U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

30–271 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

S. HRG. 115–260 

OVERSIGHT OF 

THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 21, 2018 

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

( 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Ranking 

Member 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

RICHARD M. RUSSELL, Majority Staff Director 

GABRIELLE BATKIN, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

MARCH 21, 2018 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

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

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

statement .............................................................................................................. 117 

WITNESSES 

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

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

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Barrasso ....................................................................................... 22 

Senator Capito ........................................................................................... 52 

Senator Fischer ......................................................................................... 62 

Senator Markey ......................................................................................... 75 

Senator Rounds ......................................................................................... 85 

Senator Sanders ........................................................................................ 93 

Baran, Jeff, Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ..................... 97 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 98 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Markey ......................................................................................... 99 

Senator Sanders ........................................................................................ 100 

Burns, Stephen, Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ............. 102 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 103 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Sanders ............................. 104 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF 

THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21, 2018 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

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

406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. John Barrasso (Chairman of 

the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Barrasso, Inhofe, Capito, Boozman, Wicker, 

Ernst, Carper, Cardin, Whitehouse, Gillibrand, Booker, Markey, 

Duckworth, and Van Hollen. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Good morning. 

I call this hearing to order. Today’s oversight hearing will be 

looking at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the NRC. 

I would like to welcome Chairman Svinicki, Commissioner 

Baran, and Commissioner Burns. Thank you very much. 

I am sad to say that the Commission remains without its full 

strength of five commissioners. I believe that the Commission functions best with all five commissioners in place. I continue to work 

to resolve this situation. 

If we don’t make progress shortly, the NRC will lose its threemember quorum at the end of June. The Senate cannot let that 

happen. Since Congress established the NRC in 1974, the agency 

has lost its quorum only once. That took place over a 7 month period in 1995 and 1996. 

During that time the Commission delegated its authority to 

Chairman Shirley Jackson. Not surprisingly, anti-nuclear activists 

then challenged that delegation of authority. If the NRC loses its 

quorum in June, I fully expect those same forces to once again 

challenge the NRC’s authority and ability to act. We simply cannot 

allow our Nation’s nuclear safety regulator to lose its quorum. 

I will now turn to the NRC’s budget request for fiscal year 2019. Last month the NRC requested about $971 million to support the 

work of 3,247 full-time equivalents in terms of employees. 

The Nuclear Reactor Safety Program, which includes the NRC’s 

efforts to license, regulate, and oversee civilian nuclear power, 

would account for about $475 million and 1,925 full-time equivalents. The Nuclear Materials and Waste Safety Program, which includes the NRC’s efforts to license, regulate, and oversee nuclear 

2 

materials and waste, would account for about $184 million and 650 

full-time equivalents. 

Under Federal law, the NRC must recover 90 percent of its budget through fees that the agency levies on licensees. I believe the 

key question that Congress needs to ask is: Does the NRC’s expected workload in 2019 justify licensees paying for a budget increase? 

I ask this because at the end of fiscal year 2017 the NRC had 

over budgeted by $31 million. For years, the NRC’s workload has 

been decreasing. Once again, the agency is requesting a budget increase. 

For example, in fiscal year 2019 three of the Nation’s 99 nuclear 

power plants are scheduled to close. This includes Oyster Creek 

Power Station, which Exelon recently announced would close 1 

year ahead of schedule. 

Nonetheless, the NRC is asking for an increase in funding to 

oversee our Nation’s decreasing civilian nuclear fleet. The NRC’s 

workload on licensing activities for fuel facilities is also expected to 

decrease in fiscal year 2019. Last year the number of fuel facilities 

declined from nine to seven. Still, the NRC is asking for an increase in funding for its fuel facilities program. I continue to believe Congress must ensure that the NRC’s budget accurately reflects the agency’s workload. 

Finally, I would like to say a few words about the dire situation 

that our Nation’s uranium producers are facing. In 2017 the U.S. 

produced uranium at the lowest level since 1950, before our country had commercial nuclear power reactors. 

Despite the rich uranium resources in Wyoming, Nebraska, and 

other western States, America’s uranium producers now supply less 

than 5 percent of America’s nuclear fuel. Instead, we import 90 

percent of our fuel. Forty percent of these imports come from Russia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. 

In January two U.S. uranium producers filed a petition with the 

Department of Commerce asking for an investigation into the unfair trade practices of these countries. I understand some utilities 

are asking the Department to reject this petition. I find that deeply 

troubling. 

For years these utilities have complained that the market undervalues their product, electricity generated from nuclear power. 

These utilities have lobbied Congress and State legislatures for 

help to keep their plants open. 

Now, Russia and its satellites are trying to put America’s uranium producers out of business. Some of these same utilities are 

fighting efforts to prevent that. I find their position profoundly 

shortsighted. 

Nuclear fuel production is vital to our national security, and I 

call on the Commerce Department to begin an investigation. 

With that, I would now like to turn to Ranking Member Carper 

for his statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

3 

One and all, welcome. We are glad to see you, appreciate your 

service and you joining us today for this important hearing. As the 

Chairman said, we are here today to continue our oversight of the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission and to hear more about the President’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2019. 

Since joining the Environment and Public Works Committee in 

2001, I have worked closely with my colleagues to try to strengthen 

the culture of safety within the U.S. nuclear energy industry. I am 

proud of the work we have done together. 

In part, due to our collective efforts, thanks to the NRC leadership and the Commission’s dedicated staff, some of whom are here 

today, the NRC continues to be the world’s gold standard for nuclear regulatory agencies. We are proud of that. 

A successful organization also needs a strong and dedicated work 

force with the necessary resources for it to be successful. At one 

time employees ranked the NRC as the top place to work in the 

entire Federal Government. 

However, today, the NRC has dropped to 11 in the rankings. 

Budget cuts and uncertainty in the nuclear industry probably play 

a big role in how NRC employees view and rank their workplace. 

As someone who has made it a priority to get better results for 

less money across the Federal Government, I believe there are 

smart ways we can save Federal money without crippling an agency’s mission or morale. We can—and we must—save money across 

Federal agencies without taking away peoples’ healthcare, eliminating protections for our environment, public health, or cutting 

programs that communities rely on. That is especially true for the 

NRC. 

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

just for the sake of cutting. We must ensure that NRC has adequate funding to continue to attract the best and brightest talent 

so that the agency continues to be the global standard for safety. 

Today I am interested in hearing if the President’s budget— 

which I believe falls short in a number of areas—will provide the 

NRC enough funding to protect the public and be responsive to the 

industry’s needs as well. Beyond the budget, I am particularly interested in hearing more about what the NRC is doing to protect 

our nuclear reactors from cyber attacks and with respect to the 

evolvement of advanced reactors and advanced fuels. 

As many in this room know, the nuclear industry is facing a 

growing list of challenges. I believe there is still hope for carbonfree technology. The decisions we make today will affect the industry for generations to come. 

If our country is smart, and I think we are, we will replace older 

nuclear technology with new technology developed right here in 

America that is safer, produces less spent fuel, is cheaper to build 

and operate. That way we can reap the economic and clean air benefits of a new advanced nuclear generation. In order to do so, we 

must make sure the NRC has the resources it needs to review 

these new technologies and ensure our current nuclear reactor fleet 

remains safe. 

Before I conclude, Mr. Chairman, and allow you to introduce our 

witnesses, I want to take sort of a bittersweet moment as we pause 

4 

to say goodbye to Gabrielle Batkin. Gabrielle Batkin has signed to 

play for the Detroit Tigers, my all-time favorite baseball team, so 

I started to follow her career. Actually, she is going to work in the 

private sector and has a great opportunity. We are happy for her. 

Mr. Chairman, you and I and our colleagues on the Committee 

get together almost every week for hearings like this. While I know 

that we usually make it look easy, there are so many staff members who put in a lot of time and hard work to make sure we can 

hear from smart people like those before us today and get to the 

bottom of important issues for the American people. 

One of the key staffers in our committee, for both sides of the 

aisle, is Gabrielle Batkin. While she will be a bit uncomfortable 

with what I am doing right now, she deserves to be recognized 

today for more than 20 years of service not just to the Senate but 

also to our country. She started at the age of 12 and has hung in 

there ever since. Gabrielle, who serves as Staff Director for our 

team on this Committee, has sat through a lot of Committee hearings during her time in the Senate from the Senate Budget Committee to the Appropriations Committee, to Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs, and now at EPW. 

You name the policy, and I would bet you that Gabrielle has 

worked on it. All the members she has advised over these years, 

starting with Frank Lautenberg, maybe the first, but others including Barbara Mikulski and myself, have reaped the benefits because 

Gabrielle was doing the lion’s share of the work behind each of us. 

She helped lead my team first on the Senate Homeland Security 

Committee and then on the Governmental Affairs Committee starting in 2014 when I was Chairman and seamlessly transitioned to 

her current role on this Committee a little more than a year ago. 

All of my colleagues know what a professional Gabrielle is, as do 

the NRC Commissioners before us today. 

I am sad to say that after more than two decades, this will be 

her final hearing as a Senate staffer unless she comes begging back 

to be readmitted to the team, which probably is not going to happen. I am immensely grateful for her service, not just to this institution, but to the American people and for her indispensable counsel over the past 4 years I have been fortunate to work—my script 

says ‘‘work with her,’’ but work for her. She has been a great boss. 

I am also excited for her new adventures to come. She will be 

starting as Vice President for Legislative Affairs at Northrop 

Grumman. We wish her family: her husband, Josh; three boys, 

Henry, Will, Charlie; all the best in this new chapter of their lives. 

Every now and then we meet people in our lives and sometimes 

we are fortunate to work with them, who are just a joy to be with. 

They make our days brighter and our workload lighter. Gabrielle 

is just that kind of person. 

We did not steal her from Barbara Mikulski, but we inherited 

her from Barbara Mikulski. For 2 years after that, Barbara never 

spoke to me, which is a mixed blessing. Gabrielle is not a mixed 

blessing. She is a true blessing, has been for as long as I have 

known her. I am going to miss her hugely. We wish her and her 

family all the best. If she does ever get tired and bored with what 

is on the outside, we will warmly welcome her back. 

Gabrielle, we will leave the light on for as long as it takes. 

5 

Thank you so much. I yield back my time. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Carper. 

Everyone on both sides of the aisle will certainly miss Gabrielle. 

If she does go to play for the Detroit Tigers, as you said, your favorite team—former Senator Jim Bunning played for and was a 

pitcher for that team. If she is pitching the ball, I know she is 

going to be different than Senator Bunning because I think he had 

the record for bean balls in the major leagues, both the American 

and National Leagues. 

She has never thrown a bean ball in her life, never pitched it in 

the dirt, and always pitched it straight down the middle, sometimes a fast ball but always straight down the middle. As a fielder, 

I expect she would be a Golden Glover, and at the bat, there will 

be one home run after another. From both sides of the aisle, we 

wish her every success. 

Senator CARPER. Jim Bunning was my childhood hero growing 

up. We both ended up being in the House of Representatives. I 

loved the Tigers growing up, and I still love the Tigers. We played 

against each other in the congressional baseball game. My first at 

bat against him, he tries to hit me. 

Senator INHOFE. Did he hit you? 

Senator CARPER. Missed me. Unfortunately, I missed his pitch, 

too. 

Senator BARRASSO. He said that at a prayer breakfast, he said 

he never hit—well, we will leave it at that. 

Senator CARPER. Fortunately, although Gabrielle is leaving, 

Mary Frances Repco is here as our deputy to step up and take on 

this leadership role. We are blessed. Gabrielle has put together a 

wonderful team. We are lucky she is here to carry the load and 

help us go forth. 

Senator BARRASSO. We will now turn to our witnesses. We will 

continue the Committee’s practice of a 5 minute opening statement 

by Chairman Svinicki and 2 minute statements from each of the 

Commissioners. 

I will note that Commissioner Burns will be with us until 11 a.m. 

this morning at which point he needs to depart for a previous family obligation. 

I want to remind the witnesses, your full written testimony will 

be made a part of the official hearing record today. 

Chairman Svinicki, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF KRISTINE SVINICKI, 

CHAIRMAN, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Ms. SVINICKI. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso. Good morning 

also to Ranking Member Carper and distinguished members of the 

Committee. My colleagues and I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the U.S. NRC’s fiscal year 2019 

budget requests. 

I would note that my oral statement was a summary at a high 

level of the budget. Chairman Barrasso, you have already described 

that in your opening statement. I will just further summarize by 

stating that the funding we are requesting for fiscal year 2019 we 

are confident provides the resources necessary to accomplish our 

mission to license and regulate the civilian use of radioactive mateVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:23 Jun 21, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\30271.TXT SONYA
6 

rials, to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety, and 

to promote the common defense and security. 

One of the very significant changes to our budget is the requested increase in resources tied to proposed activities related to 

the license application for the Yucca Mountain deep geologic repository. Additional funding is also requested to further the development of a regulatory infrastructure needed to review advanced nuclear reactor technologies. We also have an increment of funding 

for development of advanced or accident tolerant fuels. 

I have not coordinated with my colleagues, but I will go out on 

a limb to say that over the years, our Commission has really valued our relationship with the highly professional staff of this Committee. I know we wish Gabrielle well. To all the members of your 

very, very capable staff, thank you for the hard work you do in support of the important work of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Svinicki follows:] 

7 


30271.001
8 


30271.002
9 


30271.003
10 


30271.004
11 


30271.005
12 


30271.006
13 


30271.007
14 


30271.008
15 


30271.009
16 


30271.010
17 


30271.011
18 


30271.012
19 


30271.013
20 


30271.014
21 


30271.015
22 


30271.016
23 


30271.017
24 


30271.018
25 


30271.019
26 


30271.020
27 


30271.021
28 


30271.022
29 


30271.023
30 


30271.024
31 


30271.025
32 


30271.026
33 


30271.027
34 


30271.028
35 


30271.029
36 


30271.030
37 


30271.031
38 


30271.032
39 


30271.033
40 


30271.034
41 


30271.035
42 


30271.036
43 


30271.037
44 


30271.038
45 


30271.039
46 


30271.040
47 


30271.041
48 


30271.042
49 


30271.043
50 


30271.044
51 


30271.045
52 


30271.046
53 


30271.047
54 


30271.048
55 


30271.049
56 


30271.050
57 


30271.051
58 


30271.052
59 


30271.053
60 


30271.054
61 


30271.055
62 


30271.056
63 


30271.057
64 


30271.058
65 


30271.059
66 


30271.060
67 


30271.061
68 


30271.062
69 


30271.063
70 


30271.064
71 


30271.065
72 


30271.066
73 


30271.067
74 


30271.068
75 


30271.069
76 


30271.070
77 


30271.071
78 


30271.072
79 


30271.073
80 


30271.074
81 


30271.075
82 


30271.076
83 


30271.077
84 


30271.078
85 


30271.079
86 


30271.080
87 


30271.081
88 


30271.082
89 


30271.083
90 


30271.084
91 


30271.085
92 


30271.086
93 


30271.087
94 


30271.088
95 


30271.089
96 


30271.090
97 

Senator BARRASSO. Commissioner Baran. 

STATEMENT OF JEFF BARAN, 

COMMISSIONER, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Mr. BARAN. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and 

members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify 

today. It is great to be here with my colleagues to discuss NRC’s 

fiscal year 2019 budget request and the work of the Commission. 

Chairman Svinicki provided an overview of NRC’s budget request. I want to briefly highlight a few related efforts underway at 

NRC. 

I will start with Project Aim. Our multiyear efforts take a hard 

look at what work the agency is doing and how we are doing that 

work. The goals have been to become more efficient and agile and 

to prepare for the future. 

The result of Project Aim and our very limited external hiring 

has been dramatic. In just 2 years NRC’s work force has declined 

by more than 12 percent. The agency started the current fiscal year 

with around 3,200 employees, about the same staffing level as in 

2006 before NRC started a ramp-up for the anticipated wave of 

new reactor applications. 

When Project Aim got underway in 2015 the NRC staff envisioned that it would take until 2020 to match the agency’s resources to its workload, but NRC was able to make progress much 

more quickly in getting to the right staffing level for our current 

and expected workload. 

Going forward, we need to internalize an enduring focus on efficiency. For the agency’s long term health we also need a stable 

pipeline of new talent through external hiring and an emphasis on 

maintaining the NRC staff’s core technical capabilities and safety 

inspection activities. 

The NRC staff has launched a transformation initiative to identify any steps the agency should take to improve its approach for 

reviewing new and novel technologies such as advanced reactors, 

accident tolerant fuel, and digital instrumentation and controls. I 

think that is a good focus for the transformation team and appreciate that the team is doing a lot of outreach to stakeholders. I look 

forward to hearing their thoughts and recommendations. 

There are many other important activities underway at NRC including implementation of post-Fukushima safety enhancements, 

the power reactor decommissioning rulemaking, review of the first 

small modular reactor design application and oversight of construction at the Vogtle site. We are happy to discuss these and any 

other issues of interest. 

Thank you. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Baran follows:] 

98 


30271.091
99 


30271.092
100 


30271.093
101 


30271.094
102 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Commissioner Baran. 

Commissioner Burns. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN BURNS, 

COMMISSIONER, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Mr. BURNS. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and 

distinguished members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today on our fiscal year 2019 budget 

proposal. I support the Chairman’s testimony and agree that the 

funding we are requesting provides the resources necessary to accomplish our safety and security mission while continuing to improve our efficiency and effectiveness. 

As you know, the NRC has undertaken significant efforts over 

the last few years to improve its efficiency and effectiveness. 

Project Aim was a part of those efforts but by no means the only 

part. Additional improvements were also implemented to the NRC’s 

rulemaking processes, its budget formulation, fee calculations and 

billing, and also agency staffing and work force planning. 

While the vast majority of the specific tasks under Project Aim 

have been completed, its spirit still endures. It is important not to 

lose sight of the fundamental safety and security mission of the 

NRC. 

From its inception the NRC has continued to have a central focus 

on safety and security in what we do every day. We can always 

strive to perform better in our mission and better risk-inform our 

decisions, but safety and security must always be the central focus. 

About 40 years ago this year I began my professional career with 

the NRC. I know there were times when we have had to learn from 

our experience, learn to do better, and improve our performance as 

a regulator, but on the whole, I can say I think we hit the mark 

the vast majority of the time in achieving a high standard of performance. Over the past year we continued to hold the industry accountable through our inspection and oversight program, ensured 

the effective implementation of lessons learned from the 

Fukushima Daiichi accident, focused on cyber security, worked effectively with our partners and the States to ensure the safe and 

secure use of radioactive material. 

At the same time, we have undertaken reviews of the first small 

modular reactors. We are implementing strategies to be better prepared for the licensing and review of advance reactor design. 

Again, I think the credit belongs to the staff for much of the effort 

today with the Commission’s leadership. 

I appreciate the Committee’s willingness to accommodate my departure today at 11 a.m. I am off to Colorado for my niece’s wedding and am looking forward to that. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Burns follows:] 

103 


30271.095
104 


30271.096
105 

Senator BARRASSO. Best wishes to your niece, and safe travels to 

you. We appreciate it. 

We will go to some rounds of questions. I will start with Chairman Svinicki. 

The State of Wyoming is currently in the process of becoming an 

NRC agreement State. That means Wyoming is going to assume 

the role of the primary regulator of in situ uranium recovery. I understand Wyoming submitted its application to the NRC on November 13, 2017. 

We expect to be able to sign a final agreement with the NRC by 

September 30, 2018, at the end of this Federal fiscal year. Do you 

know if the NRC is on track to meet the deadlines? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes, Chairman Barrasso. The staff is on track to 

present the voting matter to the Commission in September. I would 

acknowledge the practical realities of the turnover of the fiscal year 

would make it desirable for the Commission to act in a timely way. 

I have served on the Commission for other agreements and State 

agreements. Assuming the NRC staff in Wyoming do careful work, 

if the agreement is presented to us in accordance with the requirements, my experience is the deliberation is not overly long, and it 

is merely a verification that the needed elements are there. 

Senator BARRASSO. Terrific. I know the NRC’s most recent 

monthly report indicates the agency is currently reviewing I think 

four major uranium recovery proposals in Wyoming. Specifically, 

the NRC is considering two renewals of existing uranium recovery 

licenses and two expansions of existing uranium recovery licenses. 

I understand the NRC anticipates completing its review of these 

proposals by the end of September 2018. That is when Wyoming is 

expected to become the agreement State. It is important for the 

NRC to complete its review of these four uranium recovery proposals by September in order to have a smooth transition to Wyoming as the new regulatory authority. 

Will you please commit to informing my staff immediately if the 

NRC does not think it can complete its review of these four proposals by the end of the fiscal year? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes, we will inform you. Again, my past experience 

is it benefits both, the NRC, the agreement State and the licensees, 

if we can have the most orderly transfer of responsibility. Sometimes that includes realizing what pending actions are before us 

and the timely completion of those. 

Senator BARRASSO. Now, I would like to turn to the topic of cyber 

attacks. Senator Carper raised the issue in his opening comments 

as well. 

Last week, the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI 

issued a joint alert stating, ‘‘Since at least March 2016, Russian 

government cyber actors targeted government entities and multiple 

U.S. critical infrastructure sectors, including the energy, nuclear, 

commercial facilities, water, aviation, and critical manufacturing 

sectors.’’ 

I understand that these cyber attacks have penetrated some corporate networks but have not infiltrated the critical safety, security, and control systems of nuclear power plants. Is that correct? 

Ms. SVINICKI. That is accurate. Respecting the public setting, I 

would also note that the nature of the things declassified and reVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:23 Jun 21, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\30271.TXT SONYA
106 

leased by the FBI last week are issues we have been monitoring 

very, very closely with the interagency. Yes, there were penetrations and probing of corporate systems, but there was not successful penetration on the operational side. 

Senator BARRASSO. If that situation changes and the NRC learns 

of a successful penetration of critical nuclear plant systems, will 

you commit to immediately briefing this Committee? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

I would now like to ask a question and have you answer it not 

in your role as NRC Chairman but based on your personal experience in the nuclear field. Prior to your service on the Commission, 

you served as a professional staff member of the Senate Armed 

Services Committee where you were responsible for nuclear issues. 

Before your tenure in the Senate, you worked at the Department 

of Energy’s Office of Nuclear Energy. You, of course, are a nuclear 

engineer. 

Do you think maintaining uranium production in the U.S. is critical to our national security? 

Ms. SVINICKI. I appreciate you are making a distinction between 

my role as NRC Chairman. Of course, our Commission is policy 

neutral. I know there are pending actions before the Commerce Department and other trade matters. 

You asked me this at a time when last week, I had responsibility 

as NRC Chairman to sign the extension of a cooperation agreement 

with a Ukrainian regulator. He also brought along the Ukrainian 

ambassador to the U.S. It was an opportunity to hear from a country that overnight found itself somewhat hostage to a country for 

energy and nuclear fuel supply. The practical realities of that are 

a very complicated matter for the Ukraine. 

The broad principle of having some energy security and diversity, 

sitting with my colleagues from Ukraine, I will say that went from 

a conceptual conversation to a very real conversation as they described what they face there. Again, last week I had the opportunity to see what it is to not have domestic production or supply 

and depending on the actions of other countries, it can be an overnight problem for your country. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. The questions from our Chairman with respect 

to cyber security and your comments about the misdeeds of the 

Russians in that regard lead me to ask for clarification. Is there 

anything to the report I heard that the Commissioners are planning on sending a congratulatory letter to the President of Russia 

for his reelection? I hope that is not true. Is it? Can you confirm 

that is not true? 

Ms. SVINICKI. It is not. No, we have no planned communications 

of that nature. 

Senator CARPER. That is good. 

On a serious note, I have a question, if I could, for Commissioner 

Baran. Earlier, I mentioned morale. I served with some of my colleagues on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs for years. 

I served on this Committee with my colleagues, and the NRC had 

the best morale of all Federal employees. 

107 

Over at the Department of Homeland Security, they suffered the 

worst. Now what is happening there is after years of trying to raise 

morale, it is coming up, which is very encouraging. We are seeing 

sort of the opposite happening with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

I would just ask Commissioner Baran, just briefly, are we at a 

point where budget cuts to the NRC are affecting morale, the ability to recruit the kind of people we need and the ability to complete 

work in a timely manner? If we are not at that point, are we getting close to that point? 

Mr. BARAN. I think the answer is we are getting close to that 

point and maybe, to some extent, at that point. It is hard to know 

exactly what drives morale one way or the other, but my sense is 

that because we have had significant cuts over the last few years, 

there are fewer promotional opportunities, fewer training opportunities, and it is hard to move around within the agency, which is 

one of the things that made the agency so great over the years. 

I think that does affect folks. I think people want to know there 

is a long term future for them at the agency. There was a period 

when, on the corporate support side, we were looking at a potential 

reduction in force. That is a scary thing for employees. We were 

able to avoid that, but it takes a toll. 

I am hopeful we are heading in the right direction with the staff 

and morale. I know there is a lot of focus from our senior managers 

on keeping folks engaged on the mission and their jobs, focusing on 

their potential to have really good, long careers at NRC and the opportunities available to them. 

I am hopeful we are going to be climbing back in the ranks 

again. I do think most of the reductions we have had over the last 

few years have made a lot of sense. I think we have done a good 

job bringing our budget in line with the workload we have and the 

anticipated workload. 

Reductions like 12 percent of FTE in 2 years are not something 

that is sustainable going forward from my point of view. I think we 

are at a point where we should be leveling off. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thanks so much. 

This will be a question for the full panel. On a more serious note, 

I want to come back to cyber security and ask you to discuss, if you 

will, the status of our nuclear reactors with respect to cyber security; do you support providing cyber security requirements, and 

what more could we be doing—the Federal Government, including 

us—to protect our commercial fleet? 

Do you want to lead that off, Madam Chairman? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Cyber security is a very dynamic threat environment, so it is not the kind of area where you can put something 

forward and say this is going to be the enduring set of understandings for all times. 

I would depict it as a very active area of our oversight, not only 

in the implementation and inspection of the cyber security arrangements we have already put in place, but we continue to work, in 

closed session, with members of the U.S. intelligence community on 

what they currently see and over the horizon in terms of increasing 

capability of the threat actors against the United States. We bring 

a lot of attention to this matter. 

108 

We have written our regulations in a way that they are robust 

going forward. They basically say the security outcome you need to 

achieve instead of the exact methods of how you do it. As adversaries become more capable, our regulations still are written to say 

what the end state of a secure system looks like. 

Senator CARPER. I am going to go next to Commissioner Burns 

before I run out of time. 

Mr. BURNS. I would agree with what the Chairman said. One of 

the things we put in place about 10 years ago was cyber requirements and cyber regulations. The utilities have been implementing 

that. 

We are in a phase now where we are doing further inspections 

to get lessons learned. I think a lot of that early on helped shake 

out what was important. As the Chairman said, ultimately, this is 

sort of a performance based type of requirement. 

I think we had some good discussions with the industry of what 

makes sense and from our standpoint, what made sense in terms 

of providing that high level of protection for the critical systems. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Baran, would you briefly comment, just 

some sense very briefly? 

Mr. BARAN. I agree with everything my colleagues said. I would 

just note on the reactor side, NRC has been very forward leaning 

on cyber security. We are also now at the point of looking at cyber 

security requirements for the fuel cycle facilities. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thanks. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you all for being here. We really do appreciate your hard 

work. 

Commissioner Baran, I would like to talk a bit about the question on the principle of good regulations reliability. Under this 

principle, regulatory actions should be fairly administered so as to 

lend stability to the nuclear operational and planning processes. 

The NRC recently announced an increase in fees for licensees, including fees for those licensees to pay to the NRC for inspection 

and assessment of their performance. There also has been an increase in inspection hours, and therefore cost to licensees attributed to the 95001 inspections where licensees have to redo these 

inspections due to localized NRC interpretation of the standards for 

successfully passing those inspections. 

These inspections are either performed for white findings that 

have low to moderate safety significance or for white performance 

indicators which represent performance outside an expected range 

of nominal utility performance but related to cornerstone objectives 

still being met. In other words, these inspections are intended to 

be the lowest of supplemental oversight provided to licensees. In 

the repeat inspections, there is often diminishing safety returns 

and unnecessary expenditure of resources by both the NRC and licensees. 

I guess the question is what is senior NRC leadership doing to 

improve the clarity of the standards for passing 95001 inspections 

and providing oversight to the regions to ensure consistency of application for those standards such that there is fidelity to the reacVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:23 Jun 21, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\30271.TXT SONYA
109 

tor oversight processing corresponding adherence to the principles 

of good regulation. 

Mr. BARAN. There is a great deal of coordination that goes on between our headquarters and the four regional administrators and 

the regional offices. As you pointed out, a lot of the inspection activities are done either by resident inspectors we have on the sites 

or by the regional offices. 

In recent years there has been a lot of focus, not just in this area 

on the particular inspection you referred to, but more broadly on 

making sure we are taking a holistic look and having a lot of focus 

on consistency across the regions. 

I think one of the very good things about the reactor oversight 

process is it is a staged process where, to the extent NRC inspectors are finding issues at a plant, the more issues they find, the 

higher the column a plant is in, or the increase in oversight that 

we see from the NRC staff. 

As you point out, the 95001 is really between column 1 where everything is working fine and your column 2 where we have seen 

some issues. If you are stepping up and there have been more 

issues, those inspections get more and more focused and comprehensive. There is a lot of coordination that goes on to focus on 

inspections really at all those levels. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Very good. 

Chairman Svinicki, every year licensees pay the NRC hundreds 

of millions of dollars in fees. Licensees often express the desire for 

more timely reviews and scheduled transparency particularly for licensing actions. 

Yesterday, the GAO released a report clearly stating without 

more transparency, the licensee does not know how much work remains and cannot budget for future expenses. The NRC’s efficiency 

principle states, ‘‘The American taxpayer, the rate paying consumer, and licensee are all entitled to the best possible management and administration of regulatory activities.’’ 

I guess the question is, don’t you think the situation demonstrates room for improvement for fulfilling the principle? Given 

that licensees and applicants must fund 90 percent of the NRC’s 

budget, don’t you think it would be fair to give them additional 

scheduled transparency? Don’t you think improving scheduled discipline and transparency is a necessary foundation for implementing any transformation initiatives to address new technologies? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Thank you, Senator. 

Of course, we knew of the GAO findings and recommendations 

in that report since they do coordinate. The report contains the 

agency’s response that we take no exception to the issues they 

raised. 

We do have plans—in many cases already underway—to address 

the areas on greater billing transparency the GAO has noticed and 

brought to our attention. Some of that work, the GAO suggested 

we needed to have project plans so that people would have an understanding of when some of the billing improvements would be 

put in place. I know our Chief Financial Officer is working on putting together that project plan. 

110 

On your broader question about greater scheduled transparency, 

that is an objective of the agency. Project managers are assigned 

to various licensing matters. They are instructed to be in routine 

communication with licensees about pending matters, giving them 

information about the status of the review and how it is going. 

Again, we are always looking to improve efficiency and doing 

that, but I do think we do make strong efforts now in that regard. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you very much. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Boozman. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, all. I appreciate your being here. 

Chairman Svinicki, from your opening statement, it sounds like 

the NRC is already preparing for having an expanded role consistent with pieces of legislation working their way through or have 

worked their way through the Senate. 

I specifically refer to my legislation with Senator Crapo which 

has passed the Senate which puts the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with the Department of Energy and our National Labs, into 

a new process for next generation technology innovation with the 

private sector and the bill that passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, thanks to the support of Chairman Barrasso and 

Senators Capito, Fischer, and Rounds, and a number of Democrats 

as well, that requires the NRC to begin putting together new approval pathways for new nuclear technologies. 

When people in Rhode Island ask me about this, my simple 

minded explanation is that it is like asking your Tesla to go 

through the carburetor test at the DMV. It does not have one; it 

is a different technology. You need to come up with different tests. 

Could you fill me in a little bit on to what extent your existing 

budget—what you are proposing and defending here—reflects additional effort in those two areas, supporting the private sector innovation and also trying to make sure that you have appropriate safety screening pathways in place for different technologies? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Thank you, Senator. 

As you acknowledge, we agree that the current framework, although it can be bent and modified, and we could review an advanced reactor technology, it is not the most efficient approach for 

those technologies. A number of provisions would simply not be relevant, and that is not efficient. 

The fiscal year 2019 budget, based on input from advanced reactor developers, contemplates that fiscal 2019 is the earliest we 

might see an official submittal of an advanced reactor design for 

review. 

There is money requested in the budget on what we call the fee 

base meaning part of the fee recoverable work that we do for potential engagement with one or maybe two advanced reactor developers. That is a very fluid situation, as you know, so they will only 

submit if they are prepared. That would be a very concrete licensing review that would begin, so there is something genuinely new 

in the fiscal 2019 budget. 

In fiscal year 2018 we continue activities to engage broadly with 

advanced reactor designers in advance of them submitting anything for review. The Congress has provided to us off fee based 

111 

funding, meaning we are able to do generic engagement with the 

advanced reactor community on how the licensing process can best 

meet their technology development schedules. We can do that without having to send them an invoice every time they talk to us. 

I think that created a regulatory efficiency that these developers 

do not have an obstacle to coming in and getting a regulatory reaction to aspects of their designs. I appreciate that Congress has supported that activity. 

We see the activity growing in terms of breadth but also growing 

in terms of depth in fiscal year 2019 and beyond. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Those efforts are reflected in your budget 

request? 

Ms. SVINICKI. They are, yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Could you give us a quick update on 

where the pre-licensing conversations are with New Scale and 

Oklo, I think are the companies. Without getting into the details 

of their individual applications, how is that pre-regulatory, pre-conversation process going? 

Ms. SVINICKI. It continues to be very active as you have described. New Scale, of course, has submitted their design, and we 

have docketed that for review. As a small reactor design in the 

truly novel and advanced reactor community, Oklo does continue to 

be kind of a first mover. They appear to be moving out of the pack 

with some serious intent to submit a design in the coming years. 

I would say there are maybe one or two others that are in serious and detailed pre-application engagement. Beyond that, the field 

is kind of a spectrum where some are candidly little beyond a 

PowerPoint presentation, but others are getting into some meat of 

the actual design. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. On your side, are you satisfied with your 

ability to be effective in those pre-licensing conversations? 

Ms. SVINICKI. We continue to solicit feedback about what is 

working most effectively. What the advanced reactor community 

prefers sometimes surprises me. Right now they want us to keep 

a very fluid process. They have said, in terms of getting investment, it benefits them if our system can accommodate their technology development. 

Also, they appreciate we are giving them dedicated project teams 

so that they do not have to re-introduce their technology to new 

NRC experts every time they come in. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, I failed to acknowledge that our colleague, Senator Booker, was the original co-sponsor of the nuclear innovation 

bill that just passed. I went down your side of the column on the 

other bill but not my side of the column on that bill. I apologize 

to Senator Booker for that oversight and yield back my time. 

Senator BOOKER. I would just like to point out again my conclusion that of the 100 Senators, I am the Rodney Dangerfield, so no 

respect. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank all of you. 

112 

Chairwoman Svinicki, I want to visit a topic we have talked 

about in the past. If it has already been covered in the questions, 

I apologize. I just came in a little late. 

In the December hearing I noted that your fiscal year 2018 budget requested more FTEs than the NRC was actually going to have, 

which resulted in a $37 million carryover. I understand that was 

taken into consideration in the appropriations process. In fiscal year 2016 there was a $23 million carryover, and in fis- cal year 2017 there was a $31 million carryover. I guess a pattern 

is developing that we might see in fiscal year 2019 because you are 

expecting 3,090 FTEs, which is 157 fewer than you actually budgeted. 

I think a significant portion of this hiring increase is slated for 

the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage license review. My question is, unless the appropriators adjust accordingly, the NRC’s licensees are forced to pay for these resources, is that correct? 

Ms. SVINICKI. It is correct that they are recovered in 1 year, although they may be offset by the fees that get set the following 

year, but it is imperfect, as you acknowledged, because they are 

billed in years. There is essentially an over-recovery from them. We 

do true that up and adjust that in a subsequent year, but there is 

probably some inequity created in that process. 

Senator CAPITO. My understanding is that this is part of the reason that the licensees will see a 6.5 increase for this coming year 

to cover this? 

Ms. SVINICKI. I would need to check that precise figure, but yes, 

for fiscal year 2018 we have gone out with a fee rule. We had to 

make a strategic choice there. Since this is an estimate for them, 

our feedback was bill payers would prefer to get an estimated fee 

that is the highest their invoice would be, knowing when we get 

to the final fee rule, if we have enacted levels for fiscal year 2018, 

we could possibly adjust those numbers. 

We decided do they want to see the case that is a lower bill but 

then ultimately, when we have an enacted level, it might be higher? Their preference was to know the highest level their bill might 

be. That is the way it has moved forward. 

Senator CAPITO. Yes. I wanted to ask a question about the small 

modular reactors. You mentioned New Scale in your statement. We 

had one of the TVA nominees here yesterday and talked about the 

full spectrum of energy resources they use at the TVA. 

I noticed that TVA has submitted some prospects of two or more 

modules. Is that correct? Could you talk about that? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes. It is called an early site permit. It is a notification that they contemplate constructing an SMR at a particular 

site. What they have identified is the Clinch River site. It is under 

review. 

Senator CAPITO. Is there an existing facility there? 

Ms. SVINICKI. There is not, but there is quite a lot of history. At 

one point, the United States was going to build, I believe, a breeder 

reactor at that site in the 1960s or 1970s. It has been a TVA property that has a bit of a nuclear history, but there is not currently 

a nuclear plant there. 

Senator CAPITO. I am going to wade into something that I do not 

know the answer to, which is always dangerous. 

113 

What is the status of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site 

storage license review? What can we expect to see in the next 5 

years on this nuclear waste storage issue? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Right now the activities NRC has been carrying 

out are with previously appropriated nuclear waste fund moneys, 

as you well know. All activities related to this particular Yucca 

Mountain development must be appropriated and executed with 

that particular color of money so that it is not something in these 

invoices we send to the utilities. It is a separate nuclear waste fund 

under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. 

We had suspended our activities in 2010. That was challenged in 

court. The court then directed the NRC and the Department of Energy to expend the remaining money previously appropriated. 

Under the court’s remand, we completed the safety evaluation report. The staff’s safety review was completed. Their conclusion was 

they identified no obstacles to the issuance of a construction permit, absent the fact that DOE did not have title to the land at 

Yucca Mountain and did not have the water rights. Those were two 

legal obstacles, but the staff did not identify any safety obstacles. 

If funding were to be enacted this week under the fiscal year 

2018, we would work to build the infrastructure, to resume the licensing proceeding, and that would mean restarting the adjudicatory hearings and reestablishing the document library that would 

support the evidentiary hearings that would be necessary. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you very much. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Capito. 

Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Chair, I remain deeply concerned by reports that the 

Trump administration is attempting to negotiate a civil nuclear 

123 agreement with Saudi Arabia that may compromise on important nuclear nonproliferation controls as it tries to secure a commercial deal to sell American nuclear reactors. 

Madam Chair, has anyone from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, including staff, participated in meetings with representatives 

from or acting on behalf of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to discuss 

a Saudi 123 agreement? 

Ms. SVINICKI. In the development of 123 agreements under the 

Atomic Energy Act, the NRC experts are asked to review provisions 

of a draft arrangement to make certain that our export licensing 

framework responsibilities could be executed and that the provisions of law necessary are there. The NRC’s involvement in draft 

agreements is limited to those export licensing provisions. 

Senator MARKEY. Have you been in meetings, has the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission staff been in meetings, with the Saudis on 

this agreement? 

Ms. SVINICKI. I am not aware that they have been. They have 

been in meetings in the interagency but not with the foreign governments, I don’t believe. 

Senator MARKEY. Was the NRC staff part of Secretary Perry’s recent delegation to London to meet with the Saudis? 

Ms. SVINICKI. I don’t believe we had any staff as part of that delegation. If I am wrong about that, may I respond for the record? 

114 

Senator MARKEY. You may respond for the record, but honestly 

I think you should know the answer to that. There can be no more 

important thing you are going to be doing this year than reviewing 

the 123 agreement and know whether or not your staff is in a 

meeting with the Saudis on this type of agreement. I think that is 

absolutely essential. 

Ms. SVINICKI. I am sorry. I have been informed that we did have 

one expert counsel there on the export arrangement. 

Senator MARKEY. That is good to know. 

During those meetings was there any discussion by any party of 

a 123 agreement permitting Saudi to enrich uranium or reprocess 

plutonium? 

Ms. SVINICKI. We are not participating on the broader negotiation of the arrangement, Senator. 

Senator MARKEY. Do you know if, during the meeting your staff 

was in, the subject of uranium enrichment or plutonium reprocessing was raised? 

Ms. SVINICKI. I do not, but that is not the scope of their expertise 

or their participation. 

Senator MARKEY. The reason this issue is so important to me is 

that, of course, the Atomic Energy Act requires the President to 

keep the Senate ‘‘fully and currently informed of any initiative or 

negotiations relating to a new or amended agreement for peaceful 

nuclear cooperation.’’ Yet the Energy Secretary leading a delegation 

to London to discuss a 123 agreement with the Saudis so far has 

not, in any way, been given as a brief to any member of the Senate, 

which is in violation of the 2008 law. 

To the extent to which the NRC was in the meeting, the Department of Energy was in the meeting, the Department of State was 

in the meeting, and we still have not been briefed, that is not acceptable. The reason it is not acceptable is that the Saudi crown 

prince said in an interview just in the last few days, ‘‘Saudi Arabia 

does not want to acquire any nuclear bomb, but without a doubt, 

if Iran developed a nuclear bomb, we will follow suit as soon as 

possible.’’ 

Well, President Trump is now saying that he is likely to end the 

Iran nuclear deal. As a result, if we put in place an agreement that 

allowed for uranium enrichment or plutonium reprocessing on the 

land of Saudi Arabia, it would be potentially disastrous because the 

Saudi prince is making it quite clear what they are interested in, 

what the Saudi nuclear envisions as the prince has expressed, are 

more about megatons than megawatts. They don’t need nuclear 

power in Saudi Arabia. They are more solar than they know what 

to do with. It is 2 cents a kilowatt hour in Mexico right now. 

This is about a clandestine nuclear weapons program on their 

ground. It is extremely dangerous. From my perspective, it is something the Administration has a responsibility to give immediate 

briefings to the Congress on what is happening in the United 

States right now, meetings with the Saudi prince in anticipation of 

a pull out of the Iran deal. 

We are putting ourselves in the middle of the Iran-Saudi Arabia 

proxy wars that could quickly escalate to nuclear wars if we are 

not careful. This has to have a full and open debate in our country. 

115 

Each and every part of the Trump administration has a responsibility to give Congress frequent updates with regard to the 

progress of those negotiations. That is my view. The NRC plays a 

role, and so do other agencies. Right now, the Senate is in the 

dark. That is wrong. 

We are looking at a Shia-Sunni standoff. It is escalating in proxy 

battles across the Middle East. We do not need nuclear weapons 

to become part of the situation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, first, let me thank you for your 

leadership on this issue and our Committee in our oversight role 

on nuclear power. I also want to acknowledge up front the tremendous work of Senator Booker on this issue. 

I want to raise two issues and get your response. I think they 

are related. I am very proud of the men and women who work at 

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, particularly those who are 

from Maryland and your headquarters in Rockville. I am concerned 

about their ability moving forward to regulate safe nuclear energy 

considering that you have an aging work force. You have lost a lot 

of the more senior employees of the agency and they have not really been replenished. I am concerned about the work force issues at 

NRC and getting the support you need to carry out your critically 

important nuclear energy safety function. 

The second thing that concerns me is the economics of nuclear 

energy today. We depend upon nuclear energy, 20 percent of our 

total power and 60 percent of our carbon free. It is an important 

part of energy security here in America, yet the economics of it is 

becoming more and more difficult. 

We have an aging fleet of nuclear reactors that need attention. 

The economics of modernizing that fleet is not very bright at this 

particular moment. 

Looking at our commitment to maintaining our nuclear capacity 

for energy, how do you see your roles in facilitating America’s 

needs, also recognizing the work force issues moving forward? How 

do we guarantee the people of this Nation that your work will be 

done putting safety first? 

Ms. SVINICKI. I will begin. I appreciate your support for, and acknowledgement of, the NRC’s very capable work force. Commissioner Baran commented earlier that when the agency was growing 

substantially, there was a lot of energy and excitement in the work 

force because opportunity was so much more readily available. 

Under the declining work force we have had and the hiring controls we have had in place for a number of years now where we 

look specifically at needed capability as employees depart or retire 

and making sure that we have the core competencies, there isn’t 

the vibrancy of the growth and opportunity the agency had in previous years. 

I think that requires us to bring our best thinking and our skill 

sets, in terms of ways to motivate and keep employees engaged in 

the agency even as it gets smaller. I think the agency’s innovation 

forum and transformation initiative are ways I hope employees can 

get excited about creating the NRC of the future of which they 

116 

want to be a part. It is of concern though that our work force demographic is getting older, and we have very senior employees. We try 

to make targeted entry level hires to make sure we have experts 

of the future coming into the pipeline, but it is a challenge, as you 

note. 

Senator CARDIN. On that issue, let me underscore a point. It 

would be helpful if Congress would not do things that harm public 

service. Some of our attacks on the Federal work force have an impact on your ability to attract the very best in your field who are 

very highly skilled individuals. Second, if you need more from us 

in that regard, please let us know. 

Ms. SVINICKI. Thank you for that. 

On the broader economic headwinds for nuclear, I would note 

that falls more squarely in the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission. I know Secretary Perry and that commission have kind of an invigorated dialogue about that. 

We are not an economic regulator as FERC is. I think we take 

on board having the most efficient regulatory framework that we 

can. That would be something that maybe would be an aspect of 

the economic issues. 

In the strictest sense, it appears there are a lot of market forces 

and things at play in terms of units being profitable or not. That 

falls outside our jurisdiction. I don’t know if Commissioner Baran 

would like to add to that. 

Mr. BARAN. I agree with everything the Chairman said. I would 

just note part of our job as a safety and security regulator is to 

make sure we are focused on adapting to new technologies. 

One of the things you talked about was modernizing plants for 

the future, for example, digital instrumentation and controls. If you 

go to a control room today in most nuclear power plants, it is largely analog. It has worked very well over the decades but there are 

obsolescence and reliability issues. 

If you could move to more digital technology, I think there is 

broad agreement that is a safety improvement and probably also 

an economic improvement for the operator. However, we are focused on the safety piece. One of the things we are trying to do is 

really focus on those issues which have been tough, resolving how 

you make sure we do not add any unacceptable risks by going to 

digital, whether cyber security or other things. 

We also want to make sure we have a framework in place so if 

you have a utility which wants to make an upgrade because they 

think the plant is going to be there 2040 or 2050, into the future, 

how do we make sure we have a reliable regulatory framework to 

make that a reasonable proposition? 

Senator CARDIN. Let me respond in 15 seconds, if I might. 

I acknowledge that your principal responsibility is not the economics, but if you have to regulate outdated reactors because of the 

economics of it, your job is much more challenging and difficult. I 

do believe there is a role for the NRC to play in making sure we 

have the most efficient fleet possible. That is also involved in the 

economics of the field. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:] 

117 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, thank you for holding this oversight hearing. Nuclear power provides a critical share of the Nation’s electricity— 

about 20 percent of the total—and an even larger share of carbon-free electricity 

(about 60 percent). 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 my home State of Maryland. 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) job as an independent agency is neither to promote nor hinder the nuclear power industry but rather to regulate it, as 

effectively and efficiently as possible, in a manner that protects health and the environment. 

The fleet of commercial nuclear power reactors across the Nation may not be 

growing as many people previously envisioned, but it is aging—that much is certain. 

Most of the Nation’s nuclear fleet has reached or is reaching its original ‘‘design 

basis’’ of operating for 40 years. 

An aging fleet presents unique safety challenges that will require continued diligence by the NRC to protect human health and the environment. The NRC’s mission is enormously important and technically challenging. 

We know what’s at stake: just over 7 years ago the Great East Japan Earthquake 

and the tsunami wave it triggered left workers at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear 

plant powerless to prevent three reactors from melting down. In March 2017 the 

Japan Center for Economic Research estimated that the clean up cost could range 

from $470 billion to $658 billion. 

The domestic nuclear industry faces more than safety issues. The existing fleet 

is in danger even before current operating licenses expire because of economic conditions. An estimated 12,727 megawatts (MW) of nuclear capacity have been retired 

recently or will be retired by 2025 for economic reasons. 

Representative Patrick Meehan (R–PA, 7th) has introduced H.R. 4614, the ‘‘Nuclear Powers America Act,’’ to establish an investment tax credit (ITC) to help boost 

the industry. 

The nuclear power industry supports 475,000 jobs, adds $60 billion to the Nation’s 

Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and prevents over one-half billion tons of carbon 

emissions each year. Nuclear power plants are a critical provider of baseload electricity, operating 92 percent of the time. 

According to a recent analysis by Bloomberg New Energy Finance, 54 gigawatts 

(GW), or 55 percent of the U.S. nuclear fleet, is losing $2.9 billion per year, collectively. Realized power prices of $20–$30 per megawatt/hour (MWh) don’t support average operational costs of $35/MWh. 

According to Bloomberg, replacing 54 GW of nuclear capacity with new combined 

cycle gas turbines (CCGTs) would increase power sector emissions by adding at least 

175 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) annually, putting at risk 

nearly 5 years of progress in reducing power sector carbon emissions. 

On top of economic problems facing the industry, last Thursday the Department 

of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) released 

a joint alert on Russian government actions targeting nuclear and other energy facilities. 

DHS and the FBI characterized this activity as a ‘‘multi-stage intrusion campaign’’ ultimately aimed at gaining access to operation technology (OT) systems, 

such as control systems for nuclear power plants and conventional fossil-fuel-fired 

turbines, so that they could be manipulated to cause equipment failures or blackouts. 

The Russian government is attacking our nuclear facilities while President Trump 

is calling Vladimir Putin to congratulate him on winning what Freedom House correctly characterized as ‘‘sham elections for a dictator.’’ 

On a more positive note, if the U.S. can develop, license, and build small modular 

reactors (SMRs) and the next generation of advanced nuclear reactors in a cost effective manner, it will be able to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels even as older 

reactors are retired from the fleet. 

I’m anxious to hear about the Commission’s progress with respect to reviewing the 

SMR design certification application from NuScale Power, which is headquartered 

in Portland, Oregon, but also has offices in Rockville, Maryland. 

And I’m interested to hear the Commission’s opinions on the prospects and advantages of X-energy’s ‘‘Xe–100’’—a 200 MW Pebble Bed High Temperature Gas-Cooled 

Reactor (HTGR). Pebble bed reactors cannot melt down. X-energy has a 5 year, $53 

million cooperative agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) focused 

on: (1) furthering the Xe–100 reactor design, (2) establishing pebble fuel manufacVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:23 Jun 21, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\30271.TXT SONYA
118 

turing capability, and (3) engaging with the NRC on licensing. I’m proud that Xenergy is headquartered in Greenbelt, Maryland. 

I look forward to hearing from Chairman Svinicki and Commissioners Burns and 

Baran, and I thank them for their public service and their willingness to appear 

before the Committee today. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Booker. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman, I want to thank you for being here. I really appreciate 

your answers for the record from our last hearing in response to 

my questions about NRC readiness to review advanced reactors. 

You wrote that the NRC has aligned its readiness activities to 

support the Department of Energy’s identified deployment goal of 

having at least two non-light water reactor designs reviewed by the 

NRC and ready for construction by the early 2030s. To keep pace 

with DOE’s stated goals, the NRC plans to achieve its strategic 

goal of readiness to effectively and efficiently review and regulate 

non-light water reactors by no later than 2025. 

The challenge I am facing is companies are telling me they are 

ready to apply a lot sooner than that. That is the tension. In your 

testimony today, you even stated you anticipate beginning one or 

more advanced reactor application reviews in the next 2 to 4 years. 

I am troubled that the NRC seems to be placing much higher importance on the DOE schedule than on the intentions of the actual 

applicants represented in the private sector. The first group of applicants with new technologies will have the highest costs and are 

depending on private capital for funding and face challenges therein. An inefficient NRC review process would cause them serious 

harm as I am sure you understand. 

Can the Commission—in any way—speed up its timeline for the 

readiness to review advanced reactors given the expectation that 

you will receive private sector applications long before the DOE’s 

stated goal? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Thank you, Senator. 

We are hearing the same feedback from the technology developers as well. As soon as we kind of hooked ourselves to that DOE 

schedule, we got feedback that by the time we publish that, it is 

probably not timely. 

I think the most beneficial thing we are doing is continuing to 

be in very broad engagement with individual technology developers. Of course, we are engaging kind of the direction of the enterprise as a whole. 

One thing that the advanced reactor technology developers are 

telling me is very positive is we are developing what we call these 

regulatory engagement plans. It is a generic term. Oklo calls theirs 

a licensing project plan. 

It is something a developer brings in and updates for the NRC. 

They are telling us when they think they would come into NRC to 

seek a regulatory reaction on perhaps a design attribute all the 

way up to submitting a full design for review. 

I will not call them a contract, but it is kind of an understanding 

between the NRC and an individual technology developer of what 

they would like us to react to when. The one thing they want to 

preserve is the flexibility. They have been able to take that to the 

financing community and others and say, this is the general understanding we have with the regulator. 

119 

They tell me that is breeding confidence about the predictability 

of the regulatory framework. They like that it is very stylized and 

tailored to their individual development pace. 

Senator BOOKER. OK. In terms of budgetary concerns, how far do 

you anticipate the increased budget will get NRC toward the readiness to process these applications? 

Ms. SVINICKI. I think as we continue to get into deeper and deeper technical engagement with the developers, the individual issues 

that come up are likely to require some funding in order to resolve. 

Say it is a new material, and we would like to do some confirmatory research or working with DOE, we would like to suggest they 

do some confirmatory research; it is really hard to estimate because 

the designs are in all different stages of finality. 

We do not want to begin to invest, and if for a materials issue, 

they can just choose a different material, and we would not need 

to do as much background, that is the kind of feedback they tell 

me they most benefit from, saying this alloy is really complicated 

for you, NRC, how about if we used one with which you are more 

familiar. That is the benefit of this pre-application engagement. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Baran, I feel bad for you sitting there without being grilled 

as much. The NRC has now formally docketed an application by 

Holtec Inc. to construct and operate consolidated interim storage 

facilities for spent fuel. Do you believe the NRC currently has sufficient staffing and funding to review this application in a timely 

manner? 

Mr. BARAN. We have current funding to do two applications, the 

Holtec application for New Mexico, and if it is restarted at the request of the applicant, the Texas application. The 2019 budget includes funding for both of those projects. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you very much, sir. 

Just for the record, do you have respect and reverence for the 

State of New Jersey? 

Mr. BARAN. I do, indeed. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you, sir. 

Senator BARRASSO. That is one. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. I want to play off some of what Senator Booker 

said. I want to talk a little bit about accident tolerant fuels. 

Maybe, Chairman Svinicki, you can take a shot at this and others if you like. 

Accident tolerant fuel is not something I have heard a lot about 

in the past, but I am hearing more about it now. I understand it 

is advanced fuel technology that can be—if I am not mistaken—retrofitted into our current fleet, is that right? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes. I characterize the origin of accident tolerant 

fuel as the industry, after Fukushima, looking at opportunity to innovate in fuel for current reactors saying, couldn’t we advance the 

technology, and if there were some sort of nuclear plant event or 

accident, the fuel could actually withstand extreme conditions 

much better. They knew there was opportunity there, but frankly, 

did not have the motivation. 

Senator CARPER. You said they knew. Who are they? 

120 

Ms. SVINICKI. The industry knew there was an opportunity to improve the fuels. They had not really had a motivation to do it, 

though. 

Senator CARPER. Let us drill down on that a bit. This technology 

can make fuel a lot safer? 

Ms. SVINICKI. We have yet to see the face of the safety improvement, but yes, conceptually, it would better withstand an accident 

and therefore, would retain what we call the fission product. The 

bad stuff would be more likely to be retained in the core. 

Senator CARPER. What is the effect on life? Would the fuel rods 

last longer? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Again, although we would not look at the economics, I do understand it could cause improved operating cycles for reactor operators, meaning they might get more power out of the fuel 

per element. There is an economic benefit, which candidly is why 

they are pursuing it. 

Senator CARPER. Commissioner Baran, do you agree with anything she said? 

Mr. BARAN. I agree with everything she said. All I would add is 

there are a number of fuel vendors with a number of designs, some 

of them pretty evolutionary, some of them more significant departures from what we have seen in the past. I think the answer to 

some of these questions will depend on the specific design. 

Senator CARPER. Is it possible that this technology could serve as 

a bridge to advanced reactors? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Some of the advanced reactor types are so different 

from the current operating reactors that there may not be that 

much of a benefit. I do think one of the benefits of NRC looking 

at qualifying new fuel types is we get to exercise our ability to look 

at something new and novel. I think that prepares us to bring innovative regulatory approaches to advanced reactors. It maybe there 

is a benefit on our side. 

Mr. BARAN. The fuel for advanced reactors, in some ways, may 

be the long pole in the tent. To the extent that some of the advanced reactor designs involve very different fuel than has been approved by NRC in the past, that is something, from a regulatory 

point of view, that could be the most challenging or time consuming element. 

Senator CARPER. If the NRC can smoothly process licenses for accident tolerant fuel, is it possible that could serve as a signal from 

the NRC that we can find a way to process advanced reactors? 

Someone told me you may have issued a draft project plan in December 2017 on how the NRC plans on licensing accident tolerant 

fuel. You may have mentioned this, but is that true? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes, we did. I believe we are receiving comment on 

that plan. Again, it was to create transparency around the process 

steps we would take. 

Senator CARPER. You are getting some comment. How would you 

characterize the comments you are getting? 

Ms. SVINICKI. I think it may be available for comment right now. 

I think the draft might have been published at the end of 2017, 

and we are getting comment on it. I may be thinking of something 

else. If I am incorrect about that, I will clarify. 

121 

Mr. BARAN. The Commission is also going to have a public commission meeting next month in April on accident tolerant fuel. 

That will be an opportunity to directly hear from some of the vendors, from the Department of Energy and others involved in this 

to get a better sense of their timing, what changes, if any, to our 

regulatory framework they think might make sense, their schedules and the resources we would need to be ready for that. 

Senator CARPER. Does the NRC currently have the staff you need 

to process transformation of technology? 

Mr. BARAN. Recently, the staff established an innovation team 

that is looking at this very issue. I think it is a great focus for the 

team to stay focused on how the agency adapts to and prepares for 

new technologies whether it is accident tolerant fuel or advanced 

reactors, and we talked about digital instrumentation and control. 

Sometimes these new technology areas are the more challenging 

ones for the agency to make sure our regulatory framework is more 

suited for that. There is no question, for example, on advanced reactors where the entire existing fleet is light water reactors. 

We are going to have to look at some changes there to accommodate non-light water technology. I think that is a good focus for 

that group on the transformational side. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you both. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Gillibrand, you are next. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Chairman Svinicki, I would like to build off 

the questions Senator Carper asked earlier in this hearing on the 

topic of cyber security. As you know, last week, the Administration 

again confirmed that Russian government cyber actors have targeted our critical infrastructure sectors, including the energy sector 

and nuclear power plants, in particular. 

These cyber attacks on nuclear companies and facilities are deeply alarming. I think everyone here recognizes the potentially devastating consequences if these malicious actors are able to compromise the critical safety functions of a nuclear power plant in the 

United States. 

The NRC cyber security rule requires all licensees to submit a 

cyber security plan designed to meet your requirements. Are licensees required to update those plans to respond to new or emerging 

cyber threats? If so, how, and how often? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Thank you, Senator Gillibrand. 

Our cyber security regulations are what we call performance 

based, meaning they describe the objective of securing a system 

against cyber threats. As the cyber threat changes and becomes 

more severe, our regulations are written to the outcome of that protected system so they do not, in the strictest sense, require modification based on evolution in the threat. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. What steps has the NRC’s cyber security directorate taken in response to these cyber attacks? 

Ms. SVINICKI. We closely participate with the FBI, the intelligence community, and our experts are engaged in monitoring the 

threat. The information that the FBI released last week was activities we were aware of and engaged in the interagency monitoring 

of that threat. 

122 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Are there any additional steps that should 

be taken to improve information sharing and reporting of cyber 

threats to the nuclear industry? 

Ms. SVINICKI. I would characterize there is not as much 

stovepiping as there has been historically. I think this is a very dynamic area, and the interagency is working closely to make sure 

entities who need this information, including clearances for cyber 

experts at the utilities themselves, I would characterize there is 

greater information flow than there had been historically. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Are there any changes proposed in the fiscal year 2019 budget request that would impact the NRC cyber security activities? 

Ms. SVINICKI. I am not aware of any. If there are any, I will provide that for the record. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you. 

As you know, Indian Point Units 2 and 3 are scheduled to shut 

down in 2020 and 2021 respectively. My office is closely monitoring 

the decommissioning rulemaking the NRC is currently undertaking 

which aims to set a new regulatory framework for plants after they 

shut down. 

I am concerned that the regulatory analysis published by the 

NRC in January 2018 proposes to relieve licensees of the regulatory burden of providing site specific analysis or determining 

when a decommissioning plant is no longer subjected to a number 

of emergency preparedness requirements. These include the removal of the emergency planning zone, the public alert and notification system, and the reduction of emergency response personnel. 

I am very concerned that the NRC is intent on moving forward in 

a one size fits all approach to decommissioning in an effort to make 

the process easier for the industry and not adequately balancing 

the concerns raised by stakeholders who have real concerns about 

the safety of the sites when there is still spent fuel sitting in spent 

fuel pools for years. 

What would be the safety rationale for not requiring sites specific 

analysis when allowing a decommissioning plant to significantly reduce its emergency preparedness activities? That would be for both 

of you. 

Ms. SVINICKI. Senator, the status of that rulemaking is that the 

staff has published a regulatory basis which includes some of the 

elements you have described. They have received comment on that 

and are now in the process of developing the proposed rule that 

would come before our Commission later this year. 

I know all members of our Commission will look closely at the 

public comment that has been received, and also the proposed rule 

will go out for comment as well. I will not pre-judge the outcome 

of that rulemaking process. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Just to add to your answer, Jeffrey, how do 

you intend to ensure the final decommissioning rule is balanced 

and addresses the concerns of stakeholders outside of the nuclear 

industry? 

Mr. BARAN. Thank you. I appreciate the concerns you have expressed. We have had two public comment periods so far in the 

early part of this rulemaking. We got 200 public comments from 

123 

States, local governments, non-profit groups, and communities, a 

lot of them raising concerns similar to the ones you just raised. 

I read all 200 of those comments. There are a lot of good ideas 

there. From my point of view, as an agency, we have to make sure 

we are looking thoughtfully at all the stakeholder comments we are 

getting with an open mind. We should be aiming to produce a balanced rule that addresses the concerns of a broad range of stakeholders. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you. You are committed as well to 

have a balanced rulemaking? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes, very much so, and to examine the public comment. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you so much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Gillibrand. 

Senator Van Hollen. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank both of you for being here. 

Madam Chairman, I think Senator Cardin covered some of the 

questions I was going to ask about the need to recruit more people—younger, talented people—into the NRC. 

I am going to ask sort of the other side of the question because 

work force stability, of course, is important to the mission of the 

NRC. We are proud to have the NRC in Rockville, Maryland. It is 

also obviously important to the folks in the surrounding area who 

are committed Federal employees. 

In the last 2 years, my understanding is the overall work force 

at the NRC has declined and dropped by about 12 percent, is that 

correct? 

Ms. SVINICKI. That is correct. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. Only for the second time in history, the 

NRC delivered RIF notices to employees, is that correct? 

Ms. SVINICKI. That is correct. Through attrition, we were able to 

find positions and were able to place the employees, so we did not 

involuntarily separate any of the employees in the RIF category. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. I appreciate the way that was managed 

under the circumstances. 

Do you anticipate any further RIFs going forward? 

Ms. SVINICKI. No, and Senator, I appreciate the opportunity to 

clarify. The budget request for fiscal year 2019 does indicate a decrease in positions. That has to do with our ability to request positions for work we anticipate. However, the budget does not anticipate the need for involuntary separations, even though some areas 

of work are more active and some areas of work are less active. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. Great. I am pleased to hear that. 

I wanted to follow up on a couple of questions I understand Senator Markey asked regarding Saudi Arabia’s interest in purchasing 

nuclear reactors and the possibility the United States would be a 

part of that. Westinghouse is obviously interested in going forward. 

What exactly is the role of the NRC when it comes to reviewing 

an overseas nuclear agreement? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify. 

Under the Atomic Energy Act, Section 123—which is why they 

are called 123 agreements—the NRC’s role is very specific. It has 

124 

to do with providing expert review of the narrow provisions of a 

broader 123 that have to do with export licensing which is a unique 

authority of the U.S. NRC. We provide just expert input to make 

certain that the few provisions of a 123 that affect our export licensing framework are accurately represented, and they can basically be implemented and effectuated under our regulatory framework. 

The broader political arrangements and discussions are well outside the scope of our participation in the 123. The Atomic Energy 

Act also stipulates that when the Secretaries of State and Energy 

convey a completed negotiated agreement to the President, the 

views of our Commission go in a separate letter that is sent that 

we attest to this narrow responsibility we have under the Atomic 

Energy Act. We are involved in the broader discussions. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. I understand you are not the lead negotiator, but you have a statutory role within this process. I understand you are responsible for authorizing licenses to export U.S. 

technology to foreign countries. 

The 123 agreement we signed with UAE; I assume the NRC participated in that the way you said, right? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. That is considered the gold standard in 

terms of preventing non-proliferation, isn’t that right? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes. Again, our views to the President certify that 

the role we have under the Atomic Energy Act is accommodated in 

the arrangement. We do not take a policy view on the broader nonproliferation aspect. On the UAE 123, I am not remembering that 

there was any opining on the gold standard or anything related to 

that. It is a brief letter that speaks to our narrow role under the 

Atomic Energy Act. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. I appreciate that. 

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that this question may be coming before the Senate. I do think on the policy ground, we need to 

be very vigilant in making sure that any sale of U.S. nuclear reactors meets the gold standard requirements to prevent nuclear proliferation. I am very concerned about a lot of the reporting in the 

newspapers suggesting that Saudi Arabia would not adhere to the 

same requirements as we apply to the UAE in that nuclear agreement. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Van Hollen. 

Senator Duckworth. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairwoman Svinicki, it is so good to see you again. 

During our last hearing, we began a conversation on how you are 

working to improve the safety culture at the NRC. At that time, 

you outlined NRC’s goals of creating a positive environment for 

raising concerns, promoting a culture of fairness and empowerment, and establishing expectations and accountability for leadership. 

However, since our conversation, a recent study developed by 

NRC’s Office of Enforcement at the Commission found that reprisal 

issues remain a concern. It appears that in passing the 2005 Energy Policy Act, Congress amended the definition of employer 

125 

under the Energy Reorganization Act to include DOE, NRC, and 

NRC contractors and subcontractors. 

However, a recent administrative law opinion issued by the Department of Labor last year found because the 2005 amendments 

did not explicitly waive sovereign immunity for whistleblower actions under the ERA, NRC employees still do not have whistleblower protections under that specific law. Right now, this interpretation of an unclear law is being appealed to the Administrative 

Review Board, and that decision could be appealed to a Federal 

Court of Appeals. This litigation could take years and cost thousands if not millions in taxpayer dollars. 

Would you agree with me that Congress could save taxpayer dollars and save the Federal Government time and energy by simply 

passing a technical fix that clarifies under the Energy Reorganization Act, NRC and DOE employees, contractors, and subcontractors 

are actually, in fact, entitled to the law’s whistleblower protections? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Thank you, Senator Duckworth, for your attention 

to this matter. 

We share the view that any suggestions or concerns about reprisal are something our Commission and senior agency executives 

take very seriously. As you have noted, there is ongoing litigation. 

Our agency is one of the relevant agencies in that litigation, so I 

want to be very careful in not speaking outside the framework of 

that ongoing litigation matter. 

Specifics of the legislation that you describe, I have not looked 

closely at what a fix or modification of that would do. If I could respond for the record, I think I could acquaint myself more fully 

with the proposal. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. That would be great. If you could do that 

for the record, that would be very helpful. We are happy to help 

you with that legislation. 

I would also like to continue our conversation on force on force 

testing. As you know, the NRC regularly conducts force on force 

testing at nuclear power plants which are critical to ensuring that 

we understand what our security vulnerabilities are at these facilities. 

We have 13 of them in Illinois. Over the past decade the results 

have been fairly consistent with one field exercise per year for the 

past decade. I am concerned that the NRC is considering reducing 

the number of force on force exercises they conduct in favor of exercises planned and conducted by the licensee as opposed to those 

done by the NRC. 

I understand the NRC is reviewing staff recommendations now 

on this very issue. Can you reassure me that safety and safety 

alone will determine the outcome of this decision and not the cost 

of the testing itself? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes, I can assure you of that. I am certain that our 

Commission broadly takes that same perspective. We would not 

want to see a diminishment in our expectation on the security levels and standards at U.S. nuclear power plants. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Commissioner Baran, would you like to 

comment on that? 

Mr. BARAN. Thank you. I would just add that you pointed out 

there was a recommendation to from two force on force exercises 

126 

to one and to have an NRC inspection of a licensee conducted force 

on force in lieu of NRC conducting that force on force. 

I voted on this matter. So far, we are still voting as a Commission on it. I do not support that approach. I think that would not 

enhance the effectiveness of our physical security inspection program or our force on force program. 

The only potential benefit there would be to reduce cost. That is 

actually far from certain because if you do just one force on force 

and you get something other than a positive result, it leads you to 

a situation where you have to contemplate perhaps rescheduling 

and replanning a second force on force at an even bigger cost than 

you would have had originally if you had just planned for two right 

off the bat. 

I have significant concerns with going in that direction. It is not 

something I support. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you. 

Chairwoman Svinicki, I understand that the NRC has rules governing cyber protection safeguards. I know Chairman Barrasso has 

mentioned Russian hackers have been targeting U.S. nuclear 

power plants and other critical facilities. 

Can the rules the NRC has now be strengthened to mitigate our 

vulnerability to these types of attacks? 

Ms. SVINICKI. We will always be looking at the cyber threat 

against U.S. infrastructure as it evolves. At the present moment, 

although we maintain a constant look at this, we think our regulations are written in a way that describes more the objective than 

the how. It does allow the measures to be adapted to the threat as 

it evolves without requiring a change in the regulations themselves. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Duckworth, for following 

up on my questions on cyber security. I appreciate it. 

We are finished with the testimony. 

I see Senator Markey has returned; if you would like a question 

or two. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to follow down this cyber trail because obviously the Department of Homeland Security has, in fact, released a report 

showing the Russians hacked into our power infrastructure including nuclear power plants. That is a massive threat to our country. 

Let me ask you this, Commissioner Baran. Are the American nuclear power plants prepared to deal with Russian attacks on our 

power plant system? 

Mr. BARAN. I think NRC’s cyber security regulations have been 

very forward looking. Long before I arrived on the scene, they were 

in place and are being implemented. I think the cyber security posture at our power plants is really quite good. 

Senator MARKEY. What grade would you give it right now? 

Mr. BARAN. I do not know if I could give it a grade. 

Senator MARKEY. I asked Joe Tucci, the CEO of EMC which has 

RSA as one of its components and Dell has now purchased EMC, 

but RSA is pretty much the state of the art in terms of cyber, and 

I asked him, how come there are so many successful cyber attacks 

in America? 

127 

He said, well, honestly, company CEOs just do not want to continually have to spend the money to have the highest possible 

standard in place. It is a constantly evolving process to make sure 

they keep buying our state of the art to protect because we are constantly upgrading, but they do not want to spend the money. 

Do you find any resistance from nuclear utility executives to constantly spending the money to have the update to ensure the 

plants have the state of the art, March 2018, cyber security built 

into their nukes? 

Mr. BARAN. I think the way we get around it is we require it. 

It is not an option. 

Senator MARKEY. I know you require it, but do they, in fact, comply, in your opinion? Do they do it? 

Mr. BARAN. We expect their compliance. I have not heard of any 

concerns our cyber security inspectors have had in that regard. 

Senator MARKEY. It is your opinion that the nuclear power plant 

operators in America are, in fact, using the state of the art cyber 

protections? You are saying you think those 98 plants, or whatever, 

are? 

Mr. BARAN. The way our regulations are set up, we identify the 

end state, as the Chairman mentioned, that you need to achieve. 

It is a performance based requirement. We do not say you have to 

use this widget or this technique; we say you need to be protected. 

That is the regulatory requirement. 

Senator MARKEY. No, I appreciate that. Let me ask you this. Are 

you familiar with the pathways which the Russians used to try to 

penetrate our nuclear power plants? Have you looked at those reports? 

Mr. BARAN. Our cyber security experts and those in other agencies have looked at that issue, yes. 

Senator MARKEY. Do you think, in fact, those pathways that they 

were trying to penetrate are secure? 

Mr. BARAN. The penetrations that occurred were to corporate accounts, which are separate from the operating reactor systems. 

That separation is key to the defense of those systems. 

Senator MARKEY. Do you have records of attacks or attempts to 

penetrate into the nuclear facilities themselves? Do you have reports of that you review in terms of the pathways we used and the 

security uniformly across the industry that has been adopted in 

order to preclude success? 

Mr. BARAN. I guess the piece I could point to there is in recent 

years, in the last couple of years, NRC has established a regulatory 

requirement for power plant licensees to send a notification to NRC 

in certain circumstances if a cyber attack, for example, were effective. We have not received a notification of that kind. 

Senator MARKEY. OK. How often are the Russians or others trying to penetrate the nuclear power facilities themselves? In the 

course of a year, how many times do you think that would occur? 

Mr. BARAN. I do not know the specific number. 

Senator MARKEY. Are we talking handful, dozens or more in 

terms of the totality of all nuclear power plants in the country? 

Mr. BARAN. I want to be careful about how specific we get, but 

there are a lot of threats, and there are a lot of attempts. It is not 

128 

just in the context of Russia. Cyber security is an evolving threat 

and an active threat. It is not a handful of issues each year. 

Senator MARKEY. It is not a handful? 

Mr. BARAN. It is not. 

Senator MARKEY. It is many more than a handful? 

Mr. BARAN. That is right. 

Senator MARKEY. OK. I think that is important to understand. 

How do you actually give a grade to the company in terms of 

whether or not their upgrading of the cyber protections, which they 

are purchasing from the private sector in order to have them installed, how do you evaluate that? Who does that? 

Mr. BARAN. We do not assign a letter grade, but our inspectors, 

our cyber security inspectors at NRC, who are expert in this area, 

will inspect them against our regulatory requirements to ensure 

they are in compliance. 

Senator MARKEY. Are you going to have the same standard for 

the nuclear fuels cycle facilities as you have for nuclear power 

plants? 

Mr. BARAN. We are working on that right now. 

Senator MARKEY. Will it be the same standard? 

Mr. BARAN. I do not know that it will be identical because the 

facilities are not identical. But I feel strongly that we need to have 

strong, effective cyber security requirements for our fuel cycle facilities as well. 

Senator MARKEY. What I learned from RSA is the whole key is 

you have to spend the money. These companies do not like to. They 

want to hire Wackenhut to do the force on force and have a selfgrade. They do not like spending money, I found, on security, nuclear power plant operators in general. 

I will be coming back to you. I just want to know what the frequency is with which they have to upgrade and buy the new state 

of the art cyber technologies to protect. There has to be some 

standard they are constantly being given to make sure they can 

pass. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much. 

Thank you very much for being here to testify today. 

Members may submit follow up written questions for the record. 

The hearing record will remain open for 2 weeks. 

I want to thank the witnesses for your time and your testimony. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:36 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

Æ