U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

23–503 2017

H.R. 4979, THE ADVANCED NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2016, AND 

H.R. lll, THE NUCLEAR UTILIZATION OF 

KEYNOTE ENERGY POLICIES ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 29, 2016 

Serial No. 114–141 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

Chairman 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

GREGG HARPER, Vice Chairman 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

Ranking Member 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Kentucky, opening statement ......................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 2 

Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 4 

Hon. Jerry McNerney, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 6 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 72 

Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey, prepared statement ........................................................................ 73 

WITNESSES

Marvin Fertel, President and Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear Energy Institute ........................................................................................................................ 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 83 

Jeffrey S. Merrifield, Partner, Pillsbury Law Firm, Chairman, Advanced Reactors Task Force, Nuclear Infrastructure Council ........................................... 24 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 26 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 91 

Todd Allen, Senior Fellow, Clean Energy Program, Third Way .......................... 34 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 94 

Geoffrey Fettus, Senior Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Counsel ............. 48 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 50 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 97 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Statement of the Nuclear Energy Institute ........................................................... 74 

Statement of the American Nuclear Society ......................................................... 76 

Statement of Clearpath Action ............................................................................... 77 

Statement of Third Way .......................................................................................... 79 

Statement of the Clean Air Task Force ................................................................. 80 

Statement of Transatomic Power Corporation ...................................................... 82 

(1) 

H.R. 4979, THE ADVANCED NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2016, AND 

H.R. —————, THE NUCLEAR UTILIZATION 

OF KEYNOTE ENERGY POLICIES ACT 

FRIDAY, APRIL 29, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:34 a.m., in room 

2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Whitfield (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Whitfield, Shimkus, Latta, McKinley, 

Kinzinger, Long, Rush, McNerney, Tonko, Green, Doyle, Castor, 

Welch, and Loebsack. 

Staff Present: Will Batson, Legislative Clerk, E&P, E&E; Allison 

Busbee, Policy Coordinator, Energy & Power; Tom Hassenboehler, 

Chief Counsel, Energy & Power; A.T. Johnston, Senior Policy Advisor; Chris Sarley, Policy Coordinator, Environment & Economy; 

Dan Schneider, Press Secretary; Peter Spencer, Professional Staff 

Member, Oversight; Andy Zach, Counsel E&E; Jeff Carroll, Minority Staff Director; Rick Kessler, Minority Senior Advisor and Staff 

Director, Energy and Environment; John Marshall, Minority Policy 

Coordinator; Dan Miller, Minority Staff Assistant; Alexander 

Ratner, Minority Policy Analyst; Tim Robinson, Minority Chief 

Counsel; Andrew Souvall, Minority Director of Communications, 

Outreach and Member Services; and Tuley Wright, Minority Energy and Environment Policy Advisor. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I would like to call the hearing to order this 

morning. I recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Good morning, and welcome to our hearing to discuss legislative 

proposals to advance the use of nuclear energy. 

I want to thank all of our witnesses in advance, and I will be introducing each of you before your 5-minute opening statement. 

But we want to thank Marvin Fertel for the great job he did at 

the Nuclear Energy Institute, and I think it is his plan to go on 

and look at other challenges at the end of this year. So we are delighted he is here. He has served as NEI’s president and chief execVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:58 Feb 13, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-141 CHRIS
2 

utive officer since 2009 and has had a long and distinguished career advocating for the nuclear industry. 

Nuclear energy is an integral part of our energy policy. The current fleet of roughly 100 operating nuclear power plants safely and 

reliably generates about 20 percent of our Nation’s electricity. However, many of these power plants are approaching the end of their 

current license, and unnecessary regulatory costs are adding to 

challenging economic conditions. 

This outlook provides a timely opportunity to examine proposals 

to improve the regulatory framework for nuclear power plants and 

options to develop a regulatory framework for advanced nuclear 

technologies. 

New nuclear technologies hold great promise to operate in a costcompetitive environment with even greater safety margins than existing reactors while generating less waste and reducing proliferation concerns. However, regulatory uncertainty is repeatedly cited 

as a top barrier to developing these technologies. The Department 

of Energy, which supports nuclear research and development activity, should collaborate, where applicable, with the NRC to address 

this uncertainty. 

Today, we are going to hear from stakeholders about how to 

more effectively manage the regulatory process, including options 

to increase the efficiency and certainty of the NRC’s existing licensing process. Representative Kinzinger’s discussion draft highlights 

that cumbersome red tape in our regulatory process forces ratepayers to pay more for safe, clean nuclear power, and I want to 

thank him for his legislation, and we look forward to your comments about that. 

Also, I certainly appreciate Congressman Latta’s leadership in 

addressing regulatory barriers hindering the development of advanced nuclear technologies. His legislation, the Advanced Nuclear 

Technology Development Act, will assure that DOE’s technical expertise, research, and facilities are utilized, when appropriate, to 

assist the NRC. 

And at this time, I would like to yield a minute or so to Mr. 

Latta, and then I will yield to Mr. Kinzinger, for their comments 

on their legislation. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD

Nuclear energy is an integral part of an ‘‘all of the above’’ energy policy. The current fleet of 100 operating nuclear power plants safely and reliably generates about 

20 percent of our nation’s electricity. However, many of these power plants are approaching the end of their current license and unnecessary regulatory costs are adding to challenging economic conditions. This outlook provides a timely opportunity 

to examine proposals to improve the regulatory framework for nuclear power plants 

and options to develop a regulatory framework for advanced nuclear technologies. 

I have raised concerns in previous oversight hearings about the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) discipline in its regulatory activities and responsiveness 

to NRC licensees. It is Congress’ responsibility to consider how these activities can 

be improved while assuring adequate protection of public health and safety. I am 

confident we can identify efficiencies to assure NRC adheres to their Principles of 

Good Regulation, while fulfilling their critical mission. 

New nuclear technologies hold great promise to operate in a cost competitive environment, with even greater safety margins than existing reactors while generating 

less waste and reducing proliferation concerns. However, regulatory uncertainty is 

repeatedly cited as a top barrier to developing these technologies. The Department 

3 

of Energy, which supports nuclear research and development activities, should collaborate where applicable, with the NRC to address this uncertainty. 

Today we will hear from stakeholders about how to more effectively manage the 

regulatory process, including options to increase the efficiency and certainty of the 

NRC’s existing licensing process. Representative Kinzinger’s discussion draft highlights that cumbersome red tape in our regulatory process forces ratepayers to pay 

more for safe, clean nuclear power. 

I appreciate Congressman Latta’s leadership to address regulatory barriers hindering the development of advanced nuclear technologies. His legislation, the Advanced Nuclear Technology Development Act, will assure that DOE’s technical expertise, research, and facilities are utilized when appropriate to assist the NRC. 

This legislation also requires the NRC to draft the regulatory roadmap for the 

scores of companies who need a regulatory framework for 21st century nuclear technologies. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thanks 

for yielding. 

And thanks for our panel for being with us today. 

I would like to again thank you for holding this hearing today 

on nuclear power, which is highlighting the bill Congressman 

McNerney and I introduced last week, H.R. 4979, the Advance Nuclear Technology Development Act of 2016. 

I would like to ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to enter 

several letters of support into the record. These letters are from the 

Nuclear Energy Institute, the American Nuclear Society, and 

ClearPath. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Without objection. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. 

The future of the nuclear industry needs to start now with Congress ensuring that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is able to 

provide the certainty that the private sector needs to invest in innovative technologies. Nuclear power is currently 20 percent of our 

national energy portfolio and must remain a vital part of our energy mix. 

As the United States looks to the future, more energy will be 

needed, and nuclear power provides a reliable, clean baseload 

power option. Investment in new technologies is already happening 

with approximately 50 companies in this country working to develop the next generation of nuclear power. 

And again, that is why we have introduced H.R. 4979. It is time 

for Congress to ensure that NRC provides a framework so that 

innovators and investors can prepare to apply for licensing technologies. H.R. 4979 not only requires that NRC establish a regulatory framework for issuing licenses for advanced nuclear reactor 

technology, but it also requires that NRC submit a schedule for implementation of the framework by 2019. 

Safety in nuclear is the number one goal, and the regulatory 

framework ensures that NRC has the opportunity to develop a 

framework that enables them to safely regulate the future technology of the nuclear industry. H.R. 4979 also requires that the Department of Energy and the NRC collaborate in advancing new nuclear technology. The National Labs in DOE provide opportunities 

for testing of new nuclear technology on Federal lands and the option to look at public-private partnerships between the DOE and 

the private sector companies interested in investing in the future 

of nuclear. 

4 

There is also a role for the NRC in this space because these testing opportunities allow for a demonstration of technologies that 

NRC has not been licensing over the past 4 years. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate you holding this hearing, and I yield back to you. Thank you very much. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Kinzinger, Mr. Upton is not going to be 

here, so I want to give you his time. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And then if Mr. Latta wants to talk some more, 

he can talk some more too then. 

At this time I recognize Mr. Rush for his 5-minute opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. RUSH. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 

important hearing today on H.R. 4979, the Advanced Nuclear Technology Development Act of 2016, and the Nuclear Utilization of 

Keynote Energy Policies Act. 

Mr. Chairman, as we move towards a reduced carbon sustainable 

energy economy, there is no doubt that nuclear energy will need to 

play an instrumental role in order to reach those objectives. While 

today’s fleet of nuclear reactors utilize light-water reactor technology, more attention is now being paid to the use of non-LWR reactor designs that have been demonstrated by the Department of 

Energy but are currently not licensed for commercial use in the 

United States. 

In fact, Mr. Chairman, emerging innovative designs of advanced 

nonlight-water reactors and light-water small modular reactors 

have the potential to produce nuclear power more efficiently and 

with less waste than the current technologies. 

If we are to truly develop and scale up these technological advances, it is important that policymakers and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission provide regulatory certainty for the nuclear industry in order to encourage investment in these next-generation 

nuclear designs. 

So I applaud my colleagues, Mr. Latta and Mr. McNerney, for introducing H.R. 4979. This legislation seeks to provide guidance and 

direction to the NRC and the DOE to ensure that these two agencies have sufficient technical expertise in order to support and regularly advance reactor technology. 

The rule also requires the NRC to formulate a plan that would 

help foster civilian research and development of advanced nuclear 

energy technologies and enhance the licensing and commercial development of such technologies. 

Mr. Chairman, I fully support the intent of this legislation. I look 

forward to hearing feedback from our panel of experts on both the 

necessity for this type of legislation and the implications once it is 

enacted. In regards to the Nuclear Utilization of Keynote Energy 

Policies Act, I also look forward to engaging the witnesses on this 

legislation. 

Mr. Chairman, finally, if nuclear energy is going to continue to 

play a constructive role in a reduced carbon energy portfolio, we 

must ensure that we have policies in place that appropriately reVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:58 Feb 13, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-141 CHRIS
5 

flect the contributions of the industry and the current reality that 

it faces. So I commend my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Kinzinger, 

for introducing a bill draft that at the very least initiates a conversation toward reaching this goal. 

Of course, Mr. Chairman, today’s bill is simply a discussion draft, 

and we would need to hear from the NRC commissioners themselves before moving into the legislative process. But I look forward 

to today’s hearing, and I look forward to testimony from today’s experts on both the need for the changes outlined in the bill as well 

as the practical implications if these changes were indeed enacted. 

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. 

At this time I recognize Mr. Kinzinger for 5 minutes. And if some 

others who want some of your time, you might consider yielding to 

them. Thank you. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Sure. This will be fairly quick. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding the hearing, and 

I want to thank each of the witnesses for being here today. It is 

an important topic. 

As we have heard, nuclear power generates about 20 percent of 

electricity in the United States, and in Illinois it is over 50 percent, 

including 60 percent of our Nation’s carbon-free electricity. These 

plants are high performing, consistently having the highest capacity factors by far in the electricity industry and setting the gold 

standard for commercial nuclear safety worldwide. 

We have to recognize, however, that while our nuclear fleet is 

strong today, the demand for clean, reliable, and affordable energy 

is only increasing. We have an obligation to safely maintain our existing fleet of 99 units and to ensure the NRC continues to regulate 

efficiently and effectively so investment in plants can continue. 

The regulatory inefficiency and uncertainty we often see today 

does nothing to help our existing fleet, does nothing to foster investment in new plants, or most importantly, to ensure safety and 

protect public health. 

I want to thank the NRC for providing me with technical feedback on this draft, which we are currently reviewing, and I look 

forward to continuing to work with them throughout this process. 

Furthermore, I appreciate the interest in my colleagues in this 

issue addressed in my discussion draft, including establishing fair 

and more equitable NRC fees, streamlining the licensing process, 

and improving the current regulatory framework for decommissioning plants. These are all important conversations to have so 

that nuclear power can continue to provide clean, reliable, and affordable electricity to ratepayers in the United States. 

Again, I welcome this opportunity to discuss how we can maintain our Nation’s position as the global leader in civilian nuclear 

power and NRC’s position as the gold standard of safety. I think 

all of us who are in this room recognize that if we cede the position, 

it will have serious consequences not only for our economy but also 

for our national security. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to anybody who 

wants my time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Anybody on our side seek additional time? 

6 

Mr. KINZINGER. Great. I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. Yields back. 

At this time I recognize the gentleman from California, and 

thank him very much for cosponsoring this legislation as well, for 

5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MCNERNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Our Nation will, by necessity, diminish our dependence on fossil 

fuels in order to fight climate change, and as we do so, we will need 

to turn more and more to nuclear power. 

H.R. 4979, the bill that my colleague, Mr. Latta, and I introduced, allows the NRC to develop the needed technical expertise for 

emerging technologies. This legislation provides a pathway for the 

NRC and the DOE to continue collaborating and establishes a regulatory framework for consideration of licensing advanced reactors. 

This will help ensure that as newer, safer technologies are developed, that the NRC has the framework in place to review new applications. 

Mr. Chairman, with unanimous consent, I would like to submit 

three letters, one from Berkeley’s Nuclear Engineering Department, one from Third Way, and one from the Clean Air Task Force, 

into the record. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Without objection. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. MCNERNEY. And I will yield the balance of my time to my 

colleague from Pennsylvania. 

Mr. DOYLE. And I thank my colleague. 

I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for holding this important hearing today. To me, nuclear is a critical component of our energy future. We need to work here at this committee to ensure that it remains feasible and safe for our constituents back home by investing in this incredible energy source and 

its technology and making sure its value as carbon-free reliable 

baseload power is properly appreciated. 

I believe that advanced nuclear is a key component of maintaining nuclear power in the future and will be an integral part of our 

energy portfolio here in the United States. My colleagues, Congressman Latta and McNerney’s bill takes important steps in that 

direction. 

I also want to applaud our colleague Mr. Kinzinger for his discussion draft. I think we share many similar concerns regarding 

the nuclear industry, and I am optimistic that we will be able to 

find some common ground on solutions. Though I couldn’t help but 

notice the acronym for your bill is NUKEPA, which I find somewhat distressing. 

But I am certainly encouraged by bringing attention to these 

issues the nuclear industry is facing, and I do hope we can work 

together on solutions and by coming up with a different acronym 

than the one you have chosen. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

7 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. So that concludes 

the opening statements, and I am going to introduce the witnesses 

individually before they speak. 

So first of all, we have Mr. Marvin Fertel, who I mentioned in 

my opening statement, president and chief executive officer for the 

Nuclear Energy Institute. 

Thanks for being with us, and we look forward to your testimony. 

You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENTS OF MARVIN FERTEL, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE; JEFFREY 

S. MERRIFIELD, PARTNER, PILLSBURY LAW FIRM, CHAIRMAN, ADVANCED REACTORS TASK FORCE, NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE COUNCIL; TODD ALLEN, SENIOR FELLOW, 

CLEAN ENERGY PROGRAM, THIRD WAY; AND GEOFFREY 

FETTUS, SENIOR ATTORNEY, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNSEL 

STATEMENT OF MARVIN FERTEL 

Mr. FERTEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Rush and members of the subcommittee. On behalf of the commercial nuclear energy industry, I want to thank the committee for 

considering the Advanced Nuclear Technology Development Act, 

H.R. 4979, and the discussion draft of the Nuclear Utilization of 

Keynote Energy Policies Act. 

I am pleased to represent the broad nuclear industry, including 

the owners and operators of nuclear power plants and the supplier 

community today. 

As Congressman Kinzinger said, nuclear energy is the largest 

and most efficient source of carbon-free electricity in the United 

States. Our 99 reactors produce nearly 20 percent of our Nation’s 

electricity and approximately 63 percent of our carbon-free electricity. 

Nuclear energy facilities demonstrate unmatched reliability by 

operating with an average capacity factor of 92 percent, higher 

than all other electricity sources. And importantly, they are essential to the country’s economy and the communities in which they 

operate. 

Despite the significant environmental, economic, and national security benefits that nuclear energy provides, the current regulatory 

requirements and licensing processes challenge the industry’s ability to build new technologically advanced reactors. 

The prospect of developing advanced reactors has become both 

attractive and necessary in the U.S. and abroad. In this country, 

approximately 126,000 megawatts of generation will be retired over 

the next 15 years. The U.S. Energy Information Administration 

forecasts the need for 287,000 megawatts of new electric capacity 

by 2040 in addition to the electric capacity that will be needed to 

replace the retired power plants. 

Many other countries are looking to a rapid expansion of nuclear 

energy to address their growing electricity and environmental 

needs. Advanced nuclear reactor designs offer many technological 

advances for the U.S. and are also well suited to developing economies. However, without strong Federal leadership and direction, 

8 

the U.S. industry runs the risk of falling behind its international 

competitors. 

H.R. 4979 affirms Congress’ commitment to U.S. leadership in 

nuclear technology and safety. The industry supports provisions in 

the bill that effectively direct the NRC to think differently about 

licensing reactors. The bill calls for an efficient, risk-informed, technology-neutral framework for advanced reactor licensing and a 

phased review process that could effectively facilitate private financing for advanced reactors. 

Developers will be able to demonstrate progress to investors and 

other participants in these first-of-a-kind projects and obtain necessary capital investments as they achieve milestones. 

The NRC imposes stringent safety requirements that all nuclear 

facilities must meet to maintain public health and safety. As we 

look to the details of how innovative advanced reactor technologies 

can meet these requirements, it is important for the NRC’s regulatory framework to acknowledge that there will be a variety of effective ways to meet their safety requirements. 

H.R. 4979 also recognized that it is a government function to develop the regulatory infrastructure to licensed advanced reactor 

technologies and therefore authorizes Federal funding to support 

those activities. 

Congress should reform the NRC’s fee-recovery structure to make 

fees more equitable and transparent. Despite NRC’s efforts to reduce its budget and rightsize the agency, fees continue to be excessive and limitations of the mandated 90 percent fee rule create fundamental structural problems. The NRC budget is approximately $1 billion per year, despite significant declines in its workload. In particular, according to an 

Ernst & Young study performed for the NRC, the NRC spends 37 

percent of its budget on mission support costs, more than 10 percent higher than some peer agencies. 

Because the NRC must collect 90 percent of its budget from licensees and the NRC budget has not correspondingly declined, remaining licensees are responsible for paying higher annual fees. 

With recent premature shutdowns and additional reactor 

decommissionings in the coming years, the current fee structure 

virtually guarantees that remaining licensees will continue to bear 

even higher annual fees. 

The draft Nuclear Utilization of Keynote Energy Policies Act 

adopts a straightforward approach to making NRC fees more equitable. It would continue to require the licensee to pay for all agency 

activities attributable to a licensee or class of licensees but disallow 

collection of fees associated with the agency’s corporate support. 

While there are Federal budget questions that arise with this approach, it would require the NRC to justify corporate support costs 

to Congress in order to receive appropriations, and in turn, prompt 

the NRC to control its budget and reduce or eliminate wasteful 

spending. 

The draft bill recognizes the value of allowing international investments in U.S. nuclear plants by removing outdated restrictions 

on foreign ownership that ignore the multiple protections to our 

Nation’s security and the reality of today’s global nuclear energy 

markets. The draft bill also eliminates the uncontested mandatory 

9 

NRC hearing on construction permits and combined license applications. This would not limit public participation since the public 

does not participate in a mandatory hearing and multiple other formal opportunities are available for public participation. 

The draft bill would require that the NRC improve the regulatory framework for decommissioning nuclear power reactors. It is 

in the best interests of all parties, the NRC, licensees, and other 

stakeholders, to have a more efficient regulatory framework for 

plants entering the decommissioning process. The existing framework does not appropriately account for the significant reduction in 

risk that results when a power reactor ceases operations, defuels, 

and decommissions. 

In closing, on behalf of NEI and its members, I wish to thank 

Congressmen Latta and McNerney for introducing the important 

advanced reactor legislation. We support passage of this bill. We 

also appreciate Congressman Kinzinger’s work to reform NRC fees 

and the regulatory process. 

We look forward to working with members of the committee and 

their staff to advance these reforms. Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fertel follows:] 

10 


23503.010
11 


23503.011
12 


23503.012
13 


23503.013
14 


23503.014
15 


23503.015
16 


23503.016
17 


23503.017
18 


23503.018
19 


23503.019
20 


23503.020
21 


23503.021
22 


23503.022
23 


23503.023
24 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And our next witness is Mr. Jeffrey Merrifield, 

who is partner of the Pillsbury Law Firm and also chairman of the 

Advanced Reactors Task Force, the Nuclear Infrastructure Council. 

Welcome, and you are recognized for 5 minutes, Mr. Merrifield. 

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY S. MERRIFIELD 

Mr. MERRIFIELD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I also 

want to thank Ranking Member Rush and members of the subcommittee. As a former commissioner of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, I frequently testified before this committee, and 

it is again an honor to—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Merrifield, would you move your microphone 

a little closer? 

Mr. MERRIFIELD. Sorry. I got it. 

Mr. Chairman, again, thank you very much. 

Thank you, Ranking Member Rush. 

As a former member and former commissioner of the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, I frequently testified before this committee, and again, it is an honor to be here this morning. 

Today, I am appearing in my role as chair of the U.S. Nuclear 

Infrastructure Council, Advanced Reactors Task Force, although, 

as mentioned, I am a partner in the Pillsbury Law Firm. My testimony will discuss the provisions in H.R. 4979 on advanced reactors, as well as the proposed changes to the NRC procedures that 

are the subject of a discussion draft offered by Congressman 

Kinzinger. 

NIC salutes the subcommittee’s focus and support for advanced 

reactors, as well as the NRC budget reform provisions that provide 

funding for the NRC to develop a modernized nuclear licensing 

framework for advanced nuclear technologies. NIC issued a framework for advanced reactor licensing modernization white paper on 

February 22, 2016, which embraces many of the elements contained in the legislation. 

When I first became a commissioner in 1998, the NRC, with the 

support of Congress, worked to rightsize the agency, consistent 

with the level of licensing and inspection activities. At that time, 

the agency had approximately 3,400 employees, and within the 

next few years we were able to reduce that down to about 2,800, 

principally through attrition, yet without any sacrifice to its mission of protecting people and the environment. 

Today, the agency faces the same challenges to reduce its staff 

and to become more efficient and timely in its licensing activities. 

While the NRC has made great strides in rightsizing the agency 

through Project AIM, we believe further efficiencies can be realized, 

while at the same time maintaining safety and inspection activities 

and improving the timeliness of licensing. 

During the past decade, the U.S. has maintained its technology 

leadership by developing new passive Generation III reactors in 

Georgia and South Carolina, as well as small modular light-water 

nuclear reactors headed toward deployment. NIC has seen significant growth and support for Generation IV advanced reactors that 

will provide expanded options for economical, carbon-free electricity 

and industrial heat generation. 

25 

If the United States is to be successful in maintaining its lead 

in developing and deploying these reactors in the 2020s and 2030s, 

Congress must consider significant policy changes. We believe the 

language in section 6 of H.R. 4979 will allow the agency to create 

a modern, risk-informed, technology-neutral framework, which will 

enable the development of appropriate advanced reactor regulations without passing these costs on to the developers or the utilities. 

While section 6(a)(6) calls for the NRC to evaluate options to 

allow applicants to use phased review processes, we believe the 

language should be strengthened to require the NRC to establish 

specific stages in the commercial advanced nuclear reactor licensing process, including a prelicensing vendor design review modeled 

after the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission vendor design process that was recommended by the NIC white paper. 

Such a process would allow advanced reactor developers and investors to have a clearer picture of where they stand in the NRC 

process and in meeting NRC safety requirements and allow them 

to achieve further investment in their technologies. 

We would emphasize a need to establish risk-informed performance criteria applicable for advanced reactors. While licensing process reforms are needed, advanced reactor technical performance 

criteria arecritically required for developers to proceed with advanced reactor designs, and the NRC must move forward to finalize 

advanced generic design criteria, source term, and emergency planning requirements, among others. 

We strongly support section 2 of the discussion draft which 

places fair and equitable provisions on the agency’s fee-based programs. By eliminating the current fee-based-to-nonfee-based ratio 

and articulating the specific areas that will be borne by general 

revenues, the draft provides the appropriate balance between the 

fees borne by individual companies and those overhead activities 

covered by the Federal Government. 

NIC believes the discussion draft would be strengthened by providing that the early stage engagement between advanced reactor 

developers and the NRC should be conducted at no or limited cost, 

with an appropriate cost share, perhaps 50/50 for later stages of 

the licensing process. While this can be funded through general 

revenues or a DOE grant program, either way, it should avoid the 

DOE and NRC picking advanced reactor winners and losers. We 

believe the private sector is better placed to identify and promote 

innovation, and the NRC licensing fees should not have a chilling 

effect on these entrepreneurial efforts. 

Finally, I strongly support the elimination of the foreign ownership requirements of section 3 and the mandatory hearing requirements contained in section 4, and I am pleased to discuss my views 

with the subcommittee. 

I would ask that some additional letters of support, including 

that of X-energy, be included in the hearing record. 

And with that, I again thank you very much for allowing me to 

testify today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Merrifield follows:] 

26 


23503.024
27 


23503.025
28 


23503.026
29 


23503.027
30 


23503.028
31 


23503.029
32 


23503.030
33 


23503.031
34 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Merrifield. 

Our next witness is Mr. Todd Allen, who is a senior fellow at the 

Clean Energy Program for the Third Way. 

Dr. Allen, thanks for being with us, and you are recognized for 

5 minutes, and please get the microphone up close. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF TODD ALLEN 

Mr. ALLEN. Absolutely. 

Good morning, Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member Rush, 

other distinguished members of the subcommittee. On behalf of 

Third Way, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony on the importance of nuclear energy innovation. 

My perspective on nuclear energy comes from my diverse career. 

My first job after college, I lived on a floating nuclear reactor as 

an officer in the U.S. nuclear submarine fleet. I spent 10 years 

teaching at the University of Wisconsin nuclear engineering. I have 

seen firsthand the young generation that believes in nuclear technology as a critical component for providing clean energy. 

I have worked in the national laboratory system as the deputy 

for science and technology at the Idaho National Laboratory, working to open up the laboratory facilities to university and industry 

users across the country. Now I am at think tank, where I think. 

Third Way supports the further development of an innovation 

culture that creates and brings to market advanced nuclear technologies. Currently, nuclear energy is provided as a single product 

offering, specifically large gigawatt scale electricity production machines. But the national energy system is changing rapidly, opening up the possibility of nuclear energy supporting a wider range 

of functions if new ideas can get from conception to commercialization. 

A 2015 Third Way report identified nearly 50 companies, backed by more than $1.3 billion in private capital, developing plans for 

new nuclear plants in the U.S. and Canada. These companies are 

creating a growing number of product options of varying sizes and 

capabilities intending to build upon the continued success of our 

current light-water reactor fleet, which provides over 60 percent of 

the carbon-free electricity in the United States. 

Private-public partnerships will be key to the story, similar to 

the way hydraulic fracking and the Internet were developed and 

how SpaceX is currently teaming with NASA to send unmanned 

vehicles to Mars. 

So how can Federal investments nurture this emerging culture 

of nuclear innovation? I will use as an example a hypothetical 

graduate nuclear engineering student named Carla who wants to 

provide clean energy to the world and make money at the same 

time. What is her path to success in transitioning a good idea on 

paper to a marketable product and a thriving company, and where 

can partnerships with the Federal Government be useful? 

First step, Carla would benefit from early interactions with technical experts, financiers, and business developers. We suggest 

Carla could be helped through the creation of private-public partnerships in early innovation, a proposal we have called Innovation 

Centers. Innovation Centers would also benefit the Department of 

Energy by providing the agency with valuable information on priVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:58 Feb 13, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-141 CHRIS
35 

vate sector investment trends that could then inform how DOE directs research dollars to solve problems that support multiple companies. 

Step two, securing investments. At the Innovation Center, Carla 

has opportunities to troubleshoot and mature her concept. She is 

also introduced to financial firms, which ultimately helps her secure a small investment to fund her company. Carla could leverage 

for private investment to receive DOE cost share, allowing her to 

move quickly and to signal to investors that her design is especially 

promising. The Department of Energy already engages in cost 

share programs, like the ones currently supporting project agreements with Southern Company’s TerraPower and X-energy, and 

further use of these is encouraged. 

Her third step, specialized testing. Here is where the Federal 

programs become uniquely valuable, through access to national test 

beds. Some development requires access to specialized capabilities. 

For instance, test reactors, facilities to test radioactive materials, 

or high-performance computing. Fortunately, a number of the Department of Energy laboratories have these types of facilities and 

expertise that Carla needs. The Department of Energy created the 

Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear, or GAIN program, 

to facilitate these private-public interactions. 

Step four, beginning her regulatory process. As she develops her 

technology, Carla would like to get signals from the regulator, 

short of licensing, that her technical solutions are reasonable. This 

will help her gain additional funding increments as she develops 

her designs. She needs a regulator who is staffed and funded in a 

manner that allows it to be ready to respond to emerging lightwater reactor technologies. Ideally, the pace of regulatory review 

would support new products for an energy system that is changing 

rapidly, all while maintaining the traditional exemplary safety 

record. 

Step five, demonstration reactor. As is typical with many new 

and capital-intensive technologies, Carla may need to build a demonstration of a reactor before moving on to a full-scale commercial 

reactor. To address this, the Department of Energy should allow 

innovators like Carla a chance to build their demonstrations at one 

of their laboratories that already have experience running nuclear 

facilities, allowing Carla to build her reactor at Idaho or Oak 

Ridge, for example, to help her more affordably test her design and 

make any final changes to commercialize her product. 

Final step, NRC licensing of her demonstration reactor. Because 

Carla is hoping her demonstration reactor design will eventually be 

commercialized, which would require her to go through the NRC licensing process, it would benefit her if the NRC were involved in 

the licensing and construction of her demonstration reactor. When 

Carla’s demonstration reactor works, she is ready to work with her 

investors and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to get final design approval and funding for commercialization. 

Where can Congress help? Early innovation. Support the creation 

of multiple private-public Innovation Centers that facilitate the creation of a new generation of nuclear entrepreneurs. This can be formally done through report language in the appropriations process. 

36 

Test beds. Support the GAIN program as our national nuclear 

Innovation Center, ensuring a modern infrastructure with worldleading staff that serves as the Nation’s test bed. Ensure that federally supported R&D programs are structured to maximize value 

through well-structured private-public partnerships. And finally, 

regulation. Ensure that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is 

staffed, structured, and funded to support a pace of regulatory review that would support new products for an energy system that 

is changing rapidly. 

House Resolution 4979 asks the NRC and DOE to look broadly 

at their functions and report back on how they could better serve 

this emerging nuclear innovation community. We are supportive of 

this national approach and have suggested some specific ideas. We 

hope DOE and NRC have additional useful ideas. 

We also appreciate the intent of the discussion draft from Mr. 

Kinzinger and are ready and willing to interact to optimize our 

ability to move nuclear technology forward. 

Thank you for inviting me to testify. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Allen follows:] 

37 


23503.032
38 


23503.033
39 


23503.034
40 


23503.035
41 


23503.036
42 


23503.037
43 


23503.038
44 


23503.039
45 


23503.040
46 


23503.041
47 


23503.042
48 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. 

And our next witness is Mr. Geoffrey Fettus, who is the senior 

attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council. 

Thanks for being with us, and you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF GEOFFREY FETTUS 

Mr. FETTUS. Thank you, Chairman Whitfield and Ranking Member Rush and distinguished members of the committee. It is a great 

honor to be here. I will just highlight a few points here. 

First, with respect to H.R. 4979, which requires DOE and the 

NRC to work together to work to develop a plan with public input 

for advanced reactor licensing systems, such a charge has merit in 

that it asks two of the relevant Federal agencies to work together, 

but some cautions are in order. 

Two hundred and seventy days is far too short a time to both 

gather and analyze the necessary technical and regulatory information and provide for public comment with respect to such a complicated set of economic, security, and environmental challenges as 

those faced by the licensing of advanced reactors. 

Further, both EPA and the President’s Council on Environmental 

Quality should be part of any such enterprise, EPA for its standard-setting authority and CEQ for its oversight of NEPA obligations. Even though many of these advanced reactor concepts have 

been around for decades, none of the current space have demonstrated the security, environmental, and safety improvements 

necessary to make them viable in the near term, and more pertinent to the reality of a carbon-constrained future, none of them 

have demonstrated any likelihood that they will be able to compete 

in competitive energy markets. And the licensing process, effectively designed by industry and streamlined by the NRC multiple 

times over the last two decades, has little to do with that. 

Thus, our concern is real that the practical nuclear engineering 

and economic hurdles inherent to these technologies may serve as 

a distraction to the rapid continued scale-up of existing, economically viable, and proven solutions to the threat of climate change 

from wind, solar, and energy efficiencies. 

Second, we found the discussion draft substantially more problematic, and I will highlight just a few of the sections. 

Section 2 unwisely shifts substantial costs to the taxpayers rather than collecting them, as has been done historically via licensing 

fees. 

Section 3 requires a study on the feasibility and implications of 

repealing foreign ownership restrictions. While it is wise to study 

a matter and collect information before legislating, we would urge 

a requirement for wide public input on a matter this complicated, 

especially from the security terms. 

Section 4 does away with the mandatory hearing provision, 

which would do much harm to public confidence that all technical 

issues have been thoroughly and adequately considered by the 

NRC. Indeed, the mandatory hearing plays a crucial role in 

supplementing the contested hearing process in which few issues— 

and I want to stress this—sometimes no issues survive the gauntlet of NRC’s arduous procedural requirement for admission of 

issues to a hearing. 

49 

The mandatory hearing process has a proven track record of 

highlighting weaknesses in the NRC’s staff’s review. For example, 

in the case of the Clinton ESP, the Atomic Safety and Licensing 

Board found the staff’s review, and I quote, ‘‘did not supply adequate technical information or flow of logic to permit a judgment 

as to whether the staff had a reasonable basis for its conclusions,’’ 

64 NRC at 460. 

Section 5 is equally troublesome as it is simply a codification of 

agency drift to an informal, less rigorous hearing process that really has already been underway for a long time. And rather than ensuring the hearing process continues to become a yet more expedient process and more of a restrictive venue for states and the 

public, Congress should be directing NRC to submit a substantially 

redesigned adjudicatory hearing process that will provide regulatory certainty but will also simplify the hearing requirements to 

allow substantive technical issues of safety or environmental concern come to the fore rather than entertaining joint industry-staff 

efforts to flyspeck, curtail, or have dismissed literally every contention that has ever been filed before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. 

Section 6 is also problematic in that it weakens the opportunity 

for hearings on inspections, test analyses, and acceptance criteria 

prior to operation. It further bars the use of incomplete information 

as a basis for granting a hearing. 

Briefly, the perception that hearings cause delays in licensing 

has no basis in fact. The industry has long structured the hearing 

process, and NRC staff requests for additional information are at 

the heart of the timing, and that is simply evidence of the regulator 

doing its job. 

But even more to the point, docketing the application before it 

is complete when it often contains substantial areas that are promised to be addressed later or leaves out significant details creates 

the false impression that the time between when the application is 

docketed and when the final decision is rendered is attributable to 

the hearing process and public participation. This delay should not 

be used to justify even further restrictions. 

Section 7 would do grave harm to NEPA and likely bar any 

meaningful NEPA review by staff. The current NEPA process, as 

is practiced by the NRC, is already problematic, and I detail that 

in my testimony. 

And finally, with respect to section 8, we recommend striking the 

text in section (b), ‘‘factors,’’ entirely from the draft legislation as 

this language can prejudice and distort the final decommissioning 

rulemaking that has just commenced at the Commission. 

Thank you again for this opportunity, and I am happy to take 

any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fettus follows:] 

50 


23503.043
51 


23503.044
52 


23503.045
53 


23503.046
54 


23503.047
55 


23503.048
56 


23503.049
57 


23503.050
58 


23503.051
59 


23503.052
60 


23503.053
61 


23503.054
62 


23503.055
63 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, thank you. 

Thank all of you for your testimony. 

At this time, we will recognize members for questions. 

And, Mr. Latta, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman, and again, thanks for 

holding today’s hearing. 

And, gentlemen, thanks very much for your testimony today. It 

is very much an appreciated. 

Mr. Merrifield, if I could start with the first question to you. 

My legislation requires the development of phased licensing process to provide certain assurances to the license applicants. What do 

you see are the primary advantages of structuring the licensing 

process in this manner and how would you recommend the NRC 

develop such a process? 

Mr. MERRIFIELD. Well, I think right now one of the disadvantages of the current system is it is sort of all or nothing. You have 

to put in your license application and wait a very long period of 

time to determine whether the NRC is going to find that to be acceptable. 

For the advanced reactor community, having a stepwise process, 

as envisioned by your bill, would allow early interaction with the 

NRC and an early indication of whether that design may be licensable. If, indeed, the NRC finds out that that is the case, that developer can identify additional areas of funding to continue to process 

that application and that design. 

If for some reason—and we hope it is not the case—the NRC 

were to find that that would be something that would be difficult 

or not able to be licensed, then that applicant can then make a logical business decision whether they want to continue to move forward or not, and we think that is a real benefit to innovation. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you. And your testimony also suggests 

that the model used by the Canadian nuclear regulator should be 

pursued. What do you think makes their structure more unique 

and constructive? 

Mr. MERRIFIELD. Well, it has some very specific steps to it. It 

does have this pre-application vendor design review. It has got 

some specific deliverables that are expected by the Canadian regulator that are well spelled out. It has a specific timing for when 

that review should occur. And, indeed, they even have limitations 

in terms of what the cost is going to be for the applicant. 

So it makes it a very clear program for everyone involved to understand what is expected in that first step, and it allows the technology both to be evaluated as well as to move forward. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. 

Dr. Allen, if I could turn to you, following up on that, do you 

have any additional thoughts regarding the benefit of the phased 

licensing process. 

Mr. ALLEN. Just one small thing. I agree with the commissioner 

that it is a very important early signal to someone who is trying 

to take an early idea to commercialization to be able to get that 

feedback from the regulator. 

The other thing by getting those is, parallel to this, we have got 

the Department of Energy doing research programs in similar technical areas. The more that we can get early signals that we can 

64 

then use to feed back and guide how we spend Federal dollars on 

research in a way that helps those private companies is also very 

useful. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. 

If I could ask Mr. Fertel a question of you. In your testimony you 

talk about that the country is going to lose, in the next 15 years, 

126 gigawatts of generation and that we are going to need 287 

gigawatts by 2040. I represent a district with 60,000 manufacturing jobs. We have to have a baseload capacity out there. 

Could you just maybe kind of give me an overview of how many 

power plants we are talking about when you are talking about 126 

gigawatts and what we are going to need when you look at 287? 

Mr. FERTEL. I think, Congressman, in general, you could think 

about them if they are gas plants, which is what we are building 

now, they are probably on the order of 400 to 500 megawatts each. 

So if we need 100,000 of them, we are going to be building 2,500- 

megawatt—I am sorry—1,000, yes, we would be building 100 of 

those, to get to 240 plus—it is almost 500,000 megawatts. So you 

would be building 1,000 plants at 500 megawatts each. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. 

Mr. Merrifield, the Advanced Nuclear Technology Development 

Act requires the NRC to develop a risk-informed regulatory framework. Given your experience as a commissioner, would you please 

provide your interpretation of what a risk-informed framework 

means and what the primary inputs are into such a framework? 

Mr. MERRIFIELD. Well, a risk-informed performance-based approach uses a combination of risk analysis and performance history 

to identify what are the most significant areas to focus your inspection and your regulatory activities. It recognizes that in any system, whether it is a nuclear power plant, a petrochemical refinery, 

or an interplanetary space vehicle, every system is not equally important to safety. So using a risk-informed performance-based approach allows you to prioritize what are the most critical components and focus your regulatory process toward those. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much. 

And, Mr. Chair, I see my time is about ready to expire, and I 

yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. 

At this time, I recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rush 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RUSH. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Fertel, last week at the NRC’s fiscal year 2017 budget hearing, the subcommittee examined the agency’s request of almost $20 

million less this year than what was enacted in last year’s budget. 

These cuts were said to be in line with the agency’s Project AIM 

initiative designed to streamline operations and better reflect the 

Commission’s increased workload. 

However, in your statement you said that those reductions are 

not sufficient and that industry continues to see regulatory inefficiencies. Can you discuss why the new fee structure, as outlined in 

the discussion draft, is necessary? 

However, how would the change in the outline in the bill impact 

safety standards and protocols in these nuclear facilities. 

65 

And if there are any other witnesses who would like to address 

any of these questions that I have asked, please chime in. 

Mr. Fertel. 

Mr. FERTEL. Thank you for the question, Congressman. 

First of all, we never want to see either NRC’s effectiveness as 

a regulator or their credibility as a regulator undermined. We 

think they are the best regulator in the world, and it is very important to us, from a commercial industry standpoint, for them to be 

very effective and credible in what they do. 

They have Project AIM going. We think Project AIM is a very 

significant and sincere effort on their part to look at rebaselining 

what they are doing. The scope of what they have as responsibilities has dramatically decreased. They had staffed up for 20-plus 

new plants. They were operating as though they had 107 existing 

reactors. We are moving forward with four new reactors. We currently have 99, and a number of those are going to be shutting 

down soon. Their material licensees have significantly decreased in 

how many that they are regulating. 

So they have, and they recognize this, a significant opportunity 

to rebaseline what they are trying to do with the basic scope of 

safety that they have to look at. 

They also, as the commissioner mentioned before, are looking at 

getting much more safety focused. They were looking at on the 

order of greater than 60 new rulemakings, which now the Commission is saying they are not going to do all of them, for an industry 

that is performing exceptionally well and for an industry that they 

have been regulating now for 50-plus years. 

So we see a significant opportunity for them to continue to do 

what they are doing, and we think that as they do what the industry is doing, as you deal with turnover due to retirements, you deal 

with a lot of this through attrition. And basically, you have an opportunity to hire critical resources, but probably not replace all resources. That is what we are doing on our side really religiously 

right now, unfortunately, because of the challenges that our plants 

face. 

On the corporate overhead and the approach in the bill that Congressman Kinzinger has proposed, what we see is really a tremendous benefit of having Congress provide some accountability and 

oversight to the corporate overhead. Their corporate overhead, 

based upon the study that they commissioned with Ernst & Young, 

is much higher than all their peer agencies that they looked at. 

I don’t think they are evil for doing that, but there is not a lot 

of accountability for them to do less because we pay for it. It is not 

appropriated money, there is not a lot of oversight put to it, and 

there is very little transparency from our side to seeing what we 

are paying for and why. 

So we see a significant opportunity. But to your point, we do not 

want to hurt their credibility or their effectiveness, but we think 

that they can continue going down their path. Now, we may push 

harder because we know they won’t go as fast, but we think that 

that helps them go in the right direction. 

Mr. MERRIFIELD. Congressman, to that point, I mean, I was very 

proud to serve as a commissioner of the NRC, and I agree with the 

66 

characterization. It contains an extraordinary group of hard-dedicated individuals. 

Having said that, as I related in my testimony, we went through 

a similar process when I was a commissioner to the process that 

they are undergoing today. There was a decreasing workload, and 

there was a need to appropriately align the size of the workforce 

and the task and make it more risk informed. 

We were able to do that, and I think it resulted from a couple 

of things. One, we had a significant amount of oversight from Congress. We had to provide monthly reports to Congress on the 

progress of the licensing activities that we had underway. And that 

drove the Commission, in its budget process, in what it presented 

to Congress, to conduct a line-by-line review of how it was spending 

money, what the priorities were, and to make sure that it was 

doing the most important stuff and recognize that some things just 

simply didn’t need to be done. I think the Commission certainly 

needs to have that level of engagement, and I trust they should 

right now. 

The one thing I would mention on corporate overhead support— 

we didn’t have this term when I was a commissioner—I think there 

has been a lot of growth in things like IT and other things which 

may drive some of this. There is one program I think this committee needs to be aware is important that isn’t overhead, and that 

is international programs. There are countries around the world 

that look to the NRC to help them craft their regulatory programs. 

It is very important, as Congress looks to oversee these programs, 

that that one, in particular, is not hurt. 

Those are important investments, they should come from general 

revenues, but it is assistance that that agency provides around the 

world, and it is critical. 

Mr. FERTEL. The industry would certainly support what Commissioner Merrifield recommends on them helping internationally from 

a safety standpoint. 

Mr. RUSH. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, I recognize the gentleman from 

West Virginia for 5 minutes, Mr. McKinley. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And in deference to 

time, I will try to keep this short, so I am going limit to maybe one 

or two questions on it. 

Mr. Fertel, with you with the NEI, we understand with the new 

nuclear technologies that will come as a result of legislation like 

this, we know that there are going to be developments that will 

probably reduce the amount of waste product that comes from the 

spent fuel rods. But nevertheless the whole process of making nuclear energy is going to develop a waste product, maybe less than 

we are currently doing, but nevertheless there still will be a waste 

product. 

So does NEI have a position? Do you support the Yucca Mountain as a permanent site for the disposal of nuclear fuel waste as 

required by law? 

Mr. FERTEL. Congressman, we have always supported going forward, finishing the licensing on Yucca Mountain to determine it is 

licensed, which we think it would be, and then to move forward 

with Yucca Mountain. We also support, in parallel, the necessity of 

67 

having centralized interim storage, because we don’t think you can 

get to Yucca and do everything fast enough for the fact that we 

have plants that are shutting down. And our support also goes to 

making sure that there is access to the Nuclear Waste Fund. There 

is over $30 billion in it, and we don’t have access right now. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Of the 99, I guess, reactors we have functioning, 

I am curious about what is being done currently to safeguard those 

spent fuel rods in those water baths. We know the potential with 

all the fear of terrorism and other activity for national security. Is 

there something being done on this nuclear waste management 

that can give us a greater comfort than the way we are doing it 

now? If we are not using Yucca Mountain yet, how safe should we 

feel? 

Mr. FERTEL. Yes. I am sure Commissioner Merrifield will add to 

this. 

Mr. MERRIFIELD. I will. 

Mr. FERTEL. But the NRC heavily regulates what we do with 

used nuclear fuel, both while it is in the spent fuel pool and then 

when we put it in dry cast storage on site. We obviously have stringent security plans to make sure that not just the used fuel is protected, but the active fuel and other things at our plants. And 

based upon the Fukushima lessons learned, there has even been 

enhancements to what we do with used fuel at our sites because 

of what we learned from what went on in Japan. 

So I think to some degree the problem with used fuel is that it 

is managed very well on sites, which doesn’t create the crisis to 

cause our country to try and implement the Nuclear Waste Policy 

Act or any other law related to it. So the good news is we manage 

it very well and it is regulated very well. The bad news is it doesn’t 

move it very quickly to where you want it to go. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you. 

Mr. MERRIFIELD. Congressman, on the issue of security, I was a 

commissioner during 9/11. I was in front of this committee talking 

about the things that needed to be accomplished to protect the U.S. 

fleet of nuclear units. 

I can say without reservation, I have been on nuclear sites within the last week looking at security issues, and I can assure you 

these are the safest industrial facilities in the United States. The 

level of security that we have at the nuclear power plants in the 

United States is well beyond what is even needed to protect that 

fuel from the adversaries that we face today. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you. 

And, Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. We have two votes on the floor. We have got 

about 10 or 11 minutes left. So if you all would be in agreement, 

we will recognize you for 3 minutes, and we will just get as far as 

we can, and then if somebody wants to come back, we can talk 

about that. 

So, Mr. McNerney, you are recognized for 3 minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Fertel, do you believe that we need to include fusion specifically in the H.R. 4979 framework? 

Mr. FERTEL. Was the question about fusion? 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Yes. 

68 

Mr. FERTEL. To be honest, I hadn’t thought about that, but my 

reaction is I think it is a whole different regulatory regime that we 

would have to look at for fusion, and the availability of fusion is 

still far enough off that I wouldn’t rush it in and distract the NRC 

from paying attention to being able to put a regulatory process in 

place for the other technologies that are deployable sooner than 

that. I wouldn’t eliminate it as something you should look at for 

the longer term, Congressman. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. Allen, the Third Way report that identified 50 companies developing plans for new nuclear plants in the U.S. and Canada, how 

soon are some of these technologies going to be available and is the 

NRC ready for that? 

Mr. ALLEN. I think they are on a big spectrum, depending on 

how much technology development has been done in the past. I 

would say the quickest, assuming that we do the types of things 

we need in the regulatory space, would be on the order of 10 to 15 

years. Some of them are much further out than that. 

And I think that the NRC has a strong regulatory function, but 

as we talked about, it could do some things to be better receptive 

to these types of companies and to build staff depth in areas that 

they are not used to regulating. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Mr. Merrifield, do you think there is a risk of 

agencies blocking heads against each other, the NRC and the DOE, 

with respect to the new technology? 

Mr. MERRIFIELD. There were a lot of discussions between the 

DOE and NRC on earlier advanced reactor-like programs. That did 

not get as far as I think we had hoped it would have gotten. I think 

with the focus that this committee and your counterparts in the 

Senate have on advanced reactor technologies, the legislation that 

you have before you will give the framework and the encouragement for the NRC to move forward. 

They are an agency which, when focused on a mission, do a great 

job of accomplishing it. I sometimes refer to them as the Boy 

Scouts of Federal agencies. They need the focus, they need the encouragement of this committee. But I think they can accomplish 

the mission to appropriately and safely license and regulate advanced reactors in a timely and effective way. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. And an MOU would be sufficient to cause that 

to happen? 

Mr. MERRIFIELD. I believe so, yes, Congressman. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Kinzinger, you are recognized 3 minutes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The NRC has previously informed Congress that it believes 

amending the Atomic Energy Act to eliminate the mandatory 

uncontested hearing on combined license and early site permit applications could enhance the efficiency of NRC operations. 

Section 4 in my draft allows the Commission, if a hearing isn’t 

requested by an affected person, to issue a construction permit, operating license, or amendment to such permits and licenses without 

holding a hearing. 

69 

Mr. Fertel, in your view, how would this provision improve regulatory efficiency at the NRC? 

Mr. FERTEL. I think what it would do is allow both the licensee 

and the NRC staff to move forward on issues while a hearing is 

being done, which is, to be honest, very similar to a situation for 

the operating plants. So it would not delay the startup of a facility 

that might be critical to electricity, but certainly would not be making any revenue while it is sitting there. 

If there was a true safety issue that it shouldn’t start up, they 

are not going to allow it to do that. So it doesn’t allow you to do 

something that is going to provide unsafe conditions. 

Mr. KINZINGER. And what kind of regulatory and economic burdens are associated with the mandatory hearing requirement? How 

much can an uncontested mandatory hearing delay the process? 

Mr. FERTEL. There is not great data. We have looked at that 

based upon the Vogtle experience and some of the other projects, 

and it is hard to decipher exactly because there was the design cert 

going through at the same time. But our estimate was it could 

have been an 80- to 120-day delay as a result with, to be honest, 

not significant value added by that because of all the other reviews. 

Mr. MERRIFIELD. If I can just answer for a second on that one. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Yes. 

Mr. MERRIFIELD. Congressman, I think there are two issues associated with mandatory hearings. One of them is an issue of the 

extra time it takes. The other portion is the amount of staff activity 

that ultimately has to be borne by the applicant and the distraction 

it gives to actually getting to the ultimate decision. The staff, in 

preparing for those hearings, wants to make sure that everything 

they send up to the Commission is in a certain way. That eats up 

a huge amount of time. 

As a commissioner, I recognized that there were extraordinary 

opportunities for the public to comment on the process that even 

led to the ultimate licensing, and indeed the mandatory hearing 

was an antiquated legacy of the 1950s that was not needed. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you. 

And a lot more to ask, but duty calls, and I will yield back. 

Thank you all for being here. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentlemen yields back. 

At this time I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, 

for 3 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am a supporter of nuclear power, and I think to get to a carbonfree environment that is where we need to get to. I believe increased cooperation between DOE and NRC would create efficiencies and expedite the process of approving new reactors. Combined with the President’s GAIN initiative, I think we can revitalize our nuclear sector and secure additional baseload power. 

I do have some concerns about the Nuclear Utilization of Keynote 

Energy Policies Act. And I would like to ask some questions. 

Mr. Merrifield, in your testimony you made reference to a 2016 

white paper released by your organization that discussed framework for licensing modernization. The white paper listed five recommendations for Congress: proactive oversight of NRC’s design 

review and licensing process; providing sufficient resources—and I 

70 

am guessing that means money; encouraging NRC to meet a 36- 

month deadline for review; and directing NRC to identify roadblocks to expedite approvals and submitting annual updates. 

In your opinion, does the legislation before the subcommittee 

today adequately address these recommendations? 

Mr. MERRIFIELD. In the main, I think it does. We actually I think 

focused on a couple of things that we would ask for improvement 

in the two bills that you are looking at today. One is to be really 

specific in requiring a pre-application vendor design review process. 

The other one was to providing a greater opportunity for engagement between the developers of advanced reactor technologies and 

the NRC at no cost early stages in the process to really enhance 

the level of understanding on the part of the agency and the developer. 

Mr. GREEN. During your service as a commissioner, do you recall 

how many licensing reviews the NRC completed? 

Mr. MERRIFIELD. How many licensing reviews? 

Mr. GREEN. Yes. 

Mr. MERRIFIELD. I would have to go back and do some research 

on that. 

Mr. GREEN. If you could get that, I would appreciate it. 

With respect to these reviews, do you have a sense of how many 

hearings did the Commission grant upon request under section 189 

of the Atomic Energy Act? 

Mr. MERRIFIELD. I would have to go back and review that one. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. If you could get that for us. 

And also under section 189, are formal adjudicatory procedures 

required of the Commission or do they have discretionary authority? Are they required to have those procedures or is it discretionary with the Commission? 

Mr. MERRIFIELD. I am sorry, Congressman, I didn’t hear that. 

Mr. GREEN. Under section 189, are the formal adjudicatory procedures required of the Commission or do they have discretionary 

authority? 

Mr. MERRIFIELD. Congressman—— 

Mr. FETTUS. I can answer that. 

Mr. MERRIFIELD. I would like to have the opportunity to review 

those procedures and provide an appropriate response to the committee. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. 

Mr. Chairman, I will be glad to submit the questions. 

And if you could get back to us. 

Because, again, if we can move the process along. And coordination between agencies is never bad. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, thank you. 

And we appreciate you all being with us today. I am going to ask 

just a couple of questions. 

We still have 3 minutes before we have to vote, Bobby, so no 

rush. 

NuScale Power has stated their plans to submit its design certification application to the NRC by the end of 2016 for a so-called 

small modular reactor. And, Mr. Merrifield, I would just ask you, 

71 

what is your outlook for NRC’s readiness to accept a high-quality 

application and review it in a timely manner? 

Mr. MERRIFIELD. Congressman, I think the NRC has been preparing, as far as I can tell, I believe the NRC has been preparing 

itself to receive that application. It is a light-water reactor technology. It is something that the NRC is familiar with. And I think 

they will do their level best to accept it and review it in due course. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Do you agree with that, Mr. Fertel? 

Mr. FERTEL. Yes, I think the way Jeff Merrifield answered is 

probably accurate. And I think that the division director there is 

a very competent young woman who I think is making sure that 

they are as prepared as they can be. So we would expect they will 

do as good a job as they can. 

Mr. MERRIFIELD. Yes, I agree with that. Mr. Fertel references 

Jennifer Uhle, who is the director of the Office of New Reactors. 

She is a very talented young woman I think will do an exceptional 

job for that team. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, we hear a lot of discussion about small nuclear modular reactors and great hope for them. And some are sodium cooled, some are lead cooled, light water. How many of these 

so-called small modular reactors are there operating today around 

the world? Does anybody have any idea? 

Mr. FERTEL. I don’t think that from a commercial standpoint 

thereis hardly any. But all of our submarines are using small modular reactors and our aircraft carriers. So there is experience with 

them. Now, they are different, but there is a lot of experience. 

And in our country right now, Mr. Chairman, electricity growth, 

thanks to really very good efficiency and things like that, and also 

probably being hurt by our economy a bit, but our electricity 

growth is really very small. So small modular reactors are becoming actually even more important domestically. We always thought 

they were important internationally. But even domestically they 

are becoming very important, particularly as you replace older 

smaller coal plants and eventually even gas plants. 

Mr. MERRIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, one thing I think is important 

to remember, particularly about advanced reactor technologies, we 

talk about traditional utility uses for generating electricity. What 

is important to remember is these technologies also provide very 

high sources of heat. So the new users of these technologies may 

not necessarily be just our traditional utilities. It may be also for 

other industrial processes that can utilize that heat and power. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Anybody else have any comment? OK. 

Mr. ALLEN. Yes, I would just agree that they are looking at a 

large number of different commercial products than just gigawattscale nuclear. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. So when we talk about small, are we talking 

about below 300 megawatts or so? 

Mr. MERRIFIELD. Yes. Some of them that are conceptualized 

could be as small as 3 to 10 megawatts. Some of them are in the 

range of 80 to 100. Others are on sort of the verge of 300. So there 

is a range of the potential reactors being proposed. 

Mr. FETTUS. Chairman Whitfield, though, there is one caution. 

The only ones that we have seen that have had any indication of 

any economic viability have been coupled together in the severalVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:58 Feb 13, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-141 CHRIS
72 

hundred megawatt range to allow for some economy of scale to actually be able to compete in a market. And none of these are built 

around the world. The number is actually zero. And the question 

of whether or not they will have any chance in a competitive marketplace in 10, 12, 15 years, no one has a crystal ball here. 

Mr. MERRIFIELD. Well, no one has a crystal ball, but at the end 

the market is going to resolve that. That is what we are asking for, 

a predictable regulatory regime that those reactors can be licensed 

through. If they can’t come up with the economics that the market 

will bear, those reactors will not go forward. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, listen, thank you all very much. We look 

forward to working with you as we consider these two pieces of legislation and other issues as well. 

We will keep the record open for 10 days. 

And once again, thank you. And that concludes today’s hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 10:41 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

With two nuclear power plants just miles from my home in Southwest Michigan, 

I know firsthand the importance of safe, clean nuclear energy to the nation’s energy 

portfolio, as well as the economic benefits nuclear brings to local communities. Nearly thirty percent of Michigan’s electricity is generated by nuclear power and the industry supports more than 2,900 highly skilled employees in the state. Because of 

the large role nuclear energy plays in Michigan and across the country, it’s imperative that folks have confidence in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s mission to 

protect public health and safety. This mission can, and should, be achieved while 

also providing regulatory certainty for NRC licensees and stakeholders. And the 

simple fact is we can’t have nuclear power without the NRC. 

As a fee-based organization, Michigan ratepayers fund the NRC through utilities 

in annual fee assessments. This structure requires continued Congressional oversight to assure the NRC diligently manages its operations and continually strives 

to become more efficient. The proposed legislation for review this morning seeks to 

do just that. 

Over half of today’s nuclear power plants commenced operation over thirty years 

ago and many are likely to enter the decommissioning process in the next decade. 

The age of the existing fleet should encourage policymakers to look to the next generation of nuclear energy technologies. The NRC’s existing regulatory structure was 

designed to license and oversee light water reactor technology that was developed 

as a result of a policy choice due to our nuclear navy. Today, innovative engineers 

are developing promising new nuclear technologies that could bring significant design improvements to take us beyond the current fleet of nuclear power plants. 

In order to achieve this goal, private stakeholders must understand the criteria 

by which the NRC will accept non-light water reactor designs. It is also important 

for the NRC be prepared to receive and review these designs in a timely manner. 

Congressman Latta’s bill, the Advanced Nuclear Technology Development Act, will 

direct NRC to fulfill those obligations. I thank him for his forward thinking on this 

issue. 

Representative Kinzinger’s discussion draft highlights the importance of NRC licensees to maintain confidence that licensing and other regulatory activities are resolved in a timely, efficient, and safe manner. The proposed legislation would maintain the existing ‘‘gold standard’’ of safety regulation by the NRC, while implementing some commonsense policies and process changes. I recognize that there 

may be differing viewpoints in how to achieve this high standard and I hope today’s 

hearing is a constructive step in facilitating those discussions. I look forward to exploring these issues in greater detail as we have an eye toward our nuclear future. 

73 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity today to examine two 

pieces of legislation related to the licensing and review of nuclear power reactors 

here in the United States. 

The first bill under consideration is H.R. 4979, the Advanced Nuclear Technology 

Development Act of 2016, introduced by Representatives Latta and McNerney. The 

bill seeks to enhance coordination between NRC and the Department of Energy 

through a memorandum of understanding on issues related to advanced nuclear reactor technology. This is a worthy goal and a commonsense way for the federal government to support the advanced nuclear power industry. 

The bill also requires NRC to develop an advanced reactor regulatory framework 

to evaluate the options to expedite advanced reactor licensing and make it more predictable. NRC would have 270 days from the date of enactment to submit this plan 

to the Energy and Commerce Committee. The plan must also seek input from interested stakeholders, which is crucial. I support this approach, but want to hear more 

about whether 270 days is a realistic timeframe. 

The second proposal before us, is a discussion draft put forth by Representative 

Kinzinger entitled the Nuclear Utilization of Keynote Energy Policies Act. 

I believe nuclear power must play a continued role in our energy future. It is a 

clean source of power that has helped reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Today 

the industry faces the dual challenges of working to extend the life of our country’s 

existing reactors—many of which are reaching the end of their 40 year licenses— 

while also pursuing innovative advanced nuclear technologies that could be more 

cost-effective, efficient and produce less waste. 

Members on both sides of the aisle believe that this is an important issue for our 

committee to consider, and I want to commend Mr. Kinzinger for putting forth this 

draft and beginning this critical discussion. 

However, while we should explore opportunities to support and sustain nuclear 

power in the U.S., we cannot lose sight of the critical importance of maintaining robust nuclear safety and oversight to protect public health and the environment. We 

must strike the right balance. This week marks the 30th anniversary of the 

Chernobyl nuclear disaster, which provides us with a sober reminder of the dangers 

posed by nuclear technology if not properly regulated and controlled. 

So, I am concerned that, in its current form, this proposal goes too far in one direction, minimizing public input into the licensing process, eliminating critical hearings on the licensing process, unrealistically shortening the licensing review 

timeline, and drastically reducing the portion of NRC’s budget that is covered by 

licensee fees. 

Currently, NRC recovers 90 percent of its budget from licensee fees. Section 2 of 

the discussion draft would shift a number of commission activities out of the portion 

of the budget covered by fees. One of those areas would be ‘‘infrastructure and corporate support,’’ which includes administrative services, acquisitions, training and 

travel. This section alone is funded at over $300 million in the Fiscal Year 2017 Energy and Water Appropriations bill that has passed committee. So, this provision 

would shift over $300 million to taxpayers instead of industry. 

Further, this discussion draft eliminates the mandatory public hearing that is 

held before a combined license is approved, which allows construction of the facility 

to move forward. This hearing is a one-day proceeding that provides a holistic review of the license application, and it is a valuable tool for the NRC commissioners 

to evaluate the staff’s review of the license application. The mandatory hearing also 

provides an important opportunity for the public to become involved in the licensing 

process. In fact, just last month, a mandatory hearing was held on the early site 

permit application for a site adjacent to the Salem and Hope Creek nuclear power 

plants in New Jersey and that permit was issued yesterday. Past mandatory hearings have brought to light serious issues that may have otherwise gone unchecked. 

I will say that it is unfortunate that the NRC was not invited to testify today. 

Both proposals would make significant changes to the way NRC addresses nuclear 

licensing, and I believe it is critical for us to hear from the Commission as we continue with this process. 

That said, I would like to thank the Chairman for holding today’s hearing. While 

I have raised some concerns today, I do look forward to working together with my 

colleagues on these issues. 

74 


23503.001
75 


23503.002
76 


23503.003
77 


23503.004
78 


23503.005
79 


23503.006
80 


23503.007
81 


23503.008
82 


23503.009
83 


23503.056
84 


23503.057
85 


23503.058
86 


23503.059
87 


23503.060
88 


23503.061
89 


23503.062
90 


23503.063
91 


23503.064
92 


23503.065
93 


23503.066
94 


23503.067
95 


23503.068
96 


23503.069
97 


23503.070
98 


23503.071
99 


23503.072
100 


23503.073
101 


23503.074
102 


23503.075
103 


23503.076
104 


23503.077
105 


23503.078
106 


23503.079
107 


23503.080
108 


23503.081
109 

Æ 


23503.082