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

97–575PDF 2016

A REVIEW OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION’S LICENSING PROCESS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

July 29, 2015 

Serial No. 114–35 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY K. WEBER, Texas 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

STEVE KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts 

DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

MARK TAKANO, California 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

HON. RANDY K. WEBER, Texas, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

STEVE KNIGHT, California 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

July 29, 2015 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Randy K. Weber, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 6 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 7 

Statement by Representative Alan Grayson, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. 

House of Representatives .................................................................................... 8 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 9 

Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 9 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10 

Witnesses: 

The Honorable Stephen Burns, Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 11 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 13 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 26 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

The Honorable Stephen Burns, Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ........................................................................................................................ 38

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Document submitted by Representative Randy K. Weber, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. 

House of Representatives .................................................................................... 50 

(1) 

A REVIEW OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION’S LICENSING PROCESS 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 29, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:04 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Randy Weber 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 

Chairman WEBER. The Subcommittee on Energy will come to 

order. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of 

the Subcommittee at any time. 

Welcome to today’s hearing titled ‘‘A Review of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Licensing Process,’’ and I recognize myself for 

five minutes for an opening statement. 

Good morning, Chairman Burns. Welcome. Welcome to this hearing on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s licensing process as it 

relates to the Department of Energy’s nuclear R&D programs. 

Today, we’re going to hear from the Honorable Stephen Burns, 

Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), regarding the extent to which the NRC and the DOE may actually 

cooperate to enable vital nuclear energy research. Chairman Burns, 

we’re looking forward to your testimony. 

Over the next five minutes or so, I want to give you a quick overview of this Subcommittee’s previous hearings that have actually 

led us to hold this hearing today. Last December, we heard from 

a startup company and an environmental institution explaining 

that tech companies trying to develop the next generation of nuclear technology need greater regulatory certainty to raise capital 

in today’s market. They suggested that the DOE should use its national labs as a forum to allow private developers to carry out this 

work—interesting suggestion. 

In May, we heard from another tech company explaining that research infrastructure to provide versatile neutron irradiation capabilities is vital for universities and the next-generation tech companies to research new materials and fuels. We also heard from the 

Director of DOE’s Nuclear Energy Innovation Hub that the increased capabilities to model and simulate nuclear reactions will 

allow researchers to eliminate assumptions, which can speed up 

and lower the cost to develop new technologies across the board. 

So what does all this mean? I’ll keep it simple: we have the best 

engineers in the world that want to take on commercial risk and 

develop these next-generation technologies if we just give them the 

opportunity. These new technologies can do five things: number 

one, mitigate proliferation risk, which is important; number two, 

increase fuel utilization; number three, reduce waste yields; number four, achieve higher safety margins; and number five, reach 

higher levels of thermal efficiency. 

The United States is at its best when we provide a clear path for 

our for our technology innovators to do what they do best: find creative solutions to the world’s challenges. 

So now I’ll explain what we intend to discuss in today’s hearing. 

This Committee has often found bipartisan support for the nation’s 

open-access user facilities that provide unique capabilities for both 

basic and applied R&D. This is a particularly good model because 

the users ultimately take on whatever form of commercial risk they 

so choose while the government simply provides the infrastructure 

capability. The prospective DOE user facility we’re considering 

today would be a fast-reactor-based neutron source. As a practical 

matter, the construction of such a facility will almost certainly require some form of technical assistance from the NRC, and that 

will be an interesting topic to explore. 
7 

Another issue, and perhaps the most challenging question for the 

Subcommittee, is how can the federal government can make the 

process simpler for entrepreneurs to conduct experiments that 

would enable them to translate theories for alternative reactor concepts into reality. The NRC has a regulatory process for non-power 

reactors, but the time required to issue a license appears to have 

created somewhat of a barrier to investment. So this raises a couple of important questions relevant to our discussion today. Number one, can the DOE use its authority to host private developers 

to conduct novel experiments advancing next-generation nuclear 

technology? And number two, could the NRC benefit in any way by 

allowing its staff to provide technical expertise and gain firsthand 

knowledge of such reactor experiments? 

It is important that we work together to find solutions to these 

challenges. America cannot and must not lag behind our global 

competitors in this area of critical technology. 

Again, we want to thank Chairman Burns for his testimony 

today, and we look forward to hearing from you on the NRC’s role 

in advancing nuclear energy for our nation. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Weber follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

CHAIRMAN RANDY K. WEBER

Good morning and welcome to today’s Energy Subcommittee hearing on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s licensing process as it relates to the Department of 

Energy’s Nuclear R&D programs. Today, we will hear from the Honorable Stephen 

Burns, Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), regarding the 

extent to which the NRC and DOE may cooperate to enable vital nuclear energy 

research. Chairman Burns, we thank you for your attendance today. 

Over the next five minutes or so, I want to give a quick overview of this Subcommittee’s previous hearings that have led us to hold this hearing today. 

Last December, we heard from a startup company and an environmental institution explaining that tech companies trying to develop the next generation of nuclear 

technology need greater regulatory certainty to raise capital in today’s market. They 

suggested that the DOE should use its national labs as a forum to allow private 

developers to carry out this work. 

In May, we heard from another tech company explaining that research infrastructure to provide versatile neutron irradiation capabilities is vital for universities and 

the next generation tech companies to research new materials and fuels. We also 

heard from the director of DOE’s nuclear energy innovation HUB that the increased 

capabilities to model and simulate nuclear reactions will allow researchers to eliminate assumptions, which can speed up and lower the cost to develop new technologies across the board. 

So what does this all mean? I’ll keep it simple: we have the best engineers in the 

world that want to take on commercial risk and develop these next generation technologies if we just give them the opportunity. 

These new technologies can: 

• Mitigate proliferation risk 

• Increase fuel utilization 

• Reduce waste yields 

• Achieve higher safety margins 

• And reach high levels of thermal efficiency 

The United States is at its best when we provide a clear path for our technology 

innovators to do what they do best - find creative solutions to the world’s challenges. 

So now I’ll explain what we intend to discuss today. 

This Committee has often found bipartisan support for the nation’s open-access 

user facilities that provide unique capabilities for both basic and applied R&D. This 

is a particularly good model because the users ultimately take on whatever form of 

commercial risk they so choose while the government simply provides the infrastruc-
8 

ture capability. The prospective DOE user facility we’re considering today would be 

a fast-reactor based neutron source. As a practical matter, the construction of such 

a facility will almost certainly require some form of technical assistance from the 

NRC and that will be an interesting topic to explore. 

Another issue, and perhaps the most challenging question for the Subcommittee, 

is how the federal government can make the process simpler for entrepreneurs to 

conduct experiments that would enable them to translate theories for alternative reactor concepts to reality. The NRC has a regulatory process for non-power reactors, 

but the time required to issue a license appears to have created a barrier to investment. This raises several important questions relevant to our discussion today. Can 

the DOE use its authority to host private developers to conduct novel experiments 

advancing next generation nuclear technology, and could the NRC benefit in any 

way by allowing its staff to provide technical expertise and gain firsthand knowledge of such reactor experiments? 

It is important that we work together to find solutions to these challenges. America must not lag behind our global competitors in this area of critical technology. 

Again, I thank Chairman Burns for his testimony today, and I look forward to 

hearing from you on the NRC’s role in advancing nuclear energy for our nation. 

Chairman WEBER. I now recognize the Ranking Member, the 

gentleman from Florida, for an opening statement. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you, Chairman Weber, for holding this 

hearing today, and thank you, Chairman Burns, for testifying this 

morning. 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has a vital role to play in 

ensuring the health and safety of the American people. The importance of this role in protecting health and the environment cannot 

be overstated. 

I look forward to learning more this morning about how the NRC 

is applying lessons learned during the Fukushima disaster in 2011, 

and lessons learned during the premature degradation of parts of 

the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in 2012, as well as 

similar incidents and accidents around the world. 

Today we’ll discuss new, advanced nuclear technologies that address the safety, waste, and cost issues associated with previous 

generations of nuclear power plants. Given that the bulk of NRC’s 

expertise and resources are focused on licensing, and ensuring the 

safety of, current light-water reactors, the path for developing, commercializing, and licensing newer technologies is less clear. Should 

a breakthrough in nuclear fusion be achieved in the next decade, 

the path toward licensing a fusion reactor is to be determined. I 

look forward to working with you, Chairman Burns, to address 

these issues as they arise. 

New technologies have a potential to change the world’s energy 

landscape radically. They have the potential to meet our energy 

needs while significantly reducing the threat of climate disruption. 

We must give these new energy options the chance to prove themselves while also ensuring that they are not compromising our 

health or our safety in any way. 

Chairman Burns. I look forward to hearing your testimony, and 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grayson follows:] 
9 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

MINORITY RANKING MEMBER ALAN GRAYSON

Thank you, Chairman Weber for holding this hearing today, and thank you to 

Chairman Burns for testifying this morning. 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has a vital role to play in ensuring the 

health and safety of the American people. The importance of its role in protecting 

the environment, particularly in a time where recent events have led some to question the future of nuclear power, cannot be overstated. I look forward to learning 

more this morning about how the NRC is applying lessons learned during the 

Fukushima disaster in 2011, and lessons learned during the premature degradation 

of parts of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in 2012, as well as similar 

incidents around the world. 

Today, I hope you will discuss the potential for new, advanced nuclear technologies that address the safety, waste, and cost issues associated with previous 

generations of nuclear power plants. Given that the bulk of NRC’s expertise and resources are focused on licensing, and ensuring the safety of, current light water reactors, the path for developing, commercializing, and licensing newer, and potentially far superior, technologies is less clear. Should a breakthrough in nuclear fusion be achieved within the next decade, the path toward licensing a fusion reactor 

is murky, at best. 

I look forward to working with you, Chairman Burns, to address these issues as 

they arise. Advanced fission, and especially fusion energy, technologies have the potential to radically change the world’s energy landscape. They have the potential to 

meet our energy needs while significantly reducing the threat of climate disruption. 

We must give these new energy options the chance to prove themselves while also 

ensuring that we are not compromising the health and safety of our citizens in any 

way. 

Thank you, again, for being here, Mr. Burns. I look forward to hearing your testimony, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Grayson, and I recognize the 

Chairman of the full Committee, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. 

Smith. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Today’s hearing will examine opportunities for advances in nuclear fission and fusion energy technologies. We will hear from the 

Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Stephen 

Burns, who will provide the regulatory perspective on matters of 

policy for the next generation of nuclear energy technology. 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is an independent regulatory agency that licenses and regulates America’s civilian nuclear 

material and technology. The NRC was established in 1974 when 

Congress separated the supportive nuclear research and development aspects of the Atomic Energy Commission from its regulatory 

side. 

Currently, the Department of Energy supports nuclear R&D to 

advance nuclear science while the NRC licenses new technologies 

as the private sector brings them to the market. 

Today we will get a better understanding of how DOE can more 

effectively advance innovation in nuclear energy and align its R&D 

priorities to fill gaps where the NRC is not permitted to do so. 

Nuclear energy provides reliable, zero-emission power. This technology represents a great opportunity for innovation to increase our 

nation’s economic prosperity and global competitiveness. Yet the 

status quo is not working to bring new reactor concepts to the market. One challenge is that the NRC’s licensing mechanism for alternative reactor concepts is not yet fully developed. This is not necessarily a fault of the NRC, as it must first oversee the safety of 

its licensees, which fund 90 percent of the Commission’s budget. 
10 

The NRC’s strict mission focus has helped the U.S. nuclear industry attain one of the safest working environments in the world. 

The Committee’s responsibility, however, is to look beyond today. 

We must search for opportunities where our nation’s R&D can help 

make our future brighter. 

The DOE national laboratories provide vital capabilities for the 

private sector to invest in innovative energy technologies. This includes its open-access user facilities, which are one-of-a-kind machines that allow researchers to investigate fundamental scientific 

questions. These facilities enable a wide array of researchers from 

academia, defense, and the private sector to develop new technologies without favoring one type of design. This represents a better approach than simply picking winners and losers through energy subsidies. 

DOE’s labs also provide the fundamental research capabilities 

that lead to scientific publications or proprietary research. For nuclear energy R&D, this research is especially challenging because 

of the inherent regulatory burden that comes with using nuclear 

material. For this reason, the DOE and NRC should cooperate 

where appropriate to ensure that the R&D investments we make 

today will reach the market for the benefit of all Americans tomorrow. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FULL COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN LAMAR S. SMITH

Today’s hearing will examine opportunities for advances in nuclear fission and fusion energy technologies. 

We will hear from the Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Stephen Burns, who will provide the regulatory perspective on matters of policy for the 

next generation of nuclear energy technology. 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is an independent regulatory agency 

that licenses and regulates America’s civilian nuclear material and technology. The 

NRC was established in 1974 when Congress separated the supportive nuclear research and development (R&D) aspects of the Atomic Energy Commission from its 

regulatory side. Currently, the Department of Energy (DOE) supports nuclear R&D 

to advance nuclear science while the NRC licenses new technologies as the private 

sector brings them to the market. 

Today, we will get a better understanding of how DOE can more effectively advance innovation in nuclear energy and align its R&D priorities to fill gaps where 

the NRC is not permitted to do so. Nuclear energy provides reliable, zero-emission 

power. This technology represents a great opportunity for innovation to increase our 

Nation’s economic prosperity and global competitiveness. 

Yet the status quo is not working to bring new reactor concepts to the market. 

One challenge is that the NRC’s licensing mechanism for alternative reactor concepts is not yet fully developed. This is not necessarily a fault of the NRC as it must 

first oversee the safety of its licensees, which fund 90 percent of the Commission’s 

budget. The NRC’s strict mission focus has helped the U.S. nuclear industry attain 

one of the safest working environments in the world. 

This Committee’s responsibility, however, is to look beyond today. We must search 

for opportunities where our Nation’s R&D can help make our future brighter. The 

DOE national laboratories provide vital capabilities for the private sector to invest 

in innovative energy technologies. This includes its open—access user facilities, 

which are one-of-a-kind machines that allow researchers to investigate fundamental 

scientific questions. 

These facilities enable a wide array of researchers from academia, defense, and 

the private sector to develop new technologies without favoring one type of design. 

This represents a better approach than simply picking winners and losers through 

energy subsidies. 
11 

DOE’s labs also provide the fundamental research capabilities that lead to scientific publications or proprietary research. For nuclear energy R&D, this research 

is especially challenging because of the inherent regulatory burden that comes with 

using nuclear material. 

For this reason, the DOE and NRC should cooperate where appropriate to ensure 

that the R&D investments we make today will reach the market for the benefit of 

all Americans tomorrow. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman and I yield back. 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Chairman. 

Our witness today is the Honorable Stephen Burns, Chairman of 

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Mr. Burns served as 

General Counsel of the NRC from May 2009 until April 2012 after 

having served as the NRC’s Deputy General Counsel from 1998. 

Mr. Burns received his bachelor’s degree in German magna cum 

laude from Colgate University and his J.D. from George Washington University. Mr. Burns, you are now recognized for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. STEPHEN BURNS, CHAIRMAN, 

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Mr. BURNS. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you 

today to discuss the NRC’s licensing policies as they might apply 

to current and prospective Department of Energy nuclear energy 

research and development programs. 

In January, the NRC marked its 40th anniversary as the independent agency in the United States responsible for licensing and 

regulating civilian uses of radioactive materials and nuclear facilities to ensure the production—protection—excuse me—of public 

health and safety, the common defense and security and the environment. 

The NRC’s regulatory program has been substantially strengthened over the years based in part on what we have learned from 

both domestic as well as international operating experience. Staff 

has made significant progress in preparing to review design certification applications for small modular reactors, one of which is expected to be submitted in late 2016. 

And finally, the NRC is taking initial steps to prepare for the review and licensing of non-light-water reactor designs, which are the 

subject and focus of today’s hearing. 

Our cooperation with the Department of Energy on topics of mutual interest dates back to the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 

when the old Atomic Energy Commission was split into two separate organizations, the Energy Research and Development Administration, which later became part of the Department of Energy, 

and the NRC. 

The skills and experience base of NRC and DOE are highly complementary. The mandate to correct—or to conduct R&D programs 

including civilian nuclear energy research, development and demonstration ensures that the Department of Energy has a deep technical capacity in a wide range of nuclear technologies. The NRC as 

an independent body focuses on licensing and oversight of commercial nuclear power operations to ensure public health and safety. 

The mutually beneficial relationship across the nuclear plant 

lifecycle pays dividends to both agencies. DOE has been a key tech-
12 

nical partner as the NRC moves toward gaining expertise in nonlight-water technologies and looks to adapt its licensing framework. 

The statutory authorities governing cooperation between NRC 

and DOE are well established. Our role in a project located at a 

DOE site is shaped by the purposes and function of the proposed 

project. Depending on the specific goal and purpose of the project, 

NRC could have licensing and regulatory authority over some types 

of facilities that are envisioned, for example, in H.R. 1158. For example, the Atomic Energy Act currently authorizes the NRC to 

issue licenses for production and utilization facilities for commercial purposes or licenses for research and development purposes. 

The NRC has substantial experience in reactor licensing processes that are well established and which have been applied to an 

array of reactor technologies. We’ve determined that our current 

reactor design or licensing regulations are adequate for conducting 

reviews of advanced reactor applications. However, we recognize 

the potential gaps in understanding of acceptance criteria for both 

the NRC staff and applicants. 

To better understand the opportunities for most efficiently adapting the current regulatory framework for non-light-water reactors, 

the agency has reviewed our licensing processes and infrastructure. 

We had a report in 2012 to Congress on advanced reactor licensing, 

and it included such recommendations as the need for additional 

research in areas such as materials and structural analysis, the 

need for appropriate computational tools for use in application reviews, and ensuring that appropriately trained and experienced 

staff are able to perform the reviews. We’ll continue to develop our 

capability to evaluate non-light-water designs that may proceed to 

commercial maturity at a pace consistent with appropriated resources and Congressional direction. 

We don’t favor one particular technology over another, but 

through open communication with the non-light-water community 

and developers, and with the DOE, we’re able to better optimize 

our planning and resources to conduct licensing reviews when a 

complete and technically sufficient application is presented for our 

consideration. We’ll continue to work closely with DOE within our 

respective legal mandates to look for additional joint opportunities 

to make overall reactor development and licensing processes as 

transparent and as navigable as possible to reactor designs and potential applicants. In fact, we plan to hold a series of public workshops with the DOE starting this September to engage further with 

the designers, applicants, industry groups and the public. 

In closing, I’ll note that the NRC remains a technically adept and 

widely respected independent regulator domestically and internationally. Drawing on our experience and licensing processes to 

protect public health and safety, we have taken a number of steps 

to prepare ourselves for the future while we also recognize the important and complementary role the DOE plays. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee 

today, and I look forward to your questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Burns follows:] 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Chairman Burns. 

You said the NRC was 40 years old in 1975? 

Mr. BURNS. Yes. We came into existence at the beginning of 

1975. 

Chairman WEBER. January 1975? 

Mr. BURNS. We have a 40th birthday this year. 

Chairman WEBER. Well, you don’t look that old. I just want to— 

interestingly enough, on this day in history, in 1957, the IAEA was 

formed, so it’s a very apropopriate date for us to have this testimony. 

Chairman Burns—I’m going to recognize myself for five minutes 

for questions. 

Chairman Burns, I believe you said that the NRC would not 

have jurisdiction over a DOE-owned and -operated user facility 

such as a proposed fast-reactor-based neutron source under consideration in this Committee. That said, if the DOE is to build this 

prospective facility under its own authority, my notes are saying it 

may require technical review from the NRC, and of course, we believe that it would, and can you elaborate on the extent to which 

the NRC would be able to provide that technical assistance to the 

DOE for such a project as this? 

Mr. BURNS. Certainly. As you say, with the assumption that it’s 

a DOE facility or created and constructed on behalf of the Department of Energy, we’re still able to provide technical assistance and 

support to the Department. It’s similar—it would be similar to 

what we do in the naval reactors area. We provide naval reactors 

reviews of new submarine reactor designs, and not only submarines, I think more recently an aircraft carrier design. So under 

basically reimbursable agreements, we will look at those technologies and can provide that kind of assistance. It also in some respects can benefit us to the extent that in the future, we may have 

similar type technology come before us in our own licensing role. 

We can gain experience that way. 

Chairman WEBER. Well, you would be on the cutting edge or the 

leading edge, as it were, of watching that kind of technology develop. 

You pointed out that if data collected from this facility is used 

to make the safety case in a future license application, the NRC 

would need to ensure that its Quality Assurance Program is followed. It makes sense to me that you would need to independently 

verify data if it’s used to prove the safety for a product once it’s 

commercial. So my question is this: Could this potential facility be 

helpful to the Commission for that very purpose, for verifying that 

physical data? 

Mr. BURNS. I think it could be, and again, I think the point I was 

trying to make in the testimony was that when you do the evaluations and the testing—and the Department would be doing it at a 

high-quality level. I don’t mean to cast any aspersion. But again, 

if you’re looking for transferability from the Department’s context 

and then ultimately to, say, a commercial context, the more you 

have conformity or harmony between the two organizations, the 

more useful I think in the long term the outcomes or the information you glean will be. 
27 

Chairman WEBER. In layman’s terms, if you actually watch that 

process unfold, understand the steps it took to get there and the 

verifiability of that data, then that would actually help the NRC 

in its role, wouldn’t it? 

Mr. BURNS. Yes. It’s not—and it’s not only the being able to observe or see the results but it’s also the processes through which 

the results are obtained. 

Chairman WEBER. Sure. You explained in your opening testimony, Chairman Burns, that the NRC’s role in the project at a 

DOE site would rest on the purpose and function of the proposed 

project. So if I understand your testimony correctly, DOE may enable private developers to construct and operate research-oriented 

reactors for purposes such as proving concepts by reducing theory 

to reality, provided two things are true: number one, DOE would 

in fact have to own that experimental reactor, and number two, 

that experimental reactor may not be used as a basis for commercial power technologies. Can you explain how you arrived at the 

conclusion that if the experimental reactor itself cannot be privately owned, even if its purpose is solely to improve new technology and increase practical knowledge at a DOE site? 

Mr. BURNS. I think—again, I hope I can make this clear. Again, 

if it’s—if the project is on or—on behalf of or for the benefit of the 

Department of Energy within its authorities, it’s not licensed by 

the NRC. To the extent if you had—I think maybe an example 

might help. If you had a private company essentially creating on 

a DOE site a commercial venture, that would be licensable by the 

NRC. That’s what I’m intending to say. 

Chairman WEBER. Sure. I got you. 

Okay. Well, I’m out of time here so I’m going to yield to the gentleman from Florida. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you. 

At two recent hearings held by this Subcommittee, witnesses testified that the NRC’s standard process for licensing a new commercial-scale nuclear reactor would be too costly and time-consuming 

for early-stage pre-commercial demonstrations of advanced reactor 

concepts to move forward. So let’s start with the threshold question, which is whether those processes actually would apply in that 

situation. 

Mr. BURNS. Well, we have a licensing process that has been, in 

some forms has actually been in place since the earliest days of nuclear—implementation of nuclear technology, even under the Atomic Energy Act. The NRC moved to what we call a one-step licensing, which is being used by some of the newer plants that are 

under construction today about 25 years ago, which also provided 

for design certification. So we have the basic processes. I think the 

processes that can get through would apply and would work in 

these circumstances. I think where we’re looking forward and talking with DOE as well is the areas in terms of where you’re moving 

from light-water technology to the advanced technologies, and we 

need to understand how do our acceptance criteria fit that? Do you 

need exemptions from that? Are there other considerations? So 

that’s the primary area where we’ve been focused, and I think trying to look forward we need to focus. 
28 

Mr. GRAYSON. Well, the criticism specifically was that the process would be too costly and time-consuming for these advanced reactor concepts even to move forward. Do you regard that as a criticism that’s well taken or far-fetched? 

Mr. BURNS. I think probably I’m somewhere in the middle, probably more on the notion—again, the notion is, I think we know how 

to license nuclear power plants in this country. Where we—I think 

where we stand ready and able is to engage with potential developers who are interested in the new technologies to understand the 

issues they have, to understand—and so they also understand what 

they need to do in order to meet the safety requirements that the 

agency sets, and again, I think how that can happen is early engagement with the agency in terms of understanding what some of 

those issues are. 

So again, when I’ve looked at—you know, my understanding in 

terms of an application, the application costs in terms of what it 

costs to go to the NRC is somewhere on the order of $45–70 million. That’s the application fee. Now, that’s a small part of their development costs. What we can do again, I think, is engage and assure that they’re not off track or that they’re on track in terms of 

the safety requirements that we require them to meet. 

Mr. GRAYSON. All right. So you addressed the cost element. Let’s 

talk about the time element. These are capital-intensive projects. 

The money is borrowed in advance before any electricity or power 

is generated. There are interest payments in the meantime. What 

kind of time commitment are people looking at when they go ahead 

and seek a license like this? 

Mr. BURNS. Again, depending again whether a license or the certifying the design itself, which then can be referenced in other licenses. In both circumstances, I think based on my consultation 

with my staff, we think we could that on the order of five years. 

That’s probably a little longer than our objective on current lightwater technologies. It was more like about 3–1/2 years. But given 

that they’re new, I think it’s probably safe to say on the order of 

the five years. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Do you see any possibility of dramatically reducing 

either the cost or the time involved? 

Mr. BURNS. Well, again, I think as experience is gained, I think 

the timing could be reduced, but there are in addition to meeting 

or showing that you demonstrate conformance to the safety standards also requirments to go through the National Environmental 

Policy Act processes, again, I think for new—the current technology 

for new reactors, we set, I think about a 3–1/2-year goal. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield. 

Chairman WEBER. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 

Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

can I ask you, how many employees does your agency have? 

Mr. BURNS. It’s a little under 3,700 currently. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay, 3,700. And these are highly skilled and 

educated people, I imagine? 
29 

Mr. BURNS. Yes, we have, primarily, you know, our technical and 

yes, it’s very, very highly skilled in a number of engineering as well 

as scientific disciplines. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay, and what’s your budget for—annual 

budget? 

Mr. BURNS. The current budget is about $1 billion. Actually over 

the next few years I expect that to be smaller, in part because the 

number of new reactors that we originally anticipated, say, ten 

years ago are not—the volume is not going to be there, so that’s 

the primary reason I’d say we’re going down. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Are your folks being paid enough to attract 

the type of high-quality people you need? 

Mr. BURNS. Yes, I think so. We have—in terms of the civil service laws and provisions, we are able to pay well. We get good experts that have—sometimes will have industry experience but also 

academic experience, and I’m very proud of our staff. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. You know, there’s a lot of, especially on our 

side of the aisle where we complain about bureaucracy, and let me 

just note that, I mean, I use that joke myself: Bureaucracy is the 

most effective method known to man of turning pure energy into 

solid waste, all right? 

But I think that’s really unfair of us because quite often it’s not 

the bureaucracy, it’s not the people, it’s the system that is set up 

and the criteria that they have to work from, and I think it’s very 

clear to all of us that we’ve got a problem in this country with the 

development of the next generation of nuclear energy. We are now 

approving or we’re involved with approving and putting into place 

nuclear reactors that are based on 65-year-old technology. Lightwater reactors are 65 years old, and they’re dangerous. The environmental movement years ago when we first proposed nuclear reactors were right in the sense that with this type of reactor, we 

have to deal with the waste problem and the potential of nuclear— 

of some radiation leaking from the system. Our newest systems, I 

guess, were sold to Japan, and look at the catastrophe that it 

caused there? People say oh, this could never happen with these 

new light-reactors. Well, it did because light-water reactors are inherently dangerous, and some of us are dismayed—I am dismayed 

by the fact that we have not gone on to even produce the prototypes of the next generation, and there’s something wrong with our 

system. There’s something wrong with what we have done to set 

up the methodology of bringing that new technology in. 

Your agency is playing a part in that, and I don’t know—we have 

to change the system in a way that we can be the leaders in 

progress on this very important technology for mankind. Nuclear 

energy had so much promise, and now we know its dangers as well, 

but we know that there’s possibilities of—let me—I’m sorry, Mr. 

Chairman. I could go on for a while. I’ve got some specific questions 

on this. 

The—right now, do you believe that—I’m looking at thorium reactors, pebble-based reactors, high-temperature gas-cooled reactors, 

and even there’s—Lockheed even has a fusion, a small fusion reactor. We have so many options but yet none of them are moving forward into the market and being put to use, and instead, we’re still 
30 

improving light-water reactors. Something is terribly wrong with 

the system. 

Chairman WEBER. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I certainly will. 

Chairman WEBER. That’s why we’re having this hearing today. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That’s right. 

Chairman WEBER. I yield back. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, let me just note, I would hope that we 

can try to restructure, that we have some positive things that we 

can come up with today and working with you, not just today but 

in the days ahead to restructure this system so that people—so 

that the business community can commercialize and at least we 

can come up with—and the development community can come up 

with the prototypes that will give us a chance for a future use of 

nuclear energy that’s safe for our people, and thank you very much 

for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman WEBER. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. 

Perlmutter. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Thanks, Mr. Chair, and thanks to Mr. Rohrabacher. Honestly, this is an area where I’m new to this subject 

and new to this Committee, so I’m going to have some very basic 

questions for you. 

My district includes Rocky Flats, you know, where we produced 

a lot of plutonium triggers over the years. North of us, we have a 

mothballed long time ago plant called Fort St. Vrain. 

Mr. BURNS. That’s correct. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. And so I’m coming at it from that point of 

view, so I’m going to ask just sort of basic questions. How many 

nuclear plants do we have in the United States today? 

Mr. BURNS. Right now, we have 99 operating nuclear power 

plants in the United States. I’d expect by the end of the year, early 

next year, a 100th will come online. That’s the TVA’s Watts Bar 

2. And there are, just to expand a little bit for your benefit—— 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Yes. 

Mr. BURNS. There are four other plants under construction in 

South Carolina and—two in South Carolina and in Georgia currently. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. And how many license applications do you 

have pending? 

Mr. BURNS. I might have to give you that for the record. I think 

we have on the order of about seven, but I might be off by one or 

two there. We have—for example, we recently authorized a license 

for DTE Electric near Detroit. We expect to have a hearing late 

this year on South Texas 3 and 4 in Texas, and there are a couple 

others as well. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. How long would you say the average license 

application runs today? I mean, I know it has varied. Sometimes 

it’s taken forever and sometimes it’s been quicker. What are they 

running today? 

Mr. BURNS. Well, again, I think our objective is for the license, 

for the combined license for the new plants is that we run about 

3–1/2 years, so about 42 months. We have a required hearing—— 
31 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. I just want the—I’m not condemning that. I remember—— 

Mr. BURNS. No, no, no. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. I had Rocky Flats, okay? I have legacy. 

Mr. BURNS. Oh, yes. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. I understand the public safety nature of the 

Commission, so I’m not—— 

Mr. BURNS. Right. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. —condemning that. I want you to do the right 

thing and do a good job. 

Mr. BURNS. But that’s why I’m saying, it’s about a 42-month or 

3–1/2-year objective to complete the licensing for a combined license that we issue now. That would assume that you have a certified design. So you take the design, say, a Westinghouse design. 

You reference it in the combined license. So it takes about that. 

Some of those, as you say, are longer. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Construction of a plant, how long does that 

usually run? 

Mr. BURNS. I’m trying to think. The current experience I think 

with the Vogtle plant, it’s been about—they’ve been under—it’ll be 

about six to eight years. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. I mean, these are major—— 

Mr. BURNS. Yes, it’s a major—— 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. —construction. 

Mr. BURNS. And they’ve had some construction difficulties on the 

way so they were responsible about addressing those, so that’s provided some delay. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. All right. Now to get towards Mr. 

Rohrabacher’s questions. So can you tell me—and I know—I’m a 

lawyer, you’re a lawyer, and you know, maybe you would want an 

engineer but my guess is, you know this. So can you explain to me 

the difference between heavy water, light water, and some of the 

new technologies that he was just going through—thorium and gas 

plants and whatever. 

Mr. BURNS. All right. I’m going to be a little challenged on that, 

but basically the newer technologies, say, thorium is another, 

would be used instead of uranium, for example, as a fuel. They 

may be cooled by different means. You have the molten salt reactor, you have the high-temperature gas reactor. The technologies do 

different things. You know what? I would be pleased to have the 

technical staff, give you maybe a brief rundown or something, 

maybe a sort of shortened form. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. But light water would—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I will see you after work for a drink and—— 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Okay. I’ll see you in the gym. 

Light water versus heavy water, and then I’ll yield back. 

Mr. BURNS. Yes, and the heavy water, for example, Canadians, 

the CANDU reactor uses heavy water. It’s—again, it’s the chemical 

characteristic of the water itself that’s used. As I say, I’m starting 

to get a little bit out of my comfort zone. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. I’m happy to meet with you and anybody else. 

Mr. BURNS. Yes. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. That would be great. 

And I yield back to the Chair. Thank you very much. 
32 

Chairman WEBER. Boy, how would you like to be a fly on the 

wall in that meeting? 

The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hultgren, is now recognized for 

five minutes. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you, Chairman. 

Thank you, Chairman Burns, for being here today. Nuclear energy is very important for my home state in Illinois, and with increasing burdensome regulatory regime being proposed by EPA, 

nuclear energy is still the only viable zero-emission-based-load 

power source with arbitrary cups that our states are being forced 

to implement. Just maintaining our current fleet is vital to be able 

to hit these mandates. But there’s more we could be doing to put 

America in a place to lead the world and the next generation of advanced reactors. Where are our reactors go, our regulatory structure goes with them. We need to be aware of this and we need to 

get a foothold in our nations if we’ll be able to export these technologies in the future. For this to happen, we need a regulatory 

structure that seamlessly allows for the informed licensing of these 

facilities down the road. 

Chairman Burns, I appreciate your commentary on my legislation, and I do have some questions about where the line is drawn 

between the DOE and the NRC authority to regulate a facility. You 

said in your written testimony, and I quote, that ‘‘NRC would not 

have regulatory authority over reactors located in DOE-owned facilities that are used for the purpose of collecting data for research, 

testing of materials, or testing of fuels.’’ 

At the same time, you say you would have authority over a facility that is operated in a manner for the purpose of demonstrating 

the suitability for commercial application of a power generation facility. I wondered, where is the line drawn if we are researching 

new materials? Does it become NRC jurisdiction if they are just 

trying to proof-of-concept work for something down the road? At 

the early stage we are certainly trying to establish the properties 

of new material and fuel but when does NRC consider this research 

to be for commercial application? 

Mr. BURNS. Thank you for the question. Again, we’re probably at 

some of those sort of gray areas where the line is, and probably in 

looking—you know, if we’re getting to that point, I think that 

would benefit us and I think also the Department’s understanding 

what the purposes of the project are. 

Again, the bright line, as you say, would have to be if it’s basically a contractor to DOE for the benefit of DOE. I’m phrasing it 

that way because that’s clearly on the DOE side. 

Again, where it—what I don’t want to leave I think is the impression that any possibility that it may have an ultimately translated into a commercial benefit down the line means necessarily 

that it’s—you know, it’s NRC’s jurisdiction. That’s where I think we 

have to look carefully what it is. 

Again, the easier—perhaps the easier example is if the demonstration plant is—DOE is providing the land for the demonstration plant, it is being hooked to the grid and that type of aspect, 

that I believe would be our jurisdiction. 

I think what it is, this may be one of these things where we have 

to look at it carefully in order to give a complete answer, I think. 
33 

Mr. HULTGREN. Okay. Well, if we could maybe follow up on that 

some more? 

Mr. BURNS. Sure. 

Mr. HULTGREN. There is concern there, and we want to make 

sure—— 

Mr. BURNS. Yes, and I—— 

Mr. HULTGREN. —we do that well. 

Let me move on. My time’s going by fast. Does NRC consider 

things like the time value of money or opportunity costs of lost development in the United States when forming regulation? 

Mr. BURNS. Our regulatory scheme is based primarily on the 

Atomic Energy Act, which says we need to establish as a baseline 

adequate protection of public health and safety and common defense and security, and at that point you have to reach that threshold. Above that threshold we do in effect include cost-benefit analysis in terms of assessing whether above the minimum required for 

safety, is there a benefit, is there a substantial additional safety 

benefit for additional things. So in that respect, beyond the base requirements, we would consider in fact costs and benefits of additional regulation. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Let me wrap up one last question. How does the 

NRC anticipate changes in technologies so that the regulatory process can be responsive to innovation, and tied to that, does the NRC 

funding structure limit the Commission’s ability to accommodate 

innovation? 

Mr. BURNS. The way we anticipate potential new designs is by 

staying in communication with Department of Energy—we have a 

good, cooperative relationship with the Department of Energy—but 

also hearing from potential designers and potential applicants. We 

encourage them to come and meet with us to lay out what their 

plans are, and hearing from the industry what their expectations 

are, and the second part of your—I’m sorry. I forgot the second part 

of your question. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Well, it’s—my time’s expired, so we can follow up 

maybe with other things. 

Mr. BURNS. I’m sorry. 

Mr. HULTGREN. No, that’s fine. I just was wondering about the 

NRC funding structure, does it limit the Commission’s ability to accommodate innovation. So it’s 90 percent funded by licensees. I 

wondered if that limit the Commission’s ability to accommodate innovation. We may follow up with written questions if that’s all 

right. 

Mr. BURNS. Okay. 

Mr. HULTGREN. With that, my time’s expired, Mr. Chairman. I 

yield back. Thank you. 

Chairman WEBER. You actually have some time, Mr. Hultgren, 

if you’d like to follow up on the second part of that question. I 

think we’re going to go for a second round of questioning here, if 

that’s all right with—you don’t have any questions? You’re good? 

Okay. Well, you’re out of time. But no, you have time if you want 

to follow up on that second question. Go ahead, take your time. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Why don’t we just communicate with your office, 

if that’s all right? 

Mr. BURNS. That would be fine. 
34 

Mr. HULTGREN. We’ll get some questions to you if you don’t mind 

responding to those. We just want to get some clarification there 

and make sure again we’re recognizing how innovation is so important but also how regulation can either encourage innovation or 

hinder it, and we want to make sure that while we’re doing everything to keep things safe, we’re also doing everything to see potential advancement and taking a leadership role in the world. 

So thanks, Chairman. I’ll yield back, but we will follow up with 

some written questions. Thank you. 

Chairman WEBER. I thank the gentleman, and I do have another 

question that I wanted to get answered if I could, Mr. Burns, and 

that would be, reading through the different—you know, the different hours, if you will, the NRC has charged. Decommissioning 

was one of them. How many decommissioned plants do we have in 

the United States? 

Mr. BURNS. Well, we’ve completed decommissioning or oversight 

of decommissioning of a number of very early generation plants, 

and I think currently there’s something like five—I think five are 

decommissioning. There may be a few more than that currently. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. And do you get involved with the 

Navy’s decommissioning of their different vessels? 

Mr. BURNS. No, I don’t believe so. 

Chairman WEBER. No? Okay. Recently we had an older ship 

come to Galveston, where I represent, where they were dismantling 

it and there was a lot of talk about that, so—okay. Well, just for 

the record, I appreciate you all. I think that the idea of the NRC 

working with the DOE will give you all a leg up on watching this 

new technology kind of unfold, as it were, and so that when you’re 

involved in that process, it’ll actually help. 

And with that, I’m going to recognize the gentleman from California—I’m sorry. The gentleman from—are you good? Okay. You 

don’t want to violate the witness’s rights anymore? Okay. Good. 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. Well, first let me ask 

you, how long does a—when you approve a nuclear power plant 

like you’ve been taking about, how long is that actually functioning? Ten years, 20 years, 30 years, 40 years? 

Mr. BURNS. Well, under the Atomic Energy Act, for a nuclear reactor, a license may be issued for an initial term of 40 years, and 

it can be renewed. We have about 75 of the current plants of the 

current fleet that have—their licenses have been renewed. So 

the—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Once they build a plant, how long is it in operation? 

Mr. BURNS. Well, it can be—much of the fleet has been or is approaching 40 years, and a number—some of the plants have gone 

into the license renewal—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me note, Mr. Chairman, that I think it’s 

outrageous then that we are approving any new light-water reactors. That means we’re stuck with them for 40 years, and quite 

frankly, it’s old technology that’s dangerous, and for us to be putting Americans, 40 year future generations of Americans in that 

danger is absolutely ridiculous, and especially when we have a 

number of companies, people with good reputations who tell us we 
35 

can build a safe reactor and we haven’t been able to get through 

the system in order to build our prototypes that are a safe alternative. And I just wanted to be on record saying that. 

Let me ask you this, and we’ve been told this. This is not about 

necessarily a policy but maybe a mindset when these new reactor 

people are coming forward. They’re saying that basically we’re sort 

of in a vicious circle in dealing with this regulatory process in that 

it’s holding back significant improvements because—and this is 

what they perceive, not necessarily a policy but a mindset that the 

NRC won’t review an application without committed customers in 

the loop. So if they don’t have someone already there saying we’re 

going to finance this, then they—people don’t take them seriously, 

the NRC, and the—if they are not taken seriously because they 

don’t have—that just means the NRC is waiting for the customers 

but the customers are waiting for the NRC because they can’t— 

they won’t—the people in the money world won’t put the money up 

for something that hasn’t been at least looked at and given initial 

approval by your organization. So we’re sort of in I guess what you 

would call a catch-22. I remember Joseph Heller’s book about this 

World War II pilot and all of the things he went through. Every 

time there was something to get done, there was a reason why you 

couldn’t do this but there was a reason you had to do it. 

So aren’t we—does that mindset exist? If it does, are we going 

to change that? 

Mr. BURNS. Well, Mr. Rohrabacher, what—the obligation we 

have now is, we’re required to recover 90 percent of our appropriation through fees, and so basically somebody can come in, and I 

think that some of their difficulty, is coming in, paying the fee for 

the design review before they may have a customer or before they 

have sort of secure financing. You know, I acknowledge on the 

other side that that can be an issue for them, and I think that’s 

part of what this Committee is trying to explore. 

The other piece of it is, it’s really a question on priority of design 

review because, again, as we have an appropriation, we don’t have 

unlimited resources so that if there isn’t a customer for a particular 

design, that means it may not have a priority. But, for example, 

currently we have accepted the design—we do have a design certification under review for which there isn’t a current customer in the 

United States. That’s because we can—again, they’re willing to put 

up the fees and we can accommodate within the current resources. 

So there may be ways to address that that sort of go perhaps beyond what the NRC’s role—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. There’s obviously a block somewhere when 

for two decades now I have been told by people in industry that we 

can create a safe alternative to the current type of nuclear reactor, 

and for two decades now been seeing these people come to my office 

with really very brilliant people, people who have been involved in 

the nuclear industry, saying we can build these modular reactors 

in this way or that way or this way, and these are not fly-by-night 

people. These are very solid engineers. And yet they’ve made no 

progress towards even making a prototype. There’s a fly in the 

ointment here. There’s a roadblock there somewhere. I think what 

we just discussed is part of it. Perhaps we need also to make sure 

that we are committed not just in the NRC but the Department of 
36 

Energy as well, that we need to be committed as a country to getting this job done, to making sure after a certain number of years, 

we’ve going to have a number of prototypes to choose from, and especially let’s not keep our people for 40 years in the future dependent on a dangerous source of electricity that could be replaced by 

something that’s less dangerous. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman WEBER. All right. I thank the gentleman. 

I want to thank Chairman Burns for your valuable testimony 

and the Members for their questions. The record will remain open 

for two weeks for additional comments and written questions from 

Members. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 9:56 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(37) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
38 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by The Hon. Stephen Burns 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
(49) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
50 

DOCUMENT SUBMITTED BY SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN RANDY WEBER
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 

Æ