical effect on our 

budget. We are still working to run some scenarios and have a better sense of how all of those provisions will work in concert with 

each other. It will probably take one full budget cycle before we 

could come back to you in an informed way and say it creates a 

significant downward pressure here, but offers relief here. 

So, certainly, we would keep the Committee informed as we implement, we have feedback that would be of utility and informing 

the Committee about how we are doing on it. It is a little bit early 

days right now. That would be my characterization of where we 

are. 

Senator CARPER. Anybody have a different view or feel a need to 

amplify on that? 

Mr. BARAN. The only thing I would add just specifically on advanced reactors, I think probably the main provision under the 

statute on the advanced reactors is having NRC do a rulemaking 

100 

that would be a rulemaking that could cover any of the advanced 

reactor technologies, something that is not technology specific but 

rather, more of a performance based approach that would cover any 

of the technologies. 

That is very much consistent with where the staff had been moving. The staff had already proposed to the Commission a rulemaking of that sort, so on the advanced reactor side I think the vision expressed in the bill that became law and the vision kind of 

at NRC are very much consistent. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thanks. 

I have a last question, a different question. I just want to ask 

you for advice, and we will start with you, Commissioner Burns. 

Like Senator Whitehouse, I live in a coastal State. Our State is 

the lowest lying State in America. The seas are rising, my State 

is sinking, so we have a huge concern about sea level change, climate change. 

It was not long ago roughly 70 percent of the non-carbon electricity that was generated came from nuclear. I am told we are now 

down to about 60 percent of the non-carbon electricity generated 

comes from nuclear. We are seeing more wind, we are seeing more 

solar, which is a good thing. 

Like the Chairman, I have a longstanding interest in making 

sure that we continue to address climate change, and we do it in 

ways that are cost effective and safe. Give us, each of you, just a 

very brief word of advice on what this Committee can do to make 

sure that the nuclear industry, rather than continue to diminish in 

terms of its contribution to carbon-free electricity, gets to increase 

it. Please. 

Commissioner Burns. 

Mr. BURNS. Thank you, Senator Carper. I think, again, it is looking across this span of our history as an agency, and even going 

back into the development of civilian nuclear power. One thing is 

maintaining the integrity of the institutional integrity that we 

have, that we have a strong regulator, an independent regulator. 

That is the international norm, and in a way, when we were created, we created, in many respects, what became the international 

norm for regulation through the Convention on Nuclear Safety. 

I think, again, your role in terms of oversight for us, in terms 

of holding us accountable through hearings and through the process is important, and you also complement that by looking into 

things like research and development that is undertaken by DOE, 

by private industry. Those things I think continue to be the most 

important things that I think you can do. 

Again, I would say one of the interesting things about working 

at this agency for many years has been that, across time, we call 

it a learning organization, using this word transformation, it is continually to think about how we do our work and how we can do it 

better, more effectively. I think that is the challenge for you, to 

keep pushing at us. 

So those are just some brief thoughts. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, I know my time has expired, but 

would it be possible if any of the other Commissioners who wanted 

to comment on that question, just to say a few words? 

Senator BARRASSO [presiding]. Please. 

101 

Senator CARPER. How about our newest member. 

Mr. WRIGHT. I agree with everything that you have heard. I do 

think that right now we are going through change, transformation. 

That is the word that you are hearing in the paper that is before 

us. 

But if we don’t do things within our agency to keep ahead of the 

curve and be prepared for what the future is going to hold, regardless of which direction it goes, and that is kind of what the agency 

is looking at, then we are going to cede ourselves to somewhere we 

don’t want to be. So we need to be prepared for anything that 

comes along, especially making sure that we have the ability for 

new technologies to be licensed in this country that can be sold 

around the world. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you, sir. 

Ms. Caputo. 

Ms. CAPUTO. I think one thing that I would add is just the importance of the NRC conducting predictable and timely decisions, 

because I think a lot of companies that are looking at advanced reactor technology are not traditional nuclear utilities and to a great 

extent, if we are perceived to be slow, untimely, not predictable, it 

will have drastic impacts on the nature of their investment and 

their business prospects for proceeding. So, I think there is a great 

attention toward making sure that we take risk informed actions 

and that we do it in a timely fashion in order to make the regulatory process as predictable as possible. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thank you. 

Commissioner Baran. 

Mr. BARAN. I don’t know that I would have too much to add. I 

agree with Commissioner Burns that your focus on the work we 

are doing and on safety is so critical, because it is the foundation 

for everything. You know, whether it is about having the plants 

continue to operate that are there or having new plants come online, safety is just key to all of that, and your focus on that is so 

appreciated. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Madam Chair. 

Ms. SVINICKI. Well, I agree with the perspectives of my colleagues. I think I am increasingly daunted by how hard change is 

in large organizations. If we were manufacturers, we could shut 

down the line, and we could retool, but our product is really decisions and regulatory outcomes, and what you are asking people to 

do at every level in the organization is to think differently about 

things, to be open to innovation and new technology. 

Now, we do want to get them improved tools to do what they do, 

maybe better ways to monitor their program activities and metrics, 

and we are making a lot of IT investment, and we are trying to 

equip them. Because if you are asking people to change, you have 

to give them the tools to go about and do things differently or more 

efficiently. But when an agency has had such a strong performance 

record regulating one type of reactor and doing it one way, it is a 

hard thing to surmount how accustomed people are to reflexively, 

without even thinking about it, kind of picking up something and 

going about it the same way, so hats off to our leaders. 

102 

We do have a lot of mid-career employees who I think are bringing strong energy to this. They want to work there 15 years from 

now, 20 years from now, and they are actually, I think, a little excited to say, hey, I will get to put my imprint on how we do things 

they have inherited. Things like the reactor oversight process that 

has been mentioned here, that was designed 20 years ago, and they 

want to have an opportunity to take what we have learned in the 

intervening years and make NRC not less than it was or diminished, but just the NRC that is going to continue that they want 

to be working at 20 years from now. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thank you. 

Speaking of change and transition, I would just say to Stephen 

Burns—what do they say in Hawaii, aloha, whether you are coming 

or going? In the Navy, we say fair winds and a following sea. 

Thank you for your service. God bless you and your family. 

Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Just a couple more questions. 

Chairman Svinicki, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act required the 

Department of Energy to begin receiving spent nuclear fuel in 

1998. American taxpayers now pay I think over $2 million of legal 

costs every day because Yucca Mountain is not operational. The 

NRC’s budget requests $36 million to hire 77 staff to receive the 

Commission’s nuclear waste disposal program in terms of reviving 

the program and moving along with it. What can the Commission 

accomplish with that funding if Congress is able to appropriate the 

money? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Thank you. The increment of funding that we have 

asked for would be allocated principally toward the resumption of 

what is called the adjudicatory hearing. There are over 300 what 

we call contentions or disputed issues on the Yucca Mountain license application, and we need to have a hearing infrastructure, we 

need to have hearing judges and staff. 

As has been noted, this project for NRC has been dormant now 

for nearly 10 years, or it would be 10 years when the fiscal year 

2020 budget is put in place. We have lost a lot of people; we have 

lost a lot of knowledge and expertise. We have good experts. I think 

we could reacquaint them with the record and try to have them 

begin to participate fully in this activity, but there would be a lot 

of capability and infrastructure to be restored, and the funding we 

have requested would be put to that purpose. 

Senator BARRASSO. One last question. You do a monthly report 

on the status of the NRC, the licensing actions, the budget. I have 

recently reviewed I think your 26th monthly report. I think the report would benefit from some redesigning, maybe for clarity and for 

some usefulness, and I just wondered if you and your staff would 

work with me and my Committee staff to revise the format and the 

content of the monthly report, if that is something we can work on. 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes, Chairman Barrasso, we would welcome an opportunity to try to better meet the Committee’s information needs 

in that report, which has become a bit, ponderously long and cumbersome. We seek only to provide you with something that is beneficial. 

I would note that we also have legacy reports that I think Senator Voinovich may have initiated, and if, as a part of that, we 

103 

could propose to you any combination that would make sense. We 

send you committee reports on different frequencies, on different 

topics that have simply accumulated over the course of the Committee’s request to the agency, and there may be some rationalization, and we could result maybe in an improved product on more 

than just the monthly report. 

Senator BARRASSO. That would be very helpful. 

I am grateful to all of you for your testimony, especially Commissioner Burns. Thank you for your long years of service to our Nation. It is bipartisan gratitude for all the work that you have done. 

If there are no further questions, members may submit follow up 

questions for the record over the next couple of weeks. The hearing 

record will therefore remain open for 2 weeks. 

I want to thank all of you for your time and your testimony. The 

hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:26 a.m. the Committee was adjourned.] 

Æ