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

20–692 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 114–298 

ENABLING ADVANCED REACTORS AND A LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON S. 2795, THE NUCLEAR 

ENERGY INNOVATION AND MODERNIZATION 

ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR 

AND NUCLEAR SAFETY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 21, 2016 

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

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

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 

RYAN JACKSON, Majority Staff Director 

BETTINA POIRIER, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR AND NUCLEAR SAFETY

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia, Chairman 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex officio) 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

APRIL 21, 2016 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore, U.S. Senator from the State of West Virginia ...... 1 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 2 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 4 

Booker, Hon. Cory A., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ..................... 5 

Crapo, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho ..................................... 6 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ......... 7 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 130 

WITNESSES 

Back, Christina A., Division Director, Inertial Fusion and Advanced Fission, 

General Atomics ................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 11 

Finan, Ashley E., Policy Director, Nuclear Innovation Alliance .......................... 26 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 28 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Whitehouse ...................... 39 

Korsnick, Maria, Chief Operating Officer, Nuclear Energy Institute ................. 43 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 45 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 53 

Lyman, Edwin, Senior Scientist, Global Security Program, Union of Concerned Scientists .................................................................................................. 56 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 58 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Whitehouse ...................... 72 

McCree, Victor, Executive Director of Operations, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission ........................................................................................................... 73 

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

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 80 

Merrifield, Hon. Jeffrey S., Chairman, Advanced Reactors Task Force, U.S. 

Nuclear Infrastructure Council ........................................................................... 97 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 100 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 107 

(1) 

ENABLING ADVANCED REACTORS AND A LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON S. 2795, THE NUCLEAR ENERGY INNOVATION AND MODERNIZATION ACT 

THURSDAY, APRIL 21, 2016 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR AND NUCLEAR SAFETY, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:45 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. Shelley Moore Capito (chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Capito, Crapo, Wicker, Fischer, Inhofe, Carper, 

Whitehouse, Markey, and Booker. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Senator CAPITO. I would like to welcome all of our witnesses 

today, but a particular welcome to an alumnus of this committee, 

Mr. Merrifield, who told me he began here in 1986. I appreciate 

your returning. 

Each witness has been asked to give a 5-minute oral statement 

and then take questions. 

We are here to examine an exciting topic: advanced nuclear reactors. I would like to thank Senator Carper because I know he has 

a great interest in this. While nuclear issues may be somewhat 

new to me, I am learning that these technologies have the potential 

to make great strides in advancing nuclear technology. 

This is a topic many of us are very interested in because nuclear 

energy is an essential component of our all-of-the-above energy 

strategy. Our current nuclear plants provide clean, safe, reliable, 

and affordable energy to power our economy while providing thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in benefits to local communities. 

They have made vital contributions to our energy security for 

years, but we need to look forward to what comes next. Advanced 

reactors have the potential to be cleaner, safer, and more secure. 

One purpose for this hearing is to better understand these technologies and the barriers to their development as commercial energy sources. The other purpose of this hearing is to examine S. 

2795, the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act, introduced last week by my colleagues, Senators Inhofe, Booker, 

Whitehouse, and Crapo. S. 2975 directs the NRC to develop a regu-
2 

latory framework under which license applications for a variety of 

technologies can be reviewed, in keeping with the NRC’s safety and 

security mission. 

The NRC’s existing regulations were designed around one technology and are not well suited to the innovations that are underway. This is clearly an issue our committee needs to address, and 

I am glad my colleagues have come forward with a solution. 

Efficient and timely decisionmaking at the NRC is crucial for our 

existing plants and for emerging technologies. The bill modernizes 

the NRC’s budget and fee structure to ensure funds are available 

to complete reviews that the existing industry needs to remain economically competitive and that will also allow emerging technologies to grow. 

The NRC’s safety and security mission is a vital one but must 

be accomplished efficiently and with fiscal discipline. According to 

the NRC’s Principles of Good Regulation, the American taxpayer, 

the rate paying consumer, and licensees are all entitled to the best 

possible management and administration of regulatory activities. 

This bill aligns with that principle, and I thank my colleagues for 

their hard work and bipartisanship to advance innovative new energy technologies. These are technologies where our Nation should 

lead the way, not just for our energy security but also in the interest of national security. Only by leading can we hope to advance 

our nonproliferation goals. 

With that, I am eager to hear Senator Carper’s remarks and 

those of our witnesses. 

Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Thanks for letting me be your wing man. It is good to be here 

with all our colleagues, particularly with Senator Inhofe and Senator Crapo who have a huge interest and a lot of expertise in these 

issues. 

I want to welcome each of you. It is nice to see one of you again 

for many years now, have a chance to welcome back others and to 

meet some of you for the first time. 

When our country began exploring nuclear power, I think it was 

more than 60 years ago. I do not know how many had much of an 

idea how important this technology could be to the future of our 

Nation’s energy supply. Serious incidents in places like Chernobyl, 

Three Mile Island and Fukushima caused a number of people, both 

at home and around the world, to question the viability of nuclear 

power, but I think support for this clean, reliable technology has 

begun to grow again in recent years. 

Given that development, Congress has an important role to play 

in ensuring that our Nation invests wisely in nuclear while at the 

same time maintaining our focus on safety. Many Americans may 

be unaware that nuclear technology was actually invented in the 

United States. In fact, for a number of years, our Nation led the 

world in nuclear manufacturing, construction and production. 

The jobs and the economic benefit of this growth stayed here at 

home for the most part. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case. 
3 

Many nuclear components are now only available from our international economic competitors, including the French, South Koreans, Japanese and now the Chinese. 

While the United States continues to have more nuclear power 

plants than any other country, other nations, China in particular, 

are gaining quickly. At the same time, our country’s nuclear reactors are getting older, and many will need to be replaced in the 

years to come. 

Some people believe that our Nation’s nuclear success story may 

be winding down. But I believe that like a distance runner, nuclear 

power in America is just getting its second wind. Albert Einstein 

used to say with adversity lies opportunity. He was right then, and 

he is right today. 

While this industry has faced a good deal of adversity in recent 

years, there appears to be a fair amount of opportunity ahead of 

it now. If we are smart, we will seize the day and begin to replace 

our aging nuclear reactors with new ones in the years ahead that 

are safer, produce less spent fuel and are less expensive to build 

and operate. 

If we are smart about it, I foresee an opportunity to develop and 

build the next generation of nuclear reactors on American soil. I 

foresee a chance to have some of our closed manufacturing plants 

reopen, construction crews will be called back to work, and colleges 

will face a new demand from industry for skilled nuclear technicians. 

In short, I foresee an opportunity for the United States to once 

again lead the world in nuclear technology. Today’s hearing is 

about how we seize this opportunity. Decisions we make today will 

impact what types of nuclear reactors will be operating in this 

country 10, 20 even 50 years from now. 

Fortunately, there has been good progress of late, and we are beginning to deploy new nuclear technology. Several years ago, the 

NRC approved construction to build four new reactors in Georgia 

and South Carolina that will incorporate some of the most up-todate safety technology. 

Construction of these new reactors is creating thousands of new 

jobs for the economies in those States. It is becoming increasingly 

likely that small modular reactors will become a reality in this Nation with the first reactors expected to become operational within 

the next decade. This is an encouraging start, but I know we can 

and need to do better. 

I have also heard from U.S. businesses who believe that we can 

do better. Over 50 companies are investing in next generation nuclear technologies. Today, we are going to hear directly from a company that is making some of those investments. 

As these companies make advances in technology, we need to 

make sure that our regulatory framework can keep pace. The NRC 

is considered the world’s gold standard of nuclear regulatory agencies. However, as science and technology evolve, so must the NRC. 

In closing, let me say I believe that Government in this country 

has a number of roles to play. I am sure you agree. Among them, 

few are as important as helping to create a nurturing environment 

for job creation and job preservation. That includes making sure 

that we have affordable, dependable energy, that we produce it 
4 

safely in this country, and in ways that diminish the threat of climate change rather than increasing it. 

Advances in nuclear energy can help us attain that more nurturing environment and provide a more promising future for our 

Nation, for its people and for our planet. I hope we will learn today 

about the roles the NRC and other agencies need to play if that 

promising future is to be realized. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

With that, I think the Chairman has requested time. 

Senator INHOFE. Just unanimous consent that my statement be 

placed in the record. 

Senator CAPITO. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

I have been a strong supporter of nuclear energy since I became Chair of this subcommittee almost 20 years ago. It is a vital source of clean, safe, and affordable energy which helps power this machine called America. 

Our existing nuclear plants have run safely for decades and will operate for years 

to come. However, I believe we also need to look to the future. 

Innovation has come to the nuclear industry. There are many new companies, nuclear ‘‘startups,’’ in fact, that are pursuing concepts that advance safety, security, 

and efficiency. 

I strongly support this progress and am eager to see these innovators succeed. 

That is why I joined my colleagues—Senators Booker, Whitehouse, and Crapo— 

to introduce the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act. 

Advanced reactor innovators must have an efficient regulatory process at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in order to bring these new technologies into operation. 

The NRC’s existing processes were designed around one particular technology: 

light water reactors. These processes are poorly suited for the wide range of advanced technologies currently being pursued. 

Our bill directs NRC to develop ‘‘technology inclusive’’ regulatory processes in an 

effort to enable the growth of the new, exciting industry. 

Our section to modernize NRC fees reflects oversight work done by the EPW Committee over the last few years. 

One need that is shared between advanced reactor innovators and existing reactor 

operators is the need for timely decisionmaking from the NRC. 

Our bill directs the NRC to budget for industry requested work and to preserve 

those funds solely for those purposes to improve the NRC’s timeliness. 

Altogether, these provisions represent a solid, bipartisan effort to modernize the 

cost and regulatory frameworks and enable the development of new generations of 

reactors with bold new technologies. 

Other countries like China and Russia are proceeding to develop advanced technologies regardless of what we do here in the U.S. We cannot forgo advancements 

in reactor technology or we forgo our economic competitiveness and worldwide influence on nuclear non-proliferation. 

We need to enable advanced reactor innovators by providing a regulatory framework that is predictable and cost effective while maintaining the NRC’s safety and 

security mission. This bill does that. 

In a time when people question whether Congress still knows how to be bipartisan, this bill is proof that we can find common ground and craft important solutions to benefit the Nation. 

This legislation was the product of teamwork with my friends, Senators Booker, 

Whitehouse, and Crapo. I’m proud to be part of that team. 

Senator CAPITO. Again, I would like to thank the witnesses and 

welcome you to give a 5-minute statement. Your full testimony has 

been submitted for the record. Then we will go through a round of 

questioning. 
5 

Senator Booker, I understand you would like to make a comment 

about the bill in advance of the testimony. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CORY A. BOOKER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator BOOKER. I am very grateful, Madam Chairman, for this 

opportunity, and thank you for giving me a chance to say a few 

words. 

I am a Senator today with no name today, or a Senator whose 

name shall not be mentioned. 

Again, thank you, Chairman Capito. I want to thank Senators 

Inhofe, Whitehouse and Crapo for their partnership on this really 

important bill. 

American leadership on nuclear energy is absolutely critical. The 

historic Paris Climate Agreement set ambitious goals to target and 

limit global warming to 1.5 centigrade above pre-industrial levels. 

However, scientists agree that even if all countries meet their commitments under this pact, we are not on track to meet these ambitious targets, not even close. Meeting the rising global demand for 

energy while simultaneously slashing carbon emissions presents a 

very difficult challenge for this generation. 

Think about this. By 2050, meeting the Paris targets would require us to cut emissions by up to 70 percent while producing 70 

percent more electricity. That is an incredibly difficult thing to do, 

to produce 70 percent more electricity than we do today while at 

the same time emitting 70 percent less carbon. 

I am a big believer in energy efficiency and renewable energy. I 

fought with other Senators to expand the tax credits last year for 

renewable, but in order to avert the worst effects of climate change, 

we do not see any way around the idea that we must substantially 

increase our nuclear energy capacity in the coming decades. We 

have no choice but to increase nuclear capacity. 

Nuclear energy, which provides a critical baseload power, currently comprises more than 60 percent of our Nation’s carbon free 

electricity generation. Right now in the United States we have five 

new reactors under construction, the first new commercial units in 

30 years, but several existing reactors have already been shut 

down prematurely, and many more are at risk. 

We need to make sure that we see dozens of more private sector 

companies beginning to move into this area and help to produce an 

environment where they are making their billion dollars of investment. 

We desperately need sound, long term Government policies that 

will support our existing fleet and also support a sustained commitment by the private sector to advance nuclear reactors that can be 

commercialized in the future. 

This bill, S. 2795, takes several positive, bipartisan steps in that 

direction. First, the bill would direct NRC to develop new staged 

licensing processes for advanced nuclear reactors. Second, the bill 

would, over longer terms, put in place new technology, inclusive 

regulatory framework and would make licensing of advanced nuclear more efficient, flexible and predictable while maintaining the 

NRC’s safety and security missions. 
6 

Third, the bill would authorize a new cost sharing grant program 

at the Department of Energy that would help the first advanced reactor projects that move forward to pay for some of the licensing 

costs at NRC. 

This bill would place a cap on the annual fees that existing nuclear reactors pay to the NRC. While this cap may never be hit, 

putting it in place will provide certainty and protection for the existing fleet. 

This is a critical challenge we have in our Nation right now, 

making sure we are meeting our energy needs, dealing with the realities of climate change and empowering business and innovation. 

I am very happy to have worked in a bipartisan fashion on what 

is a solid bill that will help us to take a step forward. 

Thank you, Chairman, for providing me this opportunity to make 

an introduction to the bill. I look forward to hearing from all of our 

witnesses. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Just a 10-second response. Let me assure you 

that while we enjoy this bill, we are co-sponsoring the bill, it has 

nothing to do with global warming. The disaster you will see tomorrow of what they call Earth Day in New York is an embarrassment. The President is not even going there for it. 

My motivation on this is when I say all of the above to save this 

country, all energy, it includes nuclear. Thank you. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

Another bill sponsor, Senator Crapo, would like to make an introduction to the bill and make some comments. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate the 

opportunity to be here today. 

Senators Inhofe, Whitehouse, Booker and I have introduced legislation to ensure the NRC will be ready to license advanced reactor 

designs as companies are ready to commercialize them. 

We have undertaken a deep dive into the inner workings of the 

Commission. Through hearings and discussions with officials and 

stakeholders, we have developed a plan that will help modernize 

the Commission and enable it to stay abreast of reactor design advancements in the nuclear industry. 

Our bill, the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act, 

NEIMA, increases transparency and accountability in the NRC’s 

budget and fee structure through modernizing reforms based on 

years of EPW oversight efforts. 

The measure also directs the agency to develop a technology inclusive regulatory framework enabling the Commission to review a 

diverse set of advanced reactor technologies. NEIMA’s improvements bring a great deal of transparency and accountability to the 

NRC. 

We want the Commission to make changes that allow stakeholders of various backgrounds and motivations to look at the Commission’s actions and understand what it is doing. 

In particular, the agency must be more transparent in its budgeting and fee process. This is especially true regarding the Com-
7 

mission overhead costs. When the NRC talks about overhead costs, 

it refers to activities that may be categorized as corporate support, 

office support and mission indirect. 

At this point, our bill only captures one portion of these overhead 

costs, the corporate support costs, because that is the only portion 

of the overhead costs that we can get the NRC to clearly label and 

define. The NRC must endeavor to make its budgeting information 

more transparent and accessible. 

Some amount of overhead is necessary for all organizations. 

Nonetheless, the NRC needs to be able to clearly account for its 

overhead costs and for the way it uses fees from licenses to support 

these costs. Clear and transparent budget processes are required 

for effective oversight. This is something I look forward to working 

with my fellow EPA colleagues on, both in this bill and in beyond. 

Finally, it is imperative that we licensing process for advanced 

reactors is transparent and takes into account past lessons learned. 

NEIMA enables the NRC to create a technology inclusive regulatory framework. By creating a technology inclusive framework, 

we are enabling the NRC to review and license any advanced reactor design that it considers to be safe and secure. 

We are not forcing the NRC to pick winners and losers among 

reactor designs by forcing it to allocate resources on one type of reactor or design. As a whole, NEIMA provides important transparency and accountability improvements across the NRC and improves the communication between various stakeholder groups and 

the agency. 

Enabling better transparency, accountability and communication 

are critical to ensuring the NRC remains the world’s preeminent 

safety and security regulator. Such improvements also provide 

more stability and predictability in the industry and among stakeholder groups. 

Increasing the NRC’s ability to be transparent and accountable 

will increase its ability to perform its safety mission and share information with all stakeholder groups. 

Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Senator CAPITO. We would like to go to the witnesses, but I understand the original sponsor, Senator Whitehouse, has some comments. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Let me first thank Chairman Inhofe, Senators Crapo and Booker 

for the work we have done together to try to streamline this process. 

The sense that I have and that brought me to this conversation 

is that the approval process at NRC is an obstacle course that is 

designed for a particular type of technology but is not well suited 

to technologies that are not that technology. 

Indeed, the irrelevancy, as I think someone mentioned to me, is 

two plus two equals cheese. It just does not fit or make sense at 

all. 

We do have new technologies that are emerging. They have enormous promise for a carbon constrained world. We, in America, have 
8 

done a lot of the leadership design for them, but if we cannot get 

them through a process to where they are actually creating electrons, then we have not done ourselves any good. I look forward to 

pursuing this. 

I would add two brief points. One is that it should remain, I 

think, a very high priority goal of this committee and this process 

to continue to point toward ways to reuse spent nuclear fuel. 

Some of these technologies hold out at least the promise of taking the enormous stockpile of what is now dangerous nuclear 

waste, for which we have no means of disposal and which will be 

very expensive to deal with, and repurpose that into, as one person 

told me, potentially trillions of dollars of virtually free power. That, 

I think, needs to be a significant subordinate goal as we go forward 

in this process. 

The last thing I will say is that I think it is a tragedy that we 

are losing some of our nuclear facilities to an economic problem, 

that there is no payment for their carbon free power. If a nuclear 

plant is not safe, then I am the first person to want to shut it down 

yesterday. 

However, if the only reason it is being shut down is because it 

cannot compete economically with a natural gas plant, and the only 

reason it cannot compete economically with a natural gas plant is 

because it gets no benefit for being carbon free when across the 

country through our corporate world, throughout our Government, 

we recognize there is actual value to being carbon free, then we are 

artificially damaging an industry that should be doing better. 

We need to figure out a way to make sure there is, in fact, a payment to this industry for the carbon free value of the electrons they 

produce. 

With that, I will close my comments. 

I again thank my colleagues on this bill for their leadership. I am 

delighted to be working with them. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

We will proceed to the witnesses. I am going to begin on my left 

with Dr. Christina A. Back, Division Director of General Atomics 

Inertial Fusion and Advanced Fission. 

Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTINA A. BACK, DIVISION DIRECTOR, 

INERTIAL FUSION AND ADVANCED FISSION, GENERAL 

ATOMICS 

Ms. BACK. I would like to thank Chairman Capito and Ranking 

Member Carper for holding this hearing and Chairman Inhofe, 

Senators Crapo, Whitehouse and Booker for their legislation. Also, 

thanks to my home State Senator, Ranking Member Boxer. 

My name is Christina Back, and I am the Vice President of Nuclear Technologies and Materials at General Atomics. General 

Atomics is a privately held company with over 60 years of experience in nuclear energy, one where we continuously push the technological envelope. 

I was asked to describe what nuclear reactors are and what we 

believe may be appropriate issues for you to consider when developing public policy for encouraging the development of new reactors. We believe advanced reactors are vital to making nuclear 
9 

power economically competitive and vital to reversing the current 

decline of the nuclear industry. 

In order to be helpful to the committee’s efforts, I would like to 

start by noting that the term advanced reactors is somewhat loosely used. Some people consider them to be non-light water reactors, 

while others mean new light water reactors. 

We believe an advanced reactor concept is one whose design is 

guided by the four core principles that help ensure economic success. These principles are to produce significantly cheap electricity, 

to be safer, to produce significantly less waste, and reduce proliferation risk. We believe every worthy reactor concept must address these four core principles jointly if it is to be an advanced reactor. It is not sufficient to excel in just one with disregard to the 

others. 

I would like to discuss GA’s reactor concept. This is one of many 

of the advanced reactor concepts referred to before. GA has a concept which is an energy multiplier module or EM2. As a way of illustrating what advanced can mean, I would like to discuss this reactor. 

GA chose to employ innovative design and engineered materials 

to meet the four core principles. What makes it compelling to think 

about nuclear reactors and advanced reactors now is that in the 

last 30 years scientists have made unprecedented advances in understanding materials. 

We at GA know how to manipulate these materials and are trying to revitalize the nuclear industry with them. Now let us consider each of the principles I mentioned. 

First is cost. The drive to make a cheaper reactor led us to design a much smaller reactor that would produce up to 60 percent 

more power than today’s reactor from the same amount of heat. 

Second is safety. For a radical improvement in safety, EM2 uses 

engineered, ceramic materials to hold the fuel that work in intense 

radiation and withstands more than two times higher temperatures 

than current reactor materials today. They would not be subject to 

failure like those in Fukushima. 

Third is waste. EM2 will reduce the amount of waste by at least 

80 percent. The reactor can also use spent light water reactor 

waste as fuel, thus turning this waste into energy. 

Fourth is nonproliferation. EM2 keeps the fuel in the reactor for 

30 years without the need for refueling or repositioning the fuel 

rods. This means we access the core once, much less than the 20 

times the current reactors need for existing refueling. We calculate 

that EM2 will produce power at approximately 40 percent lower 

costs than today’s reactors and be passively safe. 

As for any new reactor design, this one will require extensive 

interactions with the NRC, and we think involving the NRC early 

in this process is important to inform the design for a safer reactor. 

Radically new concepts require up front investment involving risk. 

Some of these investments may not pay off, and even those that 

are successful could take up to 10 years to produce revenue. 

While GA has already invested $40 million in EM2, it is hard to 

divert scarce dollars from R&D to NRC considerations at this early 

point in time. If this committee’s objective is to stimulate the development of new advanced reactors, hopefully as we have defined and 
10 

outlined here, we suggest that it would be relatively inexpensive to 

involve the NRC early in the consultations with potentially very 

high impact. 

We suggest the committee consider authorizing the appropriation of $5 million at first to provide NRC services to developers of advanced reactors and perhaps with a relatively low cost share of, 

say, 3 percent. The NRC is important and necessary for ensuring 

nuclear power is safe. Therefore, it plays a critical role in nuclear 

power innovation. 

In closing, I would like to say right now is a very exciting time 

in nuclear energy. I love that I get to put science in practice and 

engage the next generation of scientists and engineers and help 

meet the Nation’s energy needs by creating a new, innovative way 

to produce clean and safe power. 

Thank you for the efforts of this committee. Thank you for the 

opportunity to speak to you. I would be pleased to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Back follows:] 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

Our next witness is Dr. Ashley E. Finan, Policy Director, Clean 

Air Task Force, Advanced Energy Systems. 

Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF ASHLEY E. FINAN, POLICY DIRECTOR, 

NUCLEAR INNOVATION ALLIANCE 

Ms. FINAN. Chairman Capito, Ranking Member Carper, and distinguished members of this subcommittee, thank you for holding 

this hearing and for giving me the opportunity to testify. 

My name is Ashley Finan, and I am Policy Director for the Nuclear Innovation Alliance, NIA, a non-profit organization dedicated 

to leading advanced nuclear energy innovation. 

The NIA was established by a cross cutting group who believe 

that advanced nuclear energy is needed to ensure a better future. 

This group includes innovators, academics, environmental organizations, industry groups and other experts and stakeholders. 

The world will double or triple its energy demand in 30 years, 

driven by a growing middle class in the developing world and the 

need to bring electricity to 1.4 billion people who lack it today. At 

the same time, many analyses point to the pressing need to reduce 

global carbon emissions by 80 percent or more by 2050 if we are 

to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. A more rapid expansion of nuclear power is an essential part of the solution. 

In the United States and elsewhere, dozens of innovative startup 

companies and other stakeholders are pioneering designs that 

promise to lower risk and cost and reduce deployment barriers, but 

the transition from design to commercialization and deployment, 

both in the U.S. and globally, has been slow. 

Current NRC regulation confronts the licensing of advanced technologies with two major challenges. First, NRC design certification 

or approval calls for enormous front loaded investment during a 

protracted development and licensing phase without a staged structure to provide applicants with clear, early feedback on an agreed 

schedule. 

Second, current regulation primarily evolved to oversee light 

water reactor technologies. It must be adapted to the features and 

performance characteristics of advanced reactors, which rely on 

substantially different fuels, cooling systems, and safety strategies, 

and require novel operating strategies. 

Over the past 2 years, the NIA has been developing strategies to 

facilitate the efficient, cost effective, and predictable licensing of 

advanced nuclear power plants in the United States. These strategies are based on consultations with nuclear innovators, safety experts, regulators and investors, key stakeholders of the nuclear industry. 

We compiled the results of our work into a report called Enabling 

Nuclear Innovation: Strategies for Advanced Reactor Licensing, 

which was issued on April 12. The report has been provided to the 

committee and is available to the public on the NIA Web site. It 

discusses in much greater detail the points that I am touching on 

today. 

To address the LWR-centric nature of the current regulations, a 

more technology inclusive approach is needed. A risk informed, per-
27 

formance based licensing approach will allow the NRC to review a 

diverse set of advanced reactor technologies. 

This would incorporate both modern methods of risk assessment 

and traditional deterministic approaches to provide an exhaustive 

safety review. S. 2795 provides for the NRC to do work in this area 

without impacting the costs incurred to the existing plants. 

To illustrate the investment challenge, I would like to direct your 

attention to Figure 1. This shows schematically the risk/investment 

profile of nuclear energy projects relative to the licensing process 

today and the large monetary and temporal hurdle of obtaining design approval. 

Figure 2 illustrates a staged approach that provides interim feedback and opportunities for risk reduction. It better aligns with private sector development of innovative technology using a licensing 

project plan, topical reports, and other mechanisms. It can provide 

clear and early feedback to investors and developers through a 

statement of licensing feasibility process. This approach maintains 

the rigor and high standards of the NRC and facilitates the development of advanced nuclear technology that produces less waste or 

even consumes it. 

S. 2795 authorizes the NRC to do the crucial work to develop and 

implement this staged licensing process with dedicated funding. 

This is important for two reasons. It helps the NRC to develop the 

rigorous, technology inclusive regulatory infrastructure to support 

the review of advanced nuclear energy technologies. 

Significantly, it does this without diluting funds used to regulate 

operating plants. It also allows for immediate adjustments that will 

provide a more efficient, predictable, and effective process. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify. S. 2795 is needed to enable progress and advance nuclear energy. 

I would be pleased to respond to any questions you might have 

today or in the future. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Finan follows:] 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

Our next witness is Maria Korsnick, Chief Operating Officer of 

the Nuclear Energy Institute. 

Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF MARIA KORSNICK, CHIEF OPERATING 

OFFICER, NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE 

Ms. KORSNICK. Thank you very much, Chairman Capito. 

On behalf of the commercial nuclear energy industry, I want to 

thank the committee for considering S. 2795. Introduction of this 

bill is particularly well timed. 

Nuclear energy makes a significant contribution to our clean air 

quality, the reliability of our electricity supply and our national security. Yet, regulatory inefficiency and costs are constraining our 

use of this valuable national resource. If not addressed in the very 

near term, those issues will impede deployment of even more innovative reactor technologies here and around the world. 

Despite NRC’s effort to reduce its budget and right size the agency, fees continue to be excessive, and the limitations of the mandated 90 percent fee rule create fundamental structural problems. 

The NRC’s budget continues to hover at approximately $1 billion 

a year, despite significant declines in its workload as plants have 

shut down. In particular, according to Ernst & Young, the NRC 

spends 37 percent of its budget on support costs. That is more than 

10 percent higher than some of its peer agencies. 

Because the NRC must collect 90 percent of its budget from licensees, and the NRC’s budget has not correspondingly declined, 

remaining licensees are responsible for paying these higher annual 

fees. With several recent premature shutdowns and additional reactors decommissioning in the coming years, the current fee structure virtually guarantees that remaining licensees will continue to 

bear even higher annual fees. 

The cost of licensing actions also continues to increase well beyond the cost of living. For example, since 2000, the NRC review 

fees at license renewals have been an eight-fold increase in review 

costs. 

Objectively, one would expect a decrease based on efficiencies 

gained in the review process. This is particularly notable as we 

look ahead and want second license renewal for some of our plants. 

These illustrate that a fundamental change to the NRC fee recovery structure is needed. S. 2795 repeals the 90 percent fee recovery 

requirement and replaces it with a much more rational approach. 

It requires the NRC to expressly identify annual expenditures 

anticipated for licensing and other activities requested by applicants. The legislation would also help drive greater efficiency in the 

NRC’s operations. 

In turn, it would drive down annual fees by limiting corporate 

support percentages, although we do recommend that the cap be 

lower than the 28 percent level proposed by this legislation. Complementing the limit on corporate support, the bill would cap annual fees for operating power reactors at the fiscal year 2015 level. 

We also recommend that it apply to all licensees so non-reactor licensees as well. 
44 

S. 2795 also affirms Congress’ view that this country can, and in 

fact should, be a leader in advanced reactor technology. The bill effectively directs the NRC to think differently about reactor licensing. 

It requires that the NRC’s regulatory regime accommodate large 

light water reactors as it does today, small light water modular reactors and advanced non-light water reactors, in short, an all of the 

above approach. 

The bill’s call for a technology inclusive licensing framework, use 

of a risk informed performance based licensing technique and a 

staged licensing process will, in fact, be a good and helpful step forward. Developers will be able to demonstrate progress to investors 

in this first of a kind project, thus obtaining necessary capital resources as they achieve milestones. 

Too often we hear from our members that regulatory uncertainty 

is the greatest impediment to new plant deployment in the United 

States. S. 2795 tackles top line issues now standing in the way of 

innovation. 

In sum, we must be thoughtful and deliberate in the way we 

plan for advanced reactor technologies, but we must also begin 

today if we are to meet the potentially enormous demand by 2030 

for U.S. technology not only here but in the international market. 

Senators Inhofe, Crapo, Whitehouse and Booker, on behalf of the 

industry, I want to thank you very much for taking a strong leadership role. NEI supports S. 2795, and we look forward to continuing 

to work with you and your staffs as it progresses through Congress. 

I hope it is enacted expeditiously. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Korsnick follows:] 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

Our next witness is Dr. Edwin Lyman, Senior Scientist, Union 

of Concerned Scientists Global Security Program. 

Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF EDWIN LYMAN, SENIOR SCIENTIST, GLOBAL 

SECURITY PROGRAM, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS 

Mr. LYMAN. Thank you, Chairman Capito, Ranking Member Carper and distinguished members of the subcommittee. 

My name is Edwin Lyman. I am a senior scientist at the Union 

of Concerned Scientists. On behalf of my organization, I would like 

to thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on this very 

important subject, nuclear energy innovation and the critical role 

of effective regulation to ensure nuclear safety and security. 

UCS is neither pro- nor anti-nuclear power. We are a nuclear 

safety watchdog, and we work to ensure that U.S. reactors are adequately safe both from accidents and secure from terrorist attacks. 

Our position on nuclear power is not ideological but pragmatic. We 

do believe nuclear power could have a role to play in helping to 

mitigate the threat of climate change, but this really can only happen if nuclear power is sufficiently safe and secure. 

That means if nuclear power is to grow, then there must be a 

corresponding increase in safety and security. Otherwise the risk 

to public health and the environment will increase. Nuclear power 

could take itself out of the running if there is another event like 

the March 2011 Fukushima Daiichi disaster. 

Just over 5 years ago, Japan was a world leader in nuclear energy with over 50 operating nuclear power plants, but its nuclear 

establishment was too complacent about the dangers their reactors 

faced. Today, only two of those reactors are running, and a battle 

is raging in the courts over the restart of two others. The United 

States needs to do everything it can to avoid repeating Japan’s mistakes. 

Therefore, Congress must ensure that the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission continues to serve as a thorough and rigorously independent regulator for overseeing both the operation of existing 

plants and the licensing of new ones. 

We believe the most efficient and cost effective way to enhance 

reactor safety and security in the near term is making evolutionary 

improvements in current designs and strengthening regulatory 

oversight, but we do acknowledge new and novel reactor technologies have the potential to achieve these goals in the longer 

term. 

However, experience has shown that there are no quick or easy 

fixes to make nuclear power safer. Although each new reactor type 

has advocates who make claims about the benefits of their preferred designs for improving safety, proliferation resistance or economic competitiveness, such assertions rarely stand up to scrutiny. 

Reality is a lot messier. 

Given the proliferation of new reactor designs and the massive 

investment needed to commercialize just one of them, private and 

public investment in nuclear development should be focused on 

those concepts that have the greatest chance of meeting goals for 

enhanced safety, security, proliferation resistance, and economic vi-
57 

ability. Cutting through the hype and identifying the best prospects 

is a major challenge. 

For this reason, a thorough and independent technical peer review process needs to be part of any Government program that provides support to new nuclear projects, whether at the national labs 

or in the private sector. 

Now I would like to focus my remarks on the matter at hand, 

S. 2795. Fundamentally, UCS believes that the NRC’s regulations 

and procedures governing both operating plants and new plants are 

not strong enough today to achieve the level of safety and security 

needed in the post-Fukushima era. 

Correspondingly, we do not agree with the notion that the NRC’s 

licensing processes for advanced reactors are too stringent and 

need to be weakened to facilitate deployment. Some argue that the 

NRC’s regulations impede U.S. competitiveness, allowing other 

countries like China to get ahead of us. We think the opposite is 

true; the reputation of the NRC for being a gold standard, as Senator Carper pointed out, is a good brand. 

The NRC’s reputation for rigorous safety reviews only enhances 

that brand. We do not think we should be engaged with China and 

other countries in a regulatory race to the bottom just to secure 

customers. 

We believe that the focus of the bill on NRC licensing is misplaced and will do little to facilitate the deployment of advanced reactors in the United States. The NRC licensing process may be a 

convenient target, but we think the NRC is being scapegoated for 

the far more formidable institutional barriers. 

These barriers include a lack of support for Government-funded 

energy R&D, the enormously high cost and long time needed for 

commercializing any advanced reactor, the lack of utility interest 

in making those investments, and the failure of nuclear power entrepreneurs to put any significant money into the projects they 

espouse. 

We do not think the NRC’s licensing process is a significant factor in inhibiting advanced reactor deployment. As a result, we do 

not think that the prescriptions in S. 2795 are the problem. The 

problem is the cost and difficulty of obtaining the analyses and experimental data sufficient to satisfy the regulatory requirements 

ensuring the reactors can be licensed and safely operated. This is 

the fundamental issue we think Congress needs to address. 

In summary, we think the legislation is premature. We would 

offer that the National Academy of Sciences first review the systemic obstacles to licensing and deployment of advanced reactors, 

including all the issues we mentioned and whether the specific prescriptions in changing NRC regulations would be efficient and effective in achieving these goals. 

In conclusion, the future of nuclear power depends crucially on 

the NRC’s credibility as an effective regulator, so we think Congress should reject any attempt to short circuit NRC safety reviews 

and help ensure that oversight and licensing will result in clear improvements in safe and secure operations. 

Thank you for your attention. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lyman follows:] 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

Our next witness is Mr. Victor McCree, Executive Director of Operations, Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF VICTOR MCCREE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF 

OPERATIONS, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Mr. MCCREE. Thank you, and good morning. 

Chairman Capito, Ranking Member Carper, and distinguished 

members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify this morning. I appear before you today representing the technical staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

I plan to briefly discuss the NRC’s current and planned activities 

to prepare to review an application for an advanced non-light water 

reactor design and to offer NRC staff views on S. 2795, the Nuclear 

Energy Innovation and Modernization Act. 

A number of advanced non-light water reactor designs that employ innovative design features are under development. The NRC 

has the necessary licensing and oversight authority over commercial advanced reactors and is ready to work with the potential applicants to prepare for and review applications for these reactors. 

However, the NRC is also considering the extent to which enhancements to the existing licensing framework could increase the efficiency, timeliness and predictability of our safety and environmental reviews. 

Our objective for the activities I will discuss with you today is 

to strategically prepare for non-light water reactor applications 

commensurate with the development of vendor and industry plans. 

However, our overall goal is to create a more effective, efficient, 

clear and predictable licensing process for advanced reactor safety 

reviews. 

With this in mind and within available resources, the NRC staff 

is pursuing a multipart strategy to prepare for our review of nonlight water reactor technologies. The President’s fiscal year 2017 

budget request includes $5 million in non-fee recoverable activities 

to execute this strategy. If Congress appropriates this funding, it 

will be used to facilitate the NRC’s preparation to undertake efficient and effective safety reviews of advanced reactor technologies. 

We plan to pursue activities in three primary areas: licensing infrastructure, technical preparation, and stakeholder outreach. 

First, within licensing infrastructure activities, we will optimize 

the regulatory framework and licensing process for advanced reactor safety reviews. 

Second, our technical preparation activities will evaluate, clarify 

and resolve critical technical and policy issues that need to be addressed for effective, efficient advanced reactor safety reviews. 

Finally, we will expand upon our outreach activities to 

proactively engage key stakeholders to ensure all parties will be 

ready to proceed in the development and review of new reactor designs. 

Our strategy reflects insights we have gained from many years 

of interaction with the Department of Energy and the non-light 

water reactor community. We believe this strategy will enable the 

resolution of novel policy issues and lead to the development of de-
74 

sign criteria, regulatory guidance and industry codes and standards 

for non-light water reactor designs. 

By enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of non-light water 

reactor reviews, this strategy will reduce uncertainty and business 

risk. 

The NRC’s Advanced Reactor Program is one of several topics addressed in S. 2795. Consistent with my role as the NRC’s Executive 

Director for Operations, my comments represent the NRC staff’s 

assessment of factual issues associated with a draft version of the 

bill. 

Based on our preliminary review, the bill would require the NRC 

to undertake a number of activities related to developing plans, 

strategies and rulemaking associated with the licensing of advanced reactors and of research and test reactors and report on 

those to Congress. Significant time and resources would be required over several years to implement the full range of additional 

activities described in the bill, particularly with regard to the rulemaking required by the bill. 

Another area covered by the bill is performance and reporting. 

These provisions would require the NRC to develop performance 

metrics and milestone schedules for any activity requested by a licensee or applicant and to report to Congress for certain delays. 

This would require NRC to develop performance metrics and 

milestone schedules for many activities beyond those for which 

such metrics and milestones are currently prepared. We believe we 

currently have appropriate performance metrics to provide the desired outcome. 

These measures recognize the need to adapt to schedule changes 

that may arise to an applicant, licensee or NRC performance and 

account for emerging safety or security issues, changes in licensee 

plans and so forth. As written, the proposed requirements may 

limit NRC’s flexibility in this area. 

In closing, I welcome the committee’s interest in and ideas for 

enhancing the NRC’s performance and the success of our mission. 

Chairman Capito, Ranking Member Carper and distinguished 

members of the subcommittee, this concludes my formal remarks. 

I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you and would be 

pleased to respond to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McCree follows:] 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

Our final witness is Hon. Jeffrey S. Merrifield, Chairman, 

USNIC Advanced Reactor Task Force. 

Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFFREY S. MERRIFIELD, CHAIRMAN, 

ADVANCED REACTORS TASK FORCE, U.S. NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE COUNCIL 

Mr. MERRIFIELD. Chairman Capito, thank you very much. 

It is indeed a pleasure to be here today before a committee on 

which I used to work as a counsel, and on which I testified on 

many occasions as an NRC Commissioner. 

I am appearing here today in my role as Chairman of the U.S. 

Nuclear Infrastructure Council Advanced Reactors Task Force, although my full time occupation is as an attorney and partner with 

the Pillsbury law firm. 

In addition to my full testimony, I would ask that letters from 

seven advanced reactor developers supporting this legislation be included in the record. 

[The referenced letters were not received at time of print.] 

Mr. MERRIFIELD. My testimony on S. 2795 will focus on how the 

NRC conducts its business as well as mixed views regarding the 

advanced reactor portion of the bill. 

NIC applauds the overhead and fee caps within S. 2795 as well 

as the elements supporting the development and deployment of advanced reactor technologies. On February 22, 2016, NIC issued a 

framework for advanced reactor licensing modernization white 

paper which outlined many of the advanced reactor provisions contained in the bill. 

While we will suggest a few additional areas for improvement 

not included in the legislation, we are committed to working with 

the committee and its staff to promptly move this legislation forward. 

When I first became a Commissioner in 1998, the then Chairman 

of this committee, Senator Inhofe, led the way in efforts to oversee 

NRC. Consistent with maintaining the NRC’s mission of protecting 

people and the environment, the Commission, with the full support 

of this committee, worked to right size the agency consistent with 

the level of licensing activities before the NRC. 

At that time, the agency had approximately 3,400 employees, 

and within the next few years we were able to reduce it to about 

2,800, principally through attrition yet with no sacrifice to the mission of the agency. Today, the agency faces the same challenge. I 

understand and sympathize with the concerns voiced by this committee regarding the size of the agency, the increase in licensing 

review time and the growth in overhead activities at the agency 

which is inconsistent with the current number of NRC licensees. 

While the NRC has made great strides in right sizing the agency 

through Project AIM, I believe further reductions can be accomplished while at the same time effectively maintaining safety and 

inspection activities and improving the timeliness of licensing actions. 

I support the provisions of S. 2795 which would limit the overhead of the NRC and place appropriate caps on the growth of agen-
98 

cy fees. As was the case when I appeared before this committee 

over 15 years ago, I believe the amount of fees placed on individual 

licensees is not appropriate and should not cover inherently governmental functions and overhead. 

I believe the fee provisions of S. 2795 appropriately balance the 

important non-licensee activities which should be borne by general 

revenues and those licensee activities that should be borne by user 

fees. 

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

leadership through progressive light water reactor designs including passive Generation III∂ reactors currently being deployed in 

Georgia and South Carolina as well as small modular light water 

nuclear reactors now headed toward deployment. 

If the U.S. is to be successful in maintaining its lead in developing and deploying a new advanced reactor fleet in the late 2020s 

and 2030s, Congress must consider significant new policy changes. 

In addition to funding an infrastructure, a modern licensing 

framework is needed to enable development and deployment of advanced reactor technologies. Currently, the licensing process of the 

agency is perceived as one of the largest risk factors confronting 

private developers of advanced reactors. 

The proposed licensing process changes envisioned by S. 2795 

will help to address this gap. Additionally, Congress should provide 

additional resources to both NRC and DOE as well as direct them 

to focus and mobilize their resources and expertise to enable the 

deployment of advanced reactors. 

We believe section 7 will allow the agency to create a modern, 

risk informed, technology neutral framework to enable the development of appropriate advanced reactor regulations without passing 

these costs to the existing utilities or advanced reactor developers. 

Advanced reactor technical performance criteria are also critically required to finalize advanced generic design criteria as well 

as short term emergency planning and similar requests. 

We believe there are two areas where further enhancements are 

warranted: appropriate funding to reduce the licensing fees borne 

by advanced reactor developers and a specific pre-licensing review 

program. 

While the NRC is not a promoter of nuclear technologies, it is appropriate for the Commission to engage in early, enhanced dialogue 

with advanced reactor developers. Currently, the NRC has very 

limited communication with these developers, and when it does, it 

must charge hourly fees, $268 per hour, per NRC staff member 

who attends these meetings. As members of the advanced reactor 

community are early stage and entrepreneurially driven private 

companies, they lack the resources necessary to finance these activities. 

NIC supports section 9 of the bill regarding the DOE licensing 

cost share grant program. We believe this is an appropriate development. We would say we think it could be further enhanced by 

allowing for early stage engagement with the advanced reactor 

community at no cost with perhaps a 50/50 share in later stages 

of the licensing process. 

Collectively, we believe this will allow the free market to pick 

winners and losers rather than DOE and the NRC. While section 
99 

7(b) calls for the NRC to ‘‘establish stages in the commercial advanced nuclear reactor licensing process,’’ we believe, and it is generally consistent with our white paper, the bill would be strengthened by incorporating specific language requiring that the NRC 

provide a pre-licensing design review. 

A process which requires the NRC to clearly and promptly articulate where advanced reactor designs do and do not need additional work would enable developers and investors to have a clearer picture of where they stand in meeting NRC requirements. 

Finally, we support the elimination of the mandatory hearing requirements contained in section 8. I would be pleased to discuss my 

views on this during the question and answer portion. 

We believe it is time to make appropriate reforms to the NRC 

overhead and fee process as well as to modernize the agency’s licensing program to spur innovation and enable advanced reactor 

technologies to achieve their full promise. We believe S. 2795 

makes significant progress toward achieving that goal. We are committed to working with this committee toward prompt and successful passage. 

Thank you for allowing me to testify today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Merrifield follows:] 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. Thank you all very much. 

I will begin the questioning with asking Mr. McCree, a lot of 

what we heard in the testimony and certainly what is contained in 

the bill has to do with right sizing the agency in terms of license 

fees and support. 

In 2006, the NRC spent $208 million on corporate support spending which amounts to 28 percent, you can see it on the chart, of 

the NRC’s budgetary authority. This was at a time when the NRC 

was regulating more reactors and materials, licensees, with fewer 

people and resources. 

Mr. McCree, I would say, do you recall any impairment of the 

NRC’s safety and security mission in 2006 as a result of this level 

of corporate support? 

Mr. MCCREE. Chairman, thank you for your question. In response to your question about impairment of our safety and security mission, I would indicate that answer is no. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

I would say, if corporate support spending equaled 28 percent of 

the NRC’s budget, the amount would be $275 million, which is only 

$30 million less than what the NRC is expecting on corporate support. 

I would ask, in light of the fact that there was more work and 

more licenses in 2006 with this 28 percent, do you have any reason 

to believe this amount of corporate spending at the top part, which 

would be $30 million less than what you would expect, could impair the NRC’s ability on safety and security? 

Mr. MCCREE. Comparing NRC now to 2006, we are certainly a 

different agency. While there are about 100 more operating reactors than there were in 2006, there is additional work that we have 

now that we did not have then with the four AP1000s that we are 

overseeing as well as completion of oversight of Watts Bar Year 2. 

The workload is different than in 2006. Certainly our staff size is 

different as well. 

Senator CAPITO. Are you saying you think if it were to be right 

sized to the 28 percent, there could be some concerns over safety 

and security? 

Mr. MCCREE. That is not what I am saying. I am simply saying 

that we are comparing a different agency now in 2016 to 2006. As 

far as right sizing, we are taking under Project AIM significant 

steps to right size the agency for the work that we have and the 

work we anticipate in the future. 

That right sizing includes right sizing our corporate support area 

where we have taken significant reductions, about $30 million in 

reductions this year, in 2016. Additionally, the Commission just 

acted on a number of recommendations under the Project AIM rebaselining that will result in additional reductions in 2017. 

Several weeks ago, the Chief Financial Officer and I assigned a 

tasking for several of our larger corporate support offices to look at 

additional reductions that we would plan to submit to the Commission in planning for our fiscal year 2018 budget. 

As the Chairman noted yesterday in the House hearing, we are 

not done. The Project AIM right sizing continues. I do believe the 

corporate support portion of our budget will continue to go down. 
110 

Senator CAPITO. Ms. Korsnick, you spent a lot of your testimony 

addressing this issue. Do you have a reaction to what the gentleman testified in answer to my question? 

Ms. KORSNICK. Yes, and I think I included in my testimony the 

fact that when we looked at the peer agencies to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, we would like even more attention paid to 

those peer agencies which appear to be effective at the corporate 

support level even less than 28 percent. 

The other thing in this fee structure we are very interested in 

is the way the current bill is structured. It not only asks for the 

NRC to allocate for certain licensee requests, but that the money 

needs to be spent on that and on that alone. 

Right now, there is the ability to move some money around, if 

you will, and in fact, move it to corporate support. We would like 

a stronger fiscal responsibility on that. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

Dr. Back, in your testimony you mentioned the four principles: 

cost competitiveness, safety, less waste and reducing proliferation 

risk as your four corners of developing an advanced reactor. I think 

I am hearing that the NRC would get in on the front end, maybe 

raise red flags in the beginning of the licensing procedure rather 

than at the back end where the timelines are leaking and making 

even incurring more expense. 

It would be more helpful to you in order to reach these four 

benchmarks? Is that a correct assumption? 

Ms. BACK. Yes, although it is not at the point where the reactor 

is not performing well. We are looking for input early because the 

technologies are different, so the way you evaluate the kind of 

metrics you assess, the safety, cost competitiveness and other factors of the reactor are different. 

Senator CAPITO. At this point in your development, you have had 

no internal conversations with the NRC on your advanced reactor? 

Ms. BACK. We have had one conversation because we are allowed 

one conversation which is free, so to speak, before the hourly rates 

come up. In our development of the reactor, because of the way it 

is structured now, it is not well suited for our particular technologies. 

When we looked at where we were investing our research dollars 

versus funds to try and get input from the NRC because we now 

it is a long path, there has been a history with NGNP with many 

white papers without a clear decision. 

There is an uncertainty that is very difficult to manage at this 

early, early stage. That is why a very small investment from NRC 

funds in the beginning would be very helpful. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. I would be happy to yield to others who may 

have urgent business to attend to. I will be here for the duration. 

Is anyone in a tight squeeze right now? If not, who would be next 

under the early bird rule? 

Senator Crapo. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Senator Carper. 
111 

Madam Chairman, at this point, we have received 19 letters of 

support for this legislation. I would like to ask unanimous consent 

that these letters of support be included in the record. 

Senator CAPITO. Those will be included in the record, without objection. 

[The referenced letters were not received at time of print.] 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much. 

I would like to direct my first question to you, Mr. McCree. As 

you know, we have been working very hard to understand the 

budget of the NRC and its inner workings. There is, in my view, 

a relative consensus that the NRC budget process is very opaque. 

In addition to concerns about fee structure, I am deeply concerned about lack of clarity on how the NRC budgets for its overhead functions. Will you commit to working with my staff and the 

staffs of other Members to provide timely and clear responses to 

our questions about your overhead functions and your budget requests? 

Mr. MCCREE. Yes, absolutely. 

Senator CRAPO. I appreciate that. We really need a commitment 

to provide more detail about how the NRC allocates and spends its 

resources so that we can more effectively understand how the 

budget works. 

I want to use the rest of my time to talk to the whole panel. I 

know that is going to be hard in 4 minutes. The point I want to 

get at is Dr. Lyman, in his testimony, has two points and many 

more. One of them was that we should not weaken the NRC regulatory structure. It is the gold standard, and we need it to continue 

to be the gold standard. 

I do not view this legislation as weakening the regulatory structure in any way. I view it as increasing transparency and efficiency. Maybe I will turn to you first, Mr. Merrifield. What is your 

view of that issue? 

Mr. MERRIFIELD. I fundamentally disagree with Mr. Lyman in 

that regard. What we are really asking for and what I think this 

legislation will accomplish is risk informing the regulatory activities of the NRC and tailoring those activities to be appropriate for 

the licensing of advanced reactor technologies. 

This will in no way reduce the level of safety. In fact, arguably, 

it will allow the agency to appropriately tailor resources to make 

sure these technologies are regulated in the right way. It will also 

hopefully have the successful accomplishment of doing it at lower 

cost which is important as well. 

Senator CRAPO. The earlier that the agency is involved in the development of the technologies and the understanding of them, the 

more efficient and effective the regulation can be. 

Mr. MERRIFIELD. That is exactly right. I think it would allow 

much better utilization of resources. I would say a couple things. 

One, I think what Mr. McCree’s staff really needs to do is elevate, as quickly as possible, many of the generic policymaking decisions that can be made to the Commission and by the Commission 

to reduce the uncertainty for advanced reactor technologies. 

Second, we talked a bit about the fee process. It is very important to provide fee relief in the early stages of the program to allow 

active discussion between the developers and the NRC. 
112 

As discussed by one of the other witnesses, there is a lack of engagement because once you start talking to the NRC besides your 

initial meeting, the $268 per hour fee is going to start triggering. 

That is not good. We really should be encouraging very active discussion between the developers and the NRC right now. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. 

I probably only have time for one of the other witnesses. I will 

turn to Dr. Finan because of your charts. 

The other issue that was raised which I focused on is the probably really is not the regulatory system but the fact we cannot get 

investment at the early stages of the development of these new 

technologies. 

To me that seems to be exactly the point that because of our regulatory structure, at least a big part of that issue is if you do not 

have the staged development or something like that, which this bill 

contemplates, you have a situation in which it is very hard to get 

early investment in these expensive technologies. Could you address that? 

Ms. FINAN. That is right. I think there are a lot of other challenges to deploying advanced reactors as there are for renewable 

and carbon capture and other energy options. The investors and 

innovators have made it very clear that their most immediate and 

pressing concern is regulatory uncertainty. 

I do not think we need to have another study. There have been 

a lot of studies on that. I would be happy to provide a list of references but climate change is urgent. The private sector is engaged 

and eager. The time to fix this is really right now. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much. 

My time has expired. It looks like I am now chairing the hearing. 

Senator CARPER. I think you are doing a great job. 

Senator CRAPO [presiding]. I would turn, Senator Booker, to you 

next. 

Senator BOOKER. Mr. Chairman, thank you for that. 

My staff and I were just talking about how incredible your staff 

has been, not just in working on the bill, but in reaching out to all 

these groups. The letters you submitted are really a testimony to 

the kind of inclusion that you have had in this process. Thank you 

very much. 

Ms. Korsnick, in your testimony you make the point that a reduction in the number of existing licensees increases the fee burden on the remaining licensees. I think we all hope we do not see 

this rash of additional premature closings within our nuclear fleet. 

That would be bad for the overall energy picture in the United 

States. 

That said, if we did, can you explain how, under current law, 

that would impact the reactors that remain and whether this bill 

would alleviate that scenario? 

Ms. KORSNICK. In fact, the current bill is structured to alleviate 

that very concern. As the current structure is in place with the obligation to collect 90 percent of the budget, it is 90 percent of whoever is there to pay. 

If those plants close down and are no longer part of that fee 

structure, then the remaining plants, remaining operating reactors, 

have to pay that 90 percent bill. Our experience has been, based 
113 

on the chart you just saw and our experience with the NRC budget 

historically, the budget has not reduced commensurate with the operating reactors shutting down. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you. 

Dr. Finan, besides the fact you mentioned those two terrible 

words, climate change, I will forgive you for that, I am into innovation and innovators. I have a problem since I have been 2 years in 

the Senate from the FAA to the Patent Office; we do a lot to constrict innovation. In this space, innovation is I think critically important. 

The GAO last year did an incredible report that looked at the 

challenges facing companies attempting to deploy new reactor concepts. In this report, the GAO noted that for first of a kind technologies, the design review costs for these folks can be exceptionally higher than for subsequent projects. 

Do you believe this is a real problem as noted in this report? Do 

you think the DOE matching grant program in the bill can help 

solve the problem? 

Ms. FINAN. I agree. I think that is a critical problem for 

innovators. There is really a need not only to make sure the costs 

are under control but also to make them more predictable so that 

investors and innovators can plan accordingly. I think the DOE 

matching program could certainly assist them in that immensely. 

Senator BOOKER. These are innovators who are really critical for 

advancing nuclear in terms of the safety, in terms of being able to 

better deal with challenges we have like the waste from current 

light water reactors as well as deal with problems we have including proliferation of this material, is that correct? 

Ms. FINAN. That is right. I actually think this is very exciting because in the past nuclear was developed initially for the Navy for 

submarines. Then it was adapted to land. Today’s innovators are 

really putting a priority on our values today, those key values 

being safety, proliferation, cost and all of the other things that nuclear can provide. 

I think these new designers and innovators are going to bring 

that to the table, and we need to help them move forward. 

Senator BOOKER. We need to create a Government regulatory climate where these folks can flourish, and we are not putting undue 

cost burdens on them, correct? 

Ms. FINAN. Absolutely. 

Senator BOOKER. Can you expand a bit on your testimony in the 

little bit of time I have left as to why the existing nuclear framework is really problematic for reactors, a bit more about specifically 

what is so problematic about the framework? 

Ms. FINAN. As an analogy, if we looked at our emission standards 

for vehicles, those are very performance based. They set maximum 

emission levels. If instead they were prescriptive and required particular catalytic converter technologies, TESLA, with an electric 

car, would have to come in and seek exemptions to those technology requirements. 

For a nuclear reactor, that is much more complex and has a lot 

more regulation. Those exemptions would be multiplied and have 

a lot of issues where you need to come in and seek different treatment. 
114 

That is something that is a big barrier for new technologies because every time they have to do that, that is an uncertain process 

that has not been done before. That uncertainty creates a great 

problem for investors and innovators. 

Senator BOOKER. I appreciate that. 

In the minute I have left, obviously Senators Crapo and Inhofe 

come at this from a different direction than we do. It is beautiful 

how we were able to meet and make this a bipartisan bill. 

Senator Whitehouse and I, however, come at this with real concerns and fears about overall climate change. There is a massively 

expanding demand for energy globally which is rapidly expanding, 

as I said in my opening remarks, at a rate that people like me have 

visions for solar, wind, and battery storage. 

There is no way that renewable pace will keep up with the demands we are having. Right now, 60 percent of our clean energy 

is being produced by nuclear. Do you believe this is a place where 

we have to actually expand innovation if we are going to deal with 

the overall problem Senator Whitehouse and I see of climate 

change? 

Ms. FINAN. Absolutely. That is very important because this is not 

just a political issue; it is not even just about climate change or energy security. This is a humanitarian issue. There are a billion-plus 

people on this earth who do not have electricity. We need to provide that energy. We need to have all the tools on the table and 

that has to include nuclear, so I think this is critical work. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you very much, Dr. Finan. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Senator Booker. It looks 

like I still have the gavel. 

Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Confession is good for the soul. I confess that 

you did a much better job of pointing out something than I did. 

The interesting thing about this is there are those on your side 

whose lives are driven by climate change and those on this side 

who are realists, but we still agree on this bill. We know this is 

going to serve everyone’s best interest. 

I am not sure what all was covered because I had to go down to 

Armed Services which is one problem we have on this committee. 

We have nine members on both this committee and Armed Services. Somehow I have never been able to convince John McCain 

that we are a committee, too. 

I have a chart. Ms. Korsnick, I want you to look at this. The fees 

on reactors increased substantially over the last few years. In this 

bill, we capped the annual fee for operating reactors at the 2015 

level based on the most recent fee recovery rule. 

This level is very near the all time highest amount that reflects 

the post-Fukushima workload. That workload is now declining. We 

also provide for inflation adjustment. 

Ms. Korsnick, do you believe this amount is an appropriate ceiling to ensure the NRC is adequately resourced to execute the safety and security mission? 

Ms. KORSNICK. Yes. In fact, as you just described, we think fiscal 

year 2015 is the high water mark, quite frankly, for the agency. We 

feel, in fact, that it should not need to approach that ceiling. 
115 

As you described, some of that workload, in fact, is declining 

from post-Fukushima, and we feel a more efficient agency should 

be able to operate with a corporate spending more in line with 

their peer agencies. 

Senator INHOFE. Whether or not you would want to reach that 

cap, it is adequate to take care of what our needs are now? 

Ms. KORSNICK. It is adequate, yes, Senator. 

Senator INHOFE. Under S. 2795, the amount of annual fees the 

NRC collects would increase when newly operated plants begin to 

pay their fees or would decrease when reactors close. Do you believe that is an appropriate way to account for increases and decreases? 

Ms. KORSNICK. Yes, Senator, we do. It obviously speaks directly 

to workload. We think that is a fair process. 

Senator INHOFE. I would agree with that. 

When companies decide to close nuclear reactors, do they give 

the NRC adequate notice such that the NRC can account for the 

decrease in fees in their budget process? 

Ms. KORSNICK. We believe so, Senator. The individual plants also 

need to go through a planning process. They need to inform the regional transmission operator in advance. It is typically a 12- to 18- 

month timeframe that you are making these types of announcements. 

Senator INHOFE. Mr. Merrifield, I think back to when you first 

started or actually I first chaired this committee, you were then the 

attorney here. You were not a Commissioner at that time? 

Mr. MERRIFIELD. No, I was a counsel to this committee. 

Senator INHOFE. You might remember at that time this committee had no oversight for 4 years. 

Mr. MERRIFIELD. That is true. You did a very good job of correcting that problem. 

Senator INHOFE. We did correct it. We got busy, set goals and 

priorities as to when we would be coming in and what we were 

supposed to be doing. I think that did work. 

Mr. MERRIFIELD. It did, Senator. 

Senator INHOFE. During your tenure as Commissioner, you led 

an effort to improve the efficiency of new plant licensing. One of 

your recommendations was to eliminate the mandatory hearing, is 

that true? 

Mr. MERRIFIELD. That is true, Senator. 

Senator INHOFE. Would you explain what that was all about? 

Mr. MERRIFIELD. The mandatory hearing process the agency has 

right now dates back to the early days of the Atomic Energy Commission. When you look at the legislative history, the reason for its 

imposition was because the AEC actually approved several reactors 

with no public involvement whatsoever. The outcry caused Congress to impose a mandatory hearing requirement which was appropriate at the time. 

Over the years, with changes under the Administrative Procedures Act and the wide number of opportunities for the public to 

be involved in the many steps of the licensing process, in my view 

is, then as it is now, that is an antiquated notion that is no longer 

necessary. 
116 

If there are specific issues, those can be brought up in a contested proceeding that the Commission can go over, but I believe 

a mandatory hearing is not necessary. Indeed, frankly the requirement right now causes significant staff resources, which ultimately 

must be borne by a combination of the Federal Government and 

the licensees, to deal with the mandatory hearing. It would be a 

significant reduction of fees if that was eliminated. 

Senator INHOFE. I have one last question. I would like a short 

answer because my time has expired. 

I described the lax situation that was there having gone 4 years. 

Oversight is important. Do you think since that time we have 

slipped a little and need to become a bit more forceful in overseeing 

the NRC? 

Mr. MERRIFIELD. As a Commissioner, I welcomed involvement 

with the committee. 

Senator INHOFE. I know you did. You were very helpful. 

Mr. MERRIFIELD. It was helpful to us to have our feet held to the 

fire; it gave us the discipline to make sure we oversaw the agency 

and its mission. The Commissioners have the responsibility to oversee what Victor McCree and his staff does. 

I think further reductions of staffing are appropriate, and I think 

the involvement of this committee in oversight is welcome. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Merrifield. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Let me say first how happy I am that the 

Chairman had a twinkle in his eye when he made that comment 

about Senator Booker and me. 

Second, let me say to Dr. Lyman that it is very much not our 

intention in this bill to short circuit the safety review of any nuclear facility. 

My concern is the review process at the NRC has become so light 

water reactor specific that another technology looking at getting 

through that obstacle course is facing hazards that have nothing to 

do with short or long circuitedness, but simply not being appropriate to the technology in the same way that if you had to pass 

a test for how solid the canvas was on the wings of your proposed 

aircraft when you were actually proposing an aluminum winged 

aircraft, or where the pilot’s goggles needed to be and what they 

needed to be made of, when in fact you were proposing a closed 

cockpit aircraft. It is an issue of relevancy, not of shortcuts. 

I would invite you and any other member of the panel who wishes to put in writing some benchmarks for us you think would indicate the departure from moving the regulatory process more toward 

relevance to new technologies and into simply short circuiting safety because I do not think there is a person who supports this bill 

who wants to short circuit safety. 

It would be helpful to have this conversation in a more specific 

way about what the red flags might be rather than speaking generally about that. 

I worry that we have technologies that effectively are smothered 

in the crib because they cannot figure out what their regulatory 

process is going to look like, and therefore they cannot raise capital 
117 

and proceed. There is a big X factor, a big question mark around 

the process if you are not a traditional light water reactor. 

That is how I think of the problem. I would be interested in not 

only your response but everyone else’s in writing, if you care to 

make that known. 

The last point I will make goes back to something I said in my 

opening remarks. I think it is a tragedy in a carbon constrained environment to have nuclear plants closing that are producing carbon 

free power for no other reason than no one has figured out how to 

pay them for what we all almost agree is the value of the carbon 

freeness of their power. 

We have an Administration that has an Office of Management 

and Budget that has a $42.50 per ton social cost of carbon. If someone has a suggestion as to how we can figure out a way to pay the 

existing nuclear fleet $42.50 per equivalent of voided ton of carbon, 

I am down for that. We need to find the revenues. 

I do not think it is a good thing to run up the deficit, but I do 

think there ought to be a way to provide that revenue stream to 

these facilities so that artificially driven economic decisions that 

are in fact wrong from both an environmental and economic perspective are not being driven across this industry by this market 

failure. 

I know that is a bit beyond the scope of this particular bill, but 

if any of you have ideas on that, I would encourage you to please 

go ahead and offer them. I would offer that solicitation to my colleagues as well. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

Mr. MERRIFIELD. Senator, if I may, on the first point you made. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. The one about Chairman Inhofe? 

Mr. MERRIFIELD. Not that one. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. You saw the twinkle in his eye, too? 

Mr. MERRIFIELD. I did see the twinkle in his eye. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. There you go. 

Mr. LYMAN. I would like an opportunity to respond. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. You will have an opportunity to respond. 

I would just like it in writing because I think it is going to be a 

long response. This is a continuing conversation that I think we 

need to have to make sure we stay on the right track. 

Mr. MERRIFIELD. On your first point, I think you were entirely 

correct. I think the process does need to be tailored for these advanced reactor technologies. 

As a country, we have had a leadership role historically in the 

nuclear energy field. It is a different world today. There are lots 

of opportunities for advanced reactor developers to work with regulators around the world. 

If we do not maintain our lead in having them come before the 

NRC for review, they may well decide there are other countries better suited to have those licensed. That is not in the best interest 

of our country. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I have been to China and heard the reports on the facilities that were designed in the United States but 

are being constructed over there. 

My time has expired. 
118 

Senator CRAPO. Senator Fischer needs to go next. I do not know 

if anyone else wants a second round but I have one more question. 

Then I will give you a chance, Dr. Lyman, to respond at that point. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I do look forward to working with you. I 

am not trying to be hostile; I am trying to open a conversation that 

separates what I think is a good way point that you have indicated 

for us. 

Mr. MERRIFIELD. I appreciate that. 

Senator CRAPO. Senator Fischer. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Nebraska hosts two nuclear reactors that provide clean, affordable, reliable energy to our ratepayers and also our families. This 

important legislation we are discussing today will provide our nuclear innovators the transparent framework that is necessary to 

launch this nuclear fleet into the future. 

It will also enable our utilities to continue to provide affordable 

and reliable energy. I am appreciative of the discussion we are having today and also that we are recognizing the outstanding job that 

our nuclear reactor utilities perform every single day. 

Mr. McCree, the legislation we are considering today creates an 

Advanced Nuclear Energy Cost Share Grant Program that enables 

the Department of Energy to establish a grant program. 

I understand there have been criticisms regarding the DOE 

grant programs that share the costs of NRC licensing as picking 

winners and losers. In your experience, do you believe it would be 

appropriate for the NRC to manage such a grant program to reduce 

review fees for applicants, or would the NRC consider that promotional and in conflict with its role as a regulator? 

Mr. MCCREE. Again, we reiterate that the Commission has not 

expressed its view on the bill, but I would note as written, NRC 

would not manage the grant program but the DOE would. In that 

sense, it is not too dissimilar from a grant that the DOE made 

available for the combined operating license holders for the 

AP1000s in Georgia and South Carolina. 

To that extent, it has worked well and has not impacted our fundamental safety and security mission or our independence principle 

to which the Chairman referred earlier. 

Senator FISCHER. You would not be supportive of the NRC becoming involved in the grant program in any promotional way? You 

do recognize there is a conflict there? 

Mr. MCCREE. Yes, ma’am, I do. Again, although the Commission 

has not weighed in on this, it would appear, I believe, to represent 

a conflict. Again, I would feel confident that the Commission would 

weigh in on that with a similar view. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you. 

Ms. Korsnick, in your testimony you stated that the cost and duration of reviews for license renewals and new plants have dramatically increased rather than decreased as the NRC and the industry gains experience with processes. 

S. 2795 directs the NRC to ensure funds are available to complete reviews that the industry needs. The bill also has provisions, 

as you know, requiring performance metrics and reporting. 

Do you believe this two-pronged approach will improve the efficiency and the timeliness of these reviews? 
119 

Ms. KORSNICK. Yes, Senator, we do. The fact that the NRC will 

budget specifically for licensing requests of the industry, we think 

will help provide the necessary focus and attention on those. We 

do think this bill will be helpful in that area. 

Senator FISCHER. Do you believe it will also help lay the groundwork so we can have more predictable reviews in the future? 

Ms. KORSNICK. I think so. The challenge is when we say performance metrics and reporting. Of course the devil is in the detail on 

that in terms of what performance metrics are developed, but in 

concept, I think having metrics and reporting is absolutely helpful 

in demonstrating the success. Quite frankly, if the NRC is so successful, it is an opportunity to share that. 

Senator FISCHER. As we look at developing those metrics, how 

important is it that we have all the stakeholders at the table? You 

said it is very important, and the devil is in the details. Can you 

give me an example where you would be representing a view that 

might not be available that other stakeholders would present? 

Ms. KORSNICK. I think stakeholder engagement would be very 

helpful in that way. As with any performance metric, you get what 

you measure. You can perform in a way that you say we are making the metric look good but it is actually not satisfying the greater 

good. 

I think the way to avoid that is to get stakeholder engagement 

and review what the metrics would be to make sure all of the 

stakeholders’ concerns would be reflected appropriately in the metric. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you. 

Mr. Merrifield, during your service as a Commissioner, you 

helped prepare the NRC to review new plant applications. This bill 

directs the NRC to undertake several activities to develop a regulatory framework and get prepared to review the applications. 

Do you think the scope of this work is too ambitious, or do you 

think it is feasible? 

Mr. MERRIFIELD. I think it is absolutely feasible. Credit to the 

NRC staff, I think they will throw themselves at making this work. 

They are talented people led by Vic McCree, who is a talented gentleman. 

I think it is very achievable for the agency to do this. I think 

they can come up with a process that is risk informed, predictable, 

transparent and done in such a way as to allow these technologies 

to move forward. I think the bill encourages that. 

I have one point on the earlier issue I would like to mention 

given my having been on the Commission. I do think the oversight 

this committee provides on the timing of various activities of the 

agency, license renewals and new license applications, are important metrics to look at. 

The timing of those has increased since I left the Commission. 

That is an area of productivity I think certainly needs some attention. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you, Senator Fischer. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 
120 

Mr. McCree, sequestration and the early closure of a number of 

nuclear plants have already put the NRC in a declining budget environment. At the same time, the revelation that ISIS recorded 

video at the home of a Belgian nuclear official underscores the need 

for additional resources for security and safety at U.S. nuclear 

power plants. It is at the top of the terrorist target list for ISIS. 

Instead, the bill under consideration in this committee would 

constrain the NRC’s resources by imposing a blanket cap on fees 

for operating reactor licensees. 

Do you agree there is a possibility that such a cap could adversely impact safety and security by reducing resources and support for NRC staff working to protect reactors against insider 

threats or physical attacks? 

Mr. MERRIFIELD. I would reiterate that the Commission has not 

weighed in on the proposed bill including the caps described in the 

bill. If they would become law, of course then the NRC would 

abide. 

Senator MARKEY. Fewer resources are not good for the agency in 

protecting against a potential terrorist attack, is that true? 

Mr. MERRIFIELD. Quite frankly, Senator, we are in a declining 

budgetary environment, and we are doing our due diligence to assure that our resources are appropriately allocated to ensure our 

safety and security. 

Senator MARKEY. Now you are pulling it away from other nuclear and safety issues in order to deal with a terrorist attack when 

both are very real in our country. I just think we have to be realistic, that the Belgian warning that they were looking at a nuclear 

power plant and that they were trying to attack it is clearly something we have to take into account here in the United States. 

When we talk about the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s budget, yes, we might want to do a favor for utilities and reduce their 

fees, but where is the money to come from in order to produce the 

level of safety we are going to need in our country? 

The findings in this bill state that nuclear energy provides for 

just short of 20 percent of electrical generation in the United 

States. There are currently 99 reactors producing electricity in our 

country. At least three are closing very soon, Fitzpatrick, Oyster 

Creek and Pilgrim. 

According to the Department of Energy data for nuclear energy 

to stay at 20 percent of total energy generation by 2025, we need 

to bring 13 large reactors online in the next 9 years. We are currently building four and one more. Watts Bar 2 is scheduled to 

produce electricity this year. That leaves us at least eight reactors 

short of the goal. 

Do any of you disagree that there is little or no possibility that 

eight additional new reactors that we have not begun to build will 

come online by 2025? Do any of you disagree that there are not 

going to be eight new plants operating between now and 2025? Do 

any of you disagree with that? 

Mr. MCCREE. No, sir. 

Senator MARKEY. Let the record reflect that no one disagreed 

with that. Remember, eight new nuclear reactors are what we need 

to maintain nuclear share of electricity generation in our country. 
121 

There would be a need to replace even more of that to replace 

fossil fuel generation as coal plants go offline. We need even more 

electrical generation capacity. The two reactors under construction 

at Vogel have experienced years of long delay, billions of dollars in 

cost overruns, and it took 43 years to complete construction of 

Watts Bar 2. 

Do any of you disagree that problems that caused the cost and 

schedule overruns at Vogel would need to be solved before any significant number of new reactors could be built in the next 10, 15 

or 20 years? Do any of you disagree with that? 

Let the record reflect that no one disagrees. 

In recent years, the price of renewable energy sources has declined considerably. Here is the big number. Since 2010, the price 

of solar panels has declined by 80 percent. We are talking 5 years, 

an 80 percent decline. 

By contrast, the cost of constructing nuclear plants has remained 

stubbornly high. In light of these facts, it simply is not realistic to 

expect that nuclear power will continue to provide the majority of 

emission free electricity in the United States let alone be part of 

a solution for climate change. 

In 2005 in the United States, there was 79 total new megawatts 

of solar installed. This year, it is 16,000 new megawatts of solar, 

in 1 year. You can see where the trend lines are. Increase solar deployment and wind deployment as the price of both declined radically in total cost where stubborn regulatory issues in terms of 

safety and design still plague the nuclear industry. 

Dr. Lyman, this bill would scrap the requirement that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission hold a mandatory hearing on each 

application for a construction permit or operating license. Instead, 

such hearings would only occur if they are requested by a person 

whose interest might be affected. 

Is there any evidence that mandatory hearings have uncovered 

weaknesses in NRC staff evaluations of construction permits or operating license applications that otherwise would never have come 

to public view? 

Mr. LYMAN. In our view, the mandatory hearing does establish 

a unique and important role in filling a gap in the event that a contested hearing does not occur. Even if a contested hearing does 

occur, the mandatory hearing scope examines other issues including the adequacy of the NRC staff review. 

A colleague of mine, a lawyer, Diane Kern, has compiled a number of instances where the mandatory hearings have uncovered significant inadequacies in the NRC staff review. I would offer that 

list for your inspection. 

We believe the mandatory hearing process is important. It is also 

important for transparency. We heard a lot about the need to maintain transparency in the NRC review process. 

The fact is the public does not always have the resources to be 

able to contest a hearing even if there are very important safety 

issues that need adjudication. For those reasons, we think the 

mandatory hearing should be preserved. 

Senator MARKEY. I agree with you. There are mandatory hearings if you want to build a new house next door to someone else. 

We had public hearings at town hall. They were building a nuclear 
122 

power plant and mandatory hearings for a construction permit, for 

an operating permit would no longer be mandatory. That makes no 

sense whatsoever. That is an inherently dangerous technology that 

needs all kinds of tough questions to be asked about it. 

I understand the wish list of the industry would say no more 

hearings, no more public input, no more questions asked by the 

Union of Concerned Scientists in public hearings questioning the 

underlying premise of building a nuclear power plant in somebody’s 

neighborhood. 

I do not think the public will be happy when they are told no 

hearings on this dangerous technology. Again, it still needs insurance protection from the Federal Government. That is how inherently dangerous it is. The private sector still is not willing to provide the insurance. You need the Government to intervene, to provide that insurance coverage. 

I thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. If I were the Chairman, you never would have 

gotten those extra 3 minutes and 6 seconds. 

Mr. Chairman, I would say it is probably safe to assume that 

Senator Markey is probably not going to co-sponsor this legislation 

any time soon. 

Senator CRAPO. I got that figured out. 

Senator CARPER. One of our colleagues is not here today, Mike 

Enzi. He and Ted Kennedy used to lead the Committee on Health, 

Education, Labor and Pensions for a number of years. Enzi was a 

very conservative Republican, and Kennedy was a very liberal 

Democrat. Somehow or other, they managed to get a huge amount 

done. 

I used to say to Mike Enzi, how are you and Ted Kennedy able 

to bridge the divide and get so much done? He always talked about 

the 80/20 rule. I said what is that? He said, Ted and I agree on 

80 percent of the stuff; we disagree on 20 percent. What we decide 

to do is focus on the 80 percent on which we agree. 

Chairman Inhofe and I have co-sponsored legislation, and I used 

to do this with George Voinovich on diesel emission reduction, and 

we are making great progress on that front. We decided to focus 

on what we agree on. 

In the spirit of the 80/20 rule, I want to ask this panel, we will 

start with you Dr. Back, what is the 80 percent where you folks 

agree, or maybe 70 or 60 percent? Where is the agreement of this 

panel on some of the important issues? Just take a minute, nor 

more than a minute. 

Ms. BACK. I am not quite sure I understand the question. 

Senator CARPER. I am asking you what are the points of consensus for this panel. Where do you think you guys agree? 

Ms. BACK. I believe we agree that early interaction with the NRC 

is helpful for new technologies for advanced reactors. I believe a 

staged approach is also very helpful. I believe some kind of cost 

share to help with the fees or change the burden of having an all 

fees due for the design certification or licensing application is 

maybe not appropriate. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 
123 

Dr. Finan. 

Ms. FINAN. I think there is a very important area where we all 

agree. Even Senator Markey laid out some of the challenges faced 

by nuclear. 

This is an industry that desperately needs innovation to address 

those challenges. Solar and wind have done really well and benefited from a great deal of innovation in that space. Nuclear energy 

is ready. There are innovators and investors who are ready to really take on that innovation challenge. 

I think we need to have a more efficient and transparent regulatory framework to enable the work we need to do to address 

those challenges that Senator Markey outlined. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Ms. KORSNICK. I think we all agree that nuclear power is very 

important and very necessary for a baseload, carbon free future for 

how we generate electricity. I think we also agree that we need a 

strong, effective regulator. 

Earlier, we used the term gold standard. I think we do not want 

the NRC to be a weakened regulator. I do not think that is helpful 

for the industry. We do feel that we can have an efficient and 

strong regulator, a regulator that is more transparent from a cost 

perspective. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Dr. Lyman, where is the consensus? 

Mr. LYMAN. I would hope the consensus is that there needs to 

be a structured process to ensure that NRC safety reviews of new 

reactors are not spent, that those resources are actually used to 

end up with a product that generates electricity and are not just 

academic exercises. That is one concern we have with the bill, and 

we hoped the panel would agree. 

Also, I would point out that we do not agree that the stage process outlined in the bill necessarily would be helpful. 

Senator CARPER. Dr. Lyman, I was looking for points of agreement. We will come back to the 20 percent in some other hearing. 

Commander McCree, a Navy captain, right? 

Mr. MCCREE. Yes, sir. 

Senator CARPER. Naval Academy? 

Mr. MCCREE. Yes, sir. 

Let me first agree with my fellow panel, Ms. Korsnick, on NRC 

remaining a strong and credible regulator is essential. We are committed to our efficiency principle of good regulation and are making 

strides to become more efficient in this important area. The most 

important thing we do is assure the safety and security of the 100 

operating nuclear power plants and the materials license holders. 

Within that, earlier, I alluded to the three-pronged strategy, the 

multipart strategy. I believe that is in perfect alignment. NRC 

needs to improve its regulatory infrastructure to make the prospective reviews of advanced non-light water reactors more efficient, 

more effective, more clear and predictable. 

We are committed to build that framework, to have it in place, 

by 2019 so that if, and, or when an application is submitted for advanced non-light water reactors, we can conduct those reviews in 

a timely, efficient and effective manner. 
124 

We are on path to do that including considering stage reviews, 

conducting additional outreach with folks at the table, as well as 

other stakeholders, both domestically and internationally to make 

sure we are ready. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks very much. 

Mr. Merrifield. 

Mr. MERRIFIELD. I think there is a consensus that we can build 

safer nuclear reactors. 

Going forward, I do also want to mention there are small modular reactors in the pipeline contemplated to be built by 2023. As 

a country, we have the capability of building more nuclear reactors 

by 2025. 

We can have savings in the building of new reactors if we replicate and learn from the experiences at Summer and Vogel. 

Obviously we need to make sure that the NRC has the resources 

necessary to protect public health, safety and security. Ultimately, 

it is the nuclear power plants that physically have to defend 

against potential ISIS threats. 

From my view as a former Commissioner, those are the safest industrial facilities in the United States from a security standpoint 

and would well be able to defend against the kind of threats we 

have from that particular adversary. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, let me go back to you. Maybe 

you can give me some more time later. 

Senator Markey, I did not take my earlier time so I am catching 

up. 

Senator CRAPO. Do you have more questions, Senator Markey? 

Senator MARKEY. It would just be a comment, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Lyman, do you agree that granting safety exemptions to advanced reactor licensees could lead to a net reduction in overall 

safety? 

Mr. LYMAN. Yes. To elaborate on that concern, the industry is 

pressing for generic decisions to be made on certain policy issues 

including the size of emergency planning zones for advanced reactors or small modular reactors, the level of security that is needed, 

whether or not the containment needs to be robust against large 

pressure increases and whether the number of operators needed to 

staff a nuclear reactor complex should be reduced. They want these 

decisions to be made based on the expectation or the assertion that 

advanced reactors are so much safer than current reactors that we 

do not need these extra levels of protection. 

Our concern is that assertion is not always based on a full 

enough body of evidence and experimental data to justify making 

those decisions, so there could be a net reduction in safety if exemptions and other relaxations in safety procedures are granted 

based on a presumption that a nuclear reactor is safer without a 

full examination of that claim. 

Senator MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, laced throughout the bill as it 

is drafted is an assumption that there are inherent safety features 

built into advanced design reactors that make it safer automatically. 

That is a nice assumption to make. It is a nice assertion to make, 

but that is going to be tested. We have to make sure that any one 

additional, potentially successful safety feature interacts with the 
125 

totality of the rest of the nuclear power plant in terms of assuming 

the power plant is safer. 

We do not know that. That is an assumption built into the language of the bill. This just goes to the question, and it is an 80/ 

20 question, what are the big issues that we have to deal with. 

Eighty percent is still going to remain is there enough money for 

the NRC to do their job, having enough personnel asking all the 

right questions, having the right supervision and the fees are going 

to be reduced. 

Are these new technologies actually inherently safer? We have to 

have the capacity to be able to determine that. Will the public be 

able to ask questions? The industry has always tried to get the 

public out but after Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and any number 

of other incidents, the people do not trust the experts anymore. 

They want to be able to ask questions too because these power 

plants are going into their neighborhoods. You cannot wall out 

whole areas of the country. 

These have historically always been big questions. From my perspective, public input is vital and should actually be strengthened. 

The new reactors should not be exempted from important safety requirements that historically have been required and that the NRC 

budget should not be capped. 

These are the central areas, the big questions that we are going 

to have to answer in this legislation. It is going to keep coming 

back to the same questions we have asked for the last 7 years on 

technology. The questions do not change. We will be the ones that 

have to decide. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this very important hearing. We know one thing, that these power plants are now 20, 30 

and 40 years old. You have to go to the doctor more the older you 

get. There are more things that can go wrong the older you get. 

To reduce the budgets of these aging power plants in densely 

populated areas all across the country and say at the same time 

we are going to have lower numbers of personnel, lower amount of 

fees and revenues going in is totally contrary to how we think 

about it. 

There are issues like embrittlement in nuclear power plants that 

are the same as cholesterol going through the veins of older Americans. They cause issues that require a lot of additional attention. 

To say that is not as accurate for technology as it is for humans 

just belies the reality of what we have already learned about nuclear power plants in our country. 

I thank you for the courtesy, Mr. Chairman, and the additional 

time to question. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you, Senator Markey. 

I will take my last round right now, and then you will be able 

to finish, Senator Carper. 

I just want to make the comment that this legislation does not 

make assumptions. It sets forward a new process, a more transparent and I think effective process for the decisions you are talking about to be made. 

It definitely does not give any exemptions to any technology. It 

puts the NRC directly in charge of improving and strengthening 
126 

our safety. I would actually like to use my time to ask Mr. 

Merrifield and Ms. Korsnick to respond to that very issue. 

Mr. MERRIFIELD. I think the NRC is going to be able to continue 

to meet its mission of appropriately looking at these technologies 

and ensuring they are assured that they are safe. I think it will 

be able to do so in a way which is risk informed such that it will 

be able to judge is there a need for a large, emergency planning 

zone, where the amount of radiation in that reactor zone may be 

much less. 

Senator CRAPO. This legislation does not choose technologies. It 

does not define standard. 

Mr. MERRIFIELD. No, it does not. Those tools remain with the 

NRC. 

The other point I would make is it is not as if these technologies 

are entirely new. Indeed, most of the advanced reactor technologies 

being brought forward today were originally developed by the 

Atomic Energy Commission and DOE during the 1950s and 1960s. 

There is a significant amount of research information available 

to demonstrate the safety of these reactors today and justify the 

NRC making changes which would more appropriately tailor their 

regulations for advanced reactor technologies fully consistent with 

public health and safety. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. 

Ms. Korsnick. 

Ms. KORSNICK. I have a couple of comments. Clearly the industry 

and the folks representing advanced reactors, none of us are interested in reducing safety margins. The conversation and structure 

in this bill that provides a licensing process really informs that licensing process that these safety margins might in fact be met in 

a new and different way with this innovative technology. That 

needs to be acknowledged through the licensing process. 

We are not in any way lowering the bar or lowering the standard. Quite frankly, we are meeting or maybe even exceeding the 

standard but just in a new way. 

The other item I wanted to mention, and I appreciate Senator 

Markey is not here, but the mandatory hearings that were mentioned earlier, these are uncontested hearings. That means the 

public does not participate. 

The hearings that are referenced in this bill in fact are held between the Commission and the staff on construction permits and 

combined license applications. It is not cutting the public out, if 

you will, of any conversation. We are very interested in the public 

being involved in dialogue. 

Senator CRAPO. If there is any public interest, the bill allows for 

a hearing to be held. 

Ms. KORSNICK. Absolutely. There are many ways the public can 

request a hearing on an application and be involved. This does not 

take away any of the public engagement and involvement. 

I just wanted to make that clear because I felt a different impression was left with the committee. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much. 

Senator Carper. 
127 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You are doing a 

great job, by the way. I look forward to the day when you chair this 

more often. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you for that, too. 

Senator CARPER. Unless, of course, I could be the Chairman. In 

the meantime, I will be your wing man. 

I have an old car. In 2001, I stepped down as Governor and became a Senator. I went out with my oldest son, Chris, who was 

then 12, to buy a new car. We drove Porches, Mustangs and Corvettes. We bought a Chrysler Town and County minivan. He said 

it was bait and switch. 

Yesterday, I was driving back to Delaware. We usually take the 

train, but we drove back last night to Delaware in my 2001 Chrysler Town and Country minivan. Along the way, the odometer 

crossed 419,000 miles. 

When I first got my minivan, there were some warranty clauses, 

things that needed to be fixed from the factory, so we had a warranty to pay for that stuff. For a long period of time, we almost 

spent no money on it. I could get it washed every 2 weeks and 

maybe change the oil. In recent years, to be honest with you, I 

spent more and more money on my minivan. 

We have all these old nuclear power plants out there. My guess 

is when they first came online there were some problems with 

them sort of like the warranty stuff. We dealt with that and continued to monitor them as time goes by. 

Like Ed Markey said, your body gets old, and you have to spend 

more money. I always spend more money on my minivan. I will say 

this. About a month ago, I went out to start it one night down in 

southern Delaware after a meeting, and it would not start. 

The guy came from AAA and he said, you need a new battery. 

I said OK. He said, we have a 2-year and a 6-year, which would 

you prefer. I said the 6-year. Some people say that is confidence. 

That is optimism. I am Mr. Glass Half Full. 

Here is where I am going with this. If I am a utility, and I am 

paying 90 percent of the cost for running NRC. I see the NRC having fewer reactors because we are shutting down reactors and have 

fewer reactors to monitor. 

We are adding four new ones, but it is not a huge increase. Why 

does the NRC continue to need all this money? I think you knocked 

your budget down by $5 million. That is not very much in the 

scheme of things. I am trying to figure it out. Maybe you can help 

me with this, Commander. 

In terms of cost, four new power plants, monitoring and shepherding them through is not cheap. You have, as I understand, closures. 

I had a Ford Explorer about a year or two ago and was going to 

retire it or decommission it, if you will. We just took it to a place, 

and in 1 minute, they squashed my Explorer. That was it, and they 

gave me a check. 

It does not work that way with these nuclear power plants. It is 

an expensive process to decommission them. I guess that is a cost 

for you. 
128 

Fukushima, we have all these recommendations from Fukushima 

that we are implementing. We are making some progress, but we 

had a hearing a week or two ago and said we are not there yet. 

Plus, you have all these advanced technologies, all these people 

with brilliant ideas, I hope, who are saying look at my idea, so it 

takes money to pay for all this. 

After thinking about it a bit, my sense is that what you are asking for in the budget is not unreasonable, but this guy here is interested in how we get better results for less money and finding out 

how to save some more money. 

If I was the utilities, I would say you guys have to sharpen your 

pencils a little bit more and figure out how to save some money if 

you expect us to continue to pay through the nose. React to that 

for me, if you will. 

Mr. MCCREE. I appreciate the analogy to your minivan. 

Senator CARPER. Never tell my wife I bought a 6-year battery, 

she would die. 

Mr. MCCREE. A nuclear power plant is much more complex. 

To your point, the NRC is reducing its costs. We are committed 

to doing so. If you look at the trend from 2014, we are reducing 

our costs. Our fiscal year 2017 budget request is another $20 million below our fiscal year 2016 request. 

The Commission has accepted a number of the recommendations 

from our Project AIM re-baselining which will enable us to reduce 

our fiscal year 2017 appropriation request by at least another $31 

million. Those are significant reductions. We are still not done. 

Lowering our costs will translate to reduced fees, both the user 

fees and the annual fees to this industry that we regulate. While 

there may be a delay or reaction, there is a commitment to reducing our fees. It is tangible. I believe the industry will recognize 

those reduced costs. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

I have one last quick question. As the budget is reduced in the 

future, would the work force reflect the reduced workload? Take a 

minute to talk about the ramifications of cutting nuclear engineers 

today which might arguably be needed for tomorrow’s advanced nuclear applications. 

Mr. MCCREE. One of the more significant challenges I think any 

organization experiences, one that is human capital dependent and 

dependency on people to get work done, that is certainly NRC, is 

to manage cost reductions, reductions in staffing in a way that you 

retain your core capability to fulfill your mission. 

Of course our mission is safety and security, so we are working 

very closely, as a leadership team, using a strategic work force 

plan, to make sure the work we have now and the work we predict 

in the future will have the right people in the right place at the 

right time with the right skills. 

Again, that is our commitment. We are working very closely to 

get that done, including nuclear engineers who are one capability, 

one competence that we need within the NRC. 

Mr. MERRIFIELD. Senator, may I make a comment about planning? 

Senator CARPER. Real short. 
129 

Mr. MERRIFIELD. Seventy-three of the nuclear power plants in 

the United States have sought and received an extension to run for 

60 years. That has allowed the utilities to invest large amounts of 

money to make sure those plants are up to date and fully meet the 

safety requirements. 

Like your minivan, they have been making a lot of investments 

along the way to make sure those are useful. Similar to the way 

the U.S. Air Force 1950s era B–52s are currently being deployed 

in the Middle East in the right shape to do their mission, nuclear 

power plants are doing the same here in the U.S. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure I get my 

6 years’ worth out of that battery I just bought. We will see how 

it works. 

Mr. MCCREE. For the record, that would be 83 licenses, 11 under 

review and 6 expected to come in. The NRC is a bit more successful. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you for that clarification. 

Thank you all for being with us today. Let us continue to look 

at that 80 percent and see if we can build on that. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

I do appreciate your constant focus on trying to find solutions 

and get to that 80 percent. I agree with it. 

Dr. Lyman, I indicated I would give you a chance, but I think 

you got your chance to make your comment. Do you feel you have 

not fully had that opportunity yet? 

Senator CARPER. I think we have heard enough from him. 

Senator CRAPO. Go ahead. 

Mr. LYMAN. I would like just a very short time to explain why 

we think some of the language in the bill could potentially be interpreted as a reduction in safety standards. That primarily has to do 

with the language ‘‘risk informed’’ and ‘‘performance based.’’ 

In my experience with the NRC in its attempts to implement 

what it calls ‘‘risk informed’’ regulation, it often implies trying to 

justify what is called a reduction of unnecessary conservatism. Unnecessary conservatism means different things to different people. 

Our concern is that this bill would put pressure on the NRC to 

develop processes that would essentially force them to accept lesser 

standards for the experimental data for the analytical work that is 

needed to support an advanced reactor application. 

In particular, if you have designs based just on paper studies, the 

risk analyses do not have operational data to actually validate the 

studies. There is a concern that over-reliance on or over-confidence 

in paper studies insufficiently validated to meet say less restrictive 

safety criteria could lead to an overall reduction in safety. That is 

our concern. 

On the question of innovation, Mr. Merrifield pointed out many 

of the reactor types currently being considered were developed by 

the Atomic Energy Commission decades ago. We agree with that. 

Actually there is less innovation today than meets the eye. 

I would submit that argument could also be used to say the NRC 

has considerable expertise and experience in those reactor types. 

We think the concern that the NRC is not ready to license non- 
130 

light water reactors is somewhat exaggerated for that very reason. 

For the most part, these are old technologies. 

Mr. MERRIFIELD. If I may respond quickly, when I was on the 

Commission, we did create about $5 million in funding to better 

understand pebble bed reactors but molten salt reactors, lead bismuth and some of the others being proposed are significantly different from what the NRC has experience in, so they do need additional funding and resources to bridge that gap. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. I know we have opened some issues 

here that everyone would like to jump into more, and I would, too, 

but I believe we just had a vote called or will shortly have a vote 

called, so we are going to have to wrap this up. 

I do want to remind all of the witnesses that Senator Whitehouse 

had asked each of you to respond in writing to the question about 

the safety implications of the legislation on the NRC’s capacity to 

protect safety in its regulatory structure. I would encourage you to 

do that and respond to these issues. 

Each of the Senators may have further questions. It is customary 

for them to submit those in writing. Since this is a legislative hearing, and we expect committee action on S. 2795 next week, I am 

asking our Senators and committee staff to provide those questions 

regarding this bill to the majority office by 4 p.m. tomorrow, Friday. 

I am asking the witnesses to be sure to respond in writing by 5 

p.m. on Monday, April 25. I know that is a short time, but we are 

going to be moving ahead. If you can respond to those questions 

quickly, we would appreciate it. 

All questions for the record regarding the general topic of advanced reactors will be due within the usual 2-week deadline. 

To our witnesses, again, I want to thank you all for coming and 

sharing your views. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:52 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[An additional statement submitted for the record follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Madam Chair, Ranking Member Carper, thank you for holding this hearing. Nuclear power provides a critical share of the Nation’s electricity—about 20 percent of 

the total—and an even larger share—about 60 percent—of our carbon-free electricity. It is a crucial supplier of baseload power. 

Nuclear power will be part of the energy mix for the foreseeable future: there are 

nearly 100 reactors currently operating in the U.S., including the two units at Calvert Cliffs. 

In 1954, Lewis L. Strauss, who was Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission 

(AEC), famously said, ‘‘It is not too much to expect that our children will enjoy in 

their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter.’’ 

Chairman Strauss, who was addressing the National Association of Science Writers, was making a general prediction that science would continue to improve the 

human condition. But his statement came to be misinterpreted as referring to nuclear power specifically. It is, perhaps, an understandable mistake, given his affiliation with the AEC, which was charged with promoting nuclear energy as well as 

regulating it. 

Nuclear energy isn’t too cheap to meter, as it turns out, but there are ways to 

reduce its cost while protecting human health and the environment. 

The current fleet of commercial light water reactors has reached or is reaching 

its original ‘‘design basis’’ of operating for 40 years. While the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) has determined that it is safe to allow these reactors to continue 
131 

operating, scientists and engineers are coming up with new reactor designs that will 

improve or replace existing light water reactor (LWR) technology. 

As existing reactors are retired over the next several years or decades, we have 

the opportunity to replace them with safer, less costly, modular reactors utilizing 

either enhanced LWR technology or advanced non-LWR technology. 

I am confident the nuclear industry can solve technical problems. Scientists and 

engineers are problem solvers; it’s what they do and what they do well. 

The question is whether the NRC has the resources and regulatory framework to 

review and license the new designs in a fashion that encourages—or at least doesn’t 

discourage—the large private capital investments that will be necessary to commercialize advanced reactor technology. 

Of course, the NRC will have to continue its oversight of the existing fleet, too. 

The NRC’s job as an independent agency is neither to promote nor hinder the nuclear power industry or a particular technology but rather to regulate it, as effectively and efficiently as possible, in a manner that protects human health and the 

environment. 

The NRC’s mission is enormously important and technically challenging. For that 

reason, and because the Commission is headquartered in Rockville and much of its 

staff lives in Maryland, I would like to focus on workforce issues during today’s 

hearing. 

Statistics the Commission provided to my staff indicate that 19 percent of the 

NRC’s employees are over the age of 60, and another 33 percent of the employees 

are between the ages of 50 and 59. Conversely, just 27 percent of NRC’s employees 

are 39 or younger. Twenty-two percent of NRC’s employees are eligible to retire this 

year; on a cumulative basis, that number rises to 37 percent by fiscal year 2020. 

The NRC has a highly educated and skilled workforce with a strong esprit de 

corps. The Commission’s older workers especially have vast experience and expertise. 

The Commission has embarked on ‘‘Project AIM 2020’’ to ‘‘right size’’ its workforce 

relative to its workload. As long as safety isn’t jeopardized, that’s a logical step, considering that the ‘‘nuclear renaissance’’ many people predicted with respect to conventional light water reactors a decade ago hasn’t occurred—at least not yet. But 

now small modular reactors (SMRs) and advanced reactors are coming down the 

pike. 

The number of NRC FTEs—‘‘full-time equivalents’’—was over 3,700 in fiscal year 

2014; that number would decline to fewer than 3,500 under the President’s fiscal 

year 2017 budget request. 

I’m hopeful that the Commission can meet its workforce reduction targets through 

voluntary attrition since so many NRC employees are eligible to retire now or in 

the near future. 

But even if the targets are met in the least disruptive fashion possible, the Commission must avoid a ‘‘brain drain.’’ 

Nearly 1,300 NRC employees will be eligible to retire over the next 5 years. Will 

retirements over the next several years exceed the planned reduction in the size of 

the workforce? If so, what measures is the Commission taking to attract, train, and 

retain the next generation of our ‘‘best and brightest’’? How is knowledge being 

transmitted to younger NRC staffers and new hires? 

The current fleet of nuclear power reactors may not be growing as previously envisioned, but it is aging—that much is certain. 

An aging fleet presents unique safety challenges that will require continued diligence by the NRC to protect human health and the environment. 

And reviewing the designs and license applications of SMRs and advanced reactors will present a different set of challenges. 

I look forward to learning how the NRC plans to maintain the workforce capable 

of addressing these twin challenges in the face of a likely retirement wave. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Æ