U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

30–623 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

FISCAL YEAR 2019 NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION BUDGET 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY 

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 20, 2018 

Serial No. 115–111 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan 

(II) 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio) 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

Ranking Member 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

Chairman 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

Vice Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio) 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

Ranking Member 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 2 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, 

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

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

opening statement ................................................................................................ 6 

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

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

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 8 

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

Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 64 

WITNESSES

Kristine Svinicki, Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission .......................... 11 

Prepared statement 1 ........................................................................................ 13 

Answers to submitted questions 2 ................................................................... 65 

Jeff Baran, Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 ............................ 27 

Stephen Burns, Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 ..................... 28 

Answers to submitted questions 2 ................................................................... 65 

1Ms. Svinicki submitted a written statement on behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Mr. Baran and Mr. Burns did not submitted separate 

written statements. 2The Nuclear Regulatory Commission submitted one set of responses to questions for the record that were sent to Ms. Svinicki and Mr. Burns. 

(1) 

FISCAL YEAR 2019 NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION BUDGET 

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2018 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

JOINT WITH THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:17 a.m., in room 

2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Shimkus (chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Upton, McKinley, Olson, Barton, Blackburn, Latta, Kinzinger, Johnson, Long, Bucshon, Flores, 

Mullin, Hudson, Walberg, Carter, Duncan, Walden (ex officio), 

Tonko, Green, Doyle, Matsui, McNerney, Welch, Loebsack, Schrader, Kennedy, Ca ́ rdenas, Peters, and Pallone (ex officio). 

Staff present: Samantha Bopp, Staff Assistant; Daniel Butler, 

Staff Assistant; Kelly Collins, Legislative Clerk, Energy/Environment; Wyatt Ellertson, Professional Staff Member, Energy/Environment; Jordan Haverly, Policy Coordinator, Environment; Ben Lieberman, Senior Counsel, Energy; Mary Martin, Chief Counsel, Energy/Environment; Brandon Mooney, Deputy Chief Counsel, Energy; Mark Ratner, Policy Coordinator; Annelise Rickert, Counsel, 

Energy; Dan Schneider, Press Secretary; Peter Spencer, Senior Professional Staff Member, Energy; Jason Stanek, Senior Counsel, Energy; Austin Stonebraker, Press Assistant; Madeline Vey, Policy 

Coordinator, Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection; Hamlin 

Wade, Special Advisor for External Affairs; Everett Winnick, Director of Information Technology; Andy Zach, Senior Professional Staff 

Member, Environment; Priscilla Barbour, Minority Energy Fellow; 

Jean Fruci, Minority Policy Advisor, Energy and Environment; Tiffany Guarascio, Minority Deputy Staff Director and Chief Health 

Advisor; Caitlin Haberman, Minority Professional Staff Member; 

Rick Kessler, Minority Senior Advisor and Staff Director, Energy 

and Environment; John Marshall, Minority Policy Coordinator; 

Alexander Ratner, Minority Policy Analyst; and C.J. Young, Minority Press Secretary. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Let’s call this hearing to order, and I will recognize 

myself 5 minutes, when I find it. It’s hidden in the back. Recognize 

myself 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

2 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Welcome to our hearing this morning as we examine the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission’s fiscal year 2019 budget proposal. The 

NRC’s essential role in licensing and regulating nuclear facilities is 

of great importance to my Illinois constituents. 

Illinois produces the largest share of nuclear-generated electricity 

in the country. Throughout the State, the commercial nuclear energy industry supports thousands of high-paying jobs, funds local 

school districts, and provides reliable, clean, baseload electricity 

around the clock. 

In fact, a little over 75 years ago, Illinois was the site, at a lab 

under the University of Chicago’s football field, where physicists 

and engineers first generated a self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction. We are proud to be the birthplace of nuclear technology. 

While I do not have any commercial nuclear power plants in my 

southern Illinois district, I do represent the Nation’s only uranium 

conversion facility, located in Metropolis, Illinois. 

In October, the plant’s owner announced it was suspending operations at the site due to market conditions for uranium. We have 

a glut of uranium on the market and lingering low demand, in part 

due to the suspension of the Japanese fleet of nuclear power plants 

in the wake of the Fukushima earthquake, or tsunami, 7 years ago. 

While there may not be an immediate fix to the uranium market, 

the most important policy to help my constituents return to work 

is a strong, positive outlook for our Nation’s domestic nuclear industry. 

To maintain a robust nuclear industry, Congress must consider 

the many different opportunities to provide a pathway to keep existing plants operational, while establishing the foundation for new 

nuclear energy deployment in the next decade. 

While mining, converting, enriching, and manufacturing nuclear 

fuel is a necessity to support the front end of the fuel cycle, we are 

long past due to manage the back end of the fuel cycle. 

As we do this, we have to recognize the uncertainty about our 

used fuel commitments will continue to be a political albatross 

around nuclear energy development until the Department of Energy starts sending clear signals and reconstitutes its nuclear 

waste management organization. 

I very much appreciate that last year the Commission, for the 

first time since 2010, requested funding to resume its review of the 

pending Yucca Mountain license application, as required by law. 

While it is still incumbent on Congress to provide the funding, 

it is refreshing to see an administration that is committed to following the law. 

As I have noted on many occasions, the NRC’s independent review of the license will answer the safety and environmental impact questions the State of Nevada has raised. 

To gain the public’s confidence in nuclear energy, we must have 

a functioning nuclear waste management program. The Commission’s strong legacy of effective and efficient regulation is another 

key component of public confidence. 

3 

However, the many pressures on the nuclear industry provide an 

opportunity for the NRC to reassess its regulatory process and 

flexibility. 

The Commission’s fiscal year 2019 budget sets the parameters 

for how the organization will steward its resources in a changing 

environment. 

Last month, we heard a clear message of urgency. As your 

former colleague, Bill Ostendorff, succinctly pointed out, our civilian nuclear energy industry infrastructure is the underpinning of 

our strategic nuclear defense capabilities. 

In fact, I went down and visited with Admiral Caldwell just last 

week, and it was a great visit and I would encourage a lot of my 

colleagues to do that. 

In turn, an agile regulatory regime that oversees the breadth of 

the nuclear supply capacity supports our national interests. 

Mr. Ostendorff’s testimony highlighted the critical need to advance a suite of nuclear policies to define our nuclear future and 

establish a durable program to sustain the industry for the next 

generation of nuclear leaders. 

This morning we will seek some of those answers, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 

address this critical issue. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS

Welcome to our hearing this morning as we will examine the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission’s Fiscal Year 2019 budget proposal. The NRC’s essential role in licensing and regulating nuclear facilities is of great importance to my Illinois constituents. 

Illinois produces the largest share of nuclear-generated electricity in the country. 

Throughout the State, the commercial nuclear energy industry supports thousands 

of high-paying jobs, funds local school districts, and provides reliable, clean, baseload electricity around the clock. In fact, a little over 75 years ago, Illinois was the 

site, at a lab under the University of Chicago’s football field, where physicists and 

engineers first generated a self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction. We are proud to 

be the birthplace of nuclear technology. 

While I do not have any commercial nuclear power plants in my Southern Illinois 

district, I do represent the Nation’s only uranium conversion facility located in Metropolis, Illinois. In October, the plant’s owner announced it was suspending operations at the site due to market conditions for uranium. We have a glut of uranium 

on the market, and lingering low demand, in part due to the suspension of the Japanese fleet of nuclear power plants in the wake of the Fukushima earthquake 7 years 

ago. 

While there may not be an immediate fix to the uranium market, the most important policy to help my constituents return to work is a strong positive outlook for 

our Nation’s domestic nuclear industry. To maintain a robust nuclear industry, Congress must consider the many different opportunities to provide a pathway to keep 

existing plants operational, while establishing the foundation for new nuclear energy deployment in the next decade. 

While mining, converting, enriching and manufacturing nuclear fuel is a necessity 

to support the front end of the fuel cycle, we are long past due to manage the back 

end of the fuel cycle. As we do this, we have to recognize that uncertainty about 

our used fuel commitments will continue to be a political albatross around nuclear 

energy development until the Department of Energy starts sending clear signals 

and reconstitutes its nuclear waste management organization. 

I very much appreciate that last year the Commission, for the first time since 

2010, requested funding to resume its review of the pending Yucca Mountain license 

application, as required by law. While it is still incumbent on Congress to provide 

the funding, it is refreshing to see an administration that is committed to following 

the law. 

4 

As I have noted on many occasions, the NRC’s independent review of the license 

will answer the safety and environmental impact questions the State of Nevada has 

raised. To gain the public’s confidence in nuclear energy, we must have a functioning nuclear waste management program. 

The Commission’s strong legacy of effective and efficient regulation is another key 

component of public confidence. However, the many pressures on the nuclear industry provide an opportunity for the NRC to reassess its regulatory process and flexibility. The Commission’s FY 2019 budget sets the parameters for how the organization will steward its resources in a changing environment. 

Last month, we heard a clear message of urgency. As your former colleague, Bill 

Ostendorff, succinctly pointed out, our civilian nuclear energy industry infrastructure is the underpinning of our strategic nuclear defense capabilities. In turn, an 

agile regulatory regime that oversees the breadth of the nuclear supply capacity 

supports our national interests. Mr. Ostendorff’s testimony highlighted the critical 

need to advance a suite of nuclear policies to define our nuclear future and establish 

a durable program to sustain the industry for the next generation of nuclear leaders. 

This morning we will seek some of those answers, and I look forward to working 

with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address this critical issue. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And with that, I have a minute remaining. Does 

anyone seek time? 

The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Tennessee for a 

minute. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In my home State of Tennessee, TVA is leading the way with 

three nuclear plants and seven units capable of generating an average of 7,800 megawatts of electricity each day. 

Watts Bar, and I know you all are familiar with Watts Bar— 

that’s near the northern end of Chickamauga Reservoir in east 

Tennessee—is the first new nuclear reactor built in the 21st century and supplies enough electricity for about 1.2 million households in the Tennessee Valley. 

Watts Bar experienced its fair share of challenges and setbacks 

in the process to becoming operational. Unfortunately, we are seeing those challenges across the country, and without a reasonable, 

modern, flexible regulatory system, the U.S. will continue to struggle to maintain existing plants, leaving little opportunity for new 

plants to come online. 

So it is essential that the NRC develop a more agile and responsive regulatory model equipped for today’s changing energy industry and security needs. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentlelady yields back the time. 

Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee, 

Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, and good morning. 

Thank you to both Chair Shimkus and Chair Upton for holding 

this hearing, and welcome back and thank you to our Chair 

Svinicki and Commissioner Burns for appearing before the subcommittees today. 

And let me extend a special welcome back to Commissioner 

Baran, who served with distinction as a professional staff member 

of this committee for a great number of years. 

So welcome to all of you. 

5 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s mission is to license and 

regulate the Nation’s civilian use of radioactive materials to ensure 

adequate protection of public health and safety, to promote the 

common defense and security, and to protect the environment. 

This deed is no easy task, and I want to put an additional emphasis on protecting health and safety. 

Members on this committee have a range of views on existing 

and new nuclear power, but I believe there is unanimous agreement that we need high standards for nuclear safety. 

So thank you to the Commission staff that have this awesome responsibility. We are here today to discuss the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission’s fiscal year 2019 budget request of $970.7 million. 

This represents an increase of about $60 million compared to the 

fiscal year ’18 annualized continuing resolution level. 

Much of this increase is being driven by the $47.7 million for activities related to the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level 

radioactive waste. 

Licensing activities related to the proposed Yucca Mountain Repository, which I am sure my colleague, Mr. Shimkus, was happy 

to see, are included in the request. 

I would also note the budget request represents a decrease of 149 

FTEs compared to the fiscal year 2018 annualized continuing resolution, with 123 of those FTEs coming from the Nuclear Reactor 

Safety Program. 

Over the past few years, Commissioners have appeared before 

this committee and provided updates on Project Aim, the Commission’s effort to right size the agency in light of changes and trends 

occurring in the nuclear industry. 

Without a doubt, the Commission has been streamlined. The 

budget has been reduced by about 13 percent and staff by over 500 

FTEs since 2014. This has been a steady trend. 

While I understand and appreciate the goals of making the Commission more efficient, continuing cuts at this pace is not a good 

way for such an important and technical agency to run. 

At some point, you are no longer capable of doing more with less. 

You just end up doing less, and safety is one place where doing less 

is nonnegotiable. 

So I would caution against continuing to push reduction targets 

if we are approaching a point where critical Commission functions 

such as safety inspection hours begin to suffer because, if the Commission is unable to maintain essential personnel or replenish its 

aging workforce or hire additional staff with expertise in new technologies, it could be the public that does suffer. 

And the industry will certainly suffer too with delays in licensing 

and review processes. The Commission must be staffed and 

resourced at levels appropriate for carrying out its critical oversight 

and safety missions. 

I also wanted to mention that we have spent quite a bit of time 

this past year discussing grid resilience, and Secretary Perry’s notice of proposed rulemaking to FERC, which would have compensated power generators with 90 days of fuel on site, was rightly 

rejected, in my opinion. 

6 

I know there are many Members that believe the nuclear industry is at a competitive disadvantage and nuclear energy production 

should be fairly compensated for its positive attributes. 

We may disagree which of those attributes are most important. 

But, in my view, the best way to ensure the existing nuclear fleet 

is on a level playing field is putting a national price on greenhouse 

gas pollution. 

I would encourage the industry supporters in Congress to consider having that conversation. 

Finally, I must mention that in just a few months, without Senate action the Commission will lack a quorum. I hope we can all 

urge our Senate colleagues to take up the nominations before then. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about what 

is next for the Commission and, again, I thank you all for being 

here and I yield back, Mr. Chair, the balance of my time. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman yields back his time. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 

Upton, the chairman of the Energy Subcommittee, for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. UPTON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning to everybody. My district, as you all know—many 

of you know—hosts three nuclear power reactors, and I certainly 

represent a very highly skilled, hardworking nuclear workforce 

that I visit often. 

All the men and women at the Cook and Palisades sites, including engineers, electricians, professional security workforce, indeed 

help provide clean electricity for thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of Michigan households and I appreciate their 

dedication, and I am proud of their positive impact on our community. 

This Congress, the Energy Subcommittee has been examining 

the various economic pressures in our wholesale power markets. It 

has become clear that our Nation’s fleet of commercial nuclear 

power plants is at a critical juncture due to the increased competition among generation resources. 

Complex electricity pricing rules, abundant natural gas supplies, 

and relatively stable energy demand have created unprecedented 

market challenges for nuclear power generation and, consequently, 

some power plants are ceasing operation prior to the end of their 

licensed service period. 

So as we consider the future of nuclear power generation, we 

should not forget the industry’s invaluable benefits to our Nation’s 

national security interest. 

The technological infrastructure of our nuclear industry supports 

the nuclear security posture of our nuclear navy, nonproliferation 

programs, and nuclear leadership over the safe, secure operations 

of nuclear facilities around the globe. 

And as we heard at a subcommittee hearing just last month, that 

position should not be taken for granted. A weakening domestic nuclear industry threatens our international credibility and our leadership. 

7 

The NRC plays a key role in shaping our nuclear future. The 

mission assures that our commercial industry operates safely. However, much of the NRC’s regulatory framework was developed 

based on technologies and industry structures that were set up 

some 40 years ago. 

In some cases, NRC’s authority and process extends even further 

back to President Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace program, an enactment of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. 

Just as this subcommittee is examining how the Department of 

Energy’s activities can be aligned with a 21st century energy outlook, so should the NRC consider how it can most effectively operate in a forward-looking manner. 

Today’s hearing offers the opportunity to hear how the NRC can 

adopt in changing industry dynamics and technologies in use. A 

more nimble energy agency can address these challenges and ensure its procedures do not become impediments to a robust industry and our national security interests. 

I note that next week will mark the tenth anniversary of the 

service of Chairman Svinicki. She recently passed former NRC 

Chair Nils Diaz and now is the second longest-serving Commissioner in history, only trailing Commissioner McGaffigan’s 14 

years. 

I should also note that nearly 40 years ago Commissioner Burns 

began his career at the NRC and rose through the ranks to become 

its general counsel prior to departing the nuclear energy agency. 

He returned to the U.S. when he was nominated and confirmed as 

Commissioner in 2014, so while he may not have the same tenure 

length, he certainly surpassed the Chairman in overall service with 

this organization. Thank you. 

And thank you, Mr. Burns, for your dedication during your 2 

years as Chair. Among other improvements in the regulatory process the NRC implemented its Project Aim initiative by prioritizing 

and rebaselining its activities. 

This allows reduced organizational costs, which ultimately saves 

tons of money for Michigan ratepayers. Thank you again. 

Also welcome back Commissioner Jeff Baran back to the committee. He was a counsel here, as mentioned earlier, and confirmed 

by the Commission. 

Clean and safe and reliable nuclear energy has got to remain 

part of our Nation’s electricity portfolio. I look forward to exploring 

the policies and, without objection, yield back the balance of my 

time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

Good morning and thank you for being with us today to discuss the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Fiscal Year 2019 budget request. 

My district hosts three nuclear power reactors and I represent a highly skilled, 

hard-working nuclear workforce. All the men and women at the Cook and Palisades 

sites, including engineers, electricians, and the professional security workforce, help 

provide clean electricity for thousands of Michigan households. I appreciate their 

dedication and am proud of their impact on those communities. 

This Congress, the Energy Subcommittee has been examining the various economic pressures in our wholesale power markets. It has become clear our Nation’s 

fleet of commercial nuclear power plants is at a critical juncture due to increased 

competition among generation resources. 

8 

Complex electricity pricing rules, abundant natural gas supplies, and relatively 

stable energy demand have created unprecedented market challenges for nuclear 

power generation. Consequently, some power plants are ceasing operation prior to 

the end of their licensed service period. 

As we consider the future of nuclear power generation, we should not forget the 

industry’s invaluable benefits to our Nation’s national security interests. The technological infrastructure of our nuclear industry supports the nuclear security posture of our nuclear navy, nonproliferation programs, and nuclear leadership over the 

safe, secure operations of nuclear facilities around the world. 

As we heard at a subcommittee hearing last month, that position should not be 

taken for granted; a weakening domestic nuclear industry threatens our international credibility and leadership. 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission plays a key role in shaping our nuclear future. The NRC’s mission assures that our commercial industry operates safely. 

However, much of the NRC’s regulatory framework was developed based on technologies and industry structure set up 40 years ago. In some cases, NRC’s authority 

and processes extend even further back to President Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace 

program and enactment of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. 

Just as this subcommittee is examining how the Department of Energy’s activities 

can be aligned with a 21stcentury energy outlook, so should the NRC consider how 

it can most effectively operate in a forward-looking manner. 

Today’s hearing offers the opportunity to hear how the NRC can adapt to changing industry dynamics and technologies in use. A more nimble agency can address 

these challenges and ensure its procedures do not become impediments to a robust 

industry, and our national security interests. 

I’d note that next week will mark the tenth anniversary of service for Chairman 

Svinicki with the NRC. She recently passed former NRC Chairman Nils Diaz and 

now is the second longest-serving Commissioner in history, only trailing Commissioner McGaffigan’s 14 years of service. 

I should also note that nearly 40 years ago Commissioner Burns began his career 

at the NRC and rose through the ranks to become its General Counsel prior to departing for the Nuclear Energy Agency. He returned to the United States when he 

was nominated and confirmed as a Commissioner in 2014. So, while he may not 

have the same tenure as Commissioner, he surpasses the Chairman in overall service with the organization. 

Thank you, Mr. Burns, for your dedication to the NRC. During your 2 years as 

Chairman, among other improvements in the regulatory process, the NRC implemented its Project Aim initiative by prioritizing and re-baselining its activities. This 

allows reduced organizational costs, which ultimately saves money for my Michigan 

ratepayers. 

I also welcome Commissioner Jeff Baran back to the committee. Commissioner 

Baran is in familiar territory as he was a counsel for this committee prior to his 

nomination and confirmation to the Commission. 

Clean and reliable nuclear energy must remain a part of our Nation’s electricity 

portfolio. I look forward to exploring what policies can be implemented to assure 

this is achieved. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman yields back his time. Sounds like purgatory. 

But having said that, the Chair now recognizes the gentleman 

from New Jersey, the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. 

Pallone, for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank you and our subcommittee ranker for holding 

this Nuclear Regulatory Commission oversight hearing on the 

President’s budget proposal, and I welcome Chairman Svinicki and 

Commissioner Burns. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Svinicki. 

Mr. PALLONE. And I got to watch it with you, huh? Svinicki. All 

right. 

9 

And Commissioner Burns, and I am particularly pleased to welcome back to the committee a distinguished former member of the 

Democratic staff, Commissioner Jeff Baran. 

Last year, I opposed Secretary Perry’s notice of proposed rulemaking to FERC that would have undermined functioning electricity markets by tipping it in favor of nuclear and coal, and despite that opposition I continue to believe that a safe, efficient, and 

modern nuclear fleet should be an important part of our Nation’s 

effort to combat climate change. 

However, nuclear power and technology still have challenges to 

overcome. For existing units, it’s critical that they be able to meet 

the safety needs of a post-Fukushima world, the security challenges 

of a post-9/11 world, and the financial requirements of a market 

with some of the lowest natural gas and renewable prices in history. 

These price pressures are contributing to the early closure of 

units across the country such as the accelerated shutdown of the 

Oyster Creek facility in New Jersey, and while Oyster Creek is 

very old and was due to close soon anyway, there are also newer 

plants capable of many more years of production that are threatened for closure because of these economic pressures. 

And as a result, many States are taking action or formally considering action to preserve the operation of the nuclear plants. 

The fate of these plants is up to the companies who own them, 

the Governors, and the legislatures of those States and others, and 

the courts, and those are the proper venues and players to make 

these decisions, not FERC. 

Meanwhile, advancements in nuclear technology, particularly in 

the area of small modular reactors, hold the possibility of a newer, 

safer generation of nuclear power, and I support the work that 

companies like New Jersey’s Holtec are doing in this area. 

The test for the industry is to show that such units can be 

brought online in a timely and cost-effective manner, a question 

that continues to remain unanswered. 

We also still need to address the storage and disposal of nuclear 

waste and the rapidly accelerating phenomenon of decommissioned 

units. 

The legislation authored by Chairman Shimkus that was overwhelmingly reported out of this committee last year is an important step towards dealing with that issue, and I hope to see it on 

the House floor in the near future. 

I believe there is an important role for nuclear energy to play in 

addressing global climate change, but I want to make perfectly 

clear that safety must come first. 

This is a critical moment in time for the nuclear industry and its 

regulators, and I commend the Commission for its ongoing efforts 

to adopt the size and structure of the NRC to today’s regulatory realities. 

However, it’s critical we ensure that the Commission has the 

staff and resources it needs not just to carry out its mission but 

to carry out it well. 

The job of the Commission is to regulate nuclear power for the 

benefit of all Americans, not just one industry or sector. So we 

10 

must work together to find a way forward for nuclear energy without sacrificing safeguards. 

So, again, I want to thank the Commissioners for coming. I look 

forward to the testimony, and I yield the balance of my time to Ms. 

Matsui. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR. 

I want to thank the subcommittee chairmen and ranking members for holding 

this Nuclear Regulatory Commission oversight hearing on the President’s budget 

proposal. I welcome Chairman Svinicki and Commissioner Burns, and I am particularly pleased to welcome back to the committee a distinguished former member of 

the Democratic staff, Commissioner Jeff Baran. 

Last year, I opposed Secretary Perry’s notice of proposed rulemaking to FERC 

that would have undermined functioning electricity markets by tipping them in 

favor of nuclear and coal. Despite that opposition, I continue to believe that a safe, 

efficient and modern nuclear fleet should be an important part of our Nation’s effort 

to combat climate change. 

However, nuclear power and technology still have challenges to overcome. For existing units, it’s critical that they be able to meet the safety needs of a postFukushima world, the security challenges of a post-9/11 world, and the financial requirements of a market with some of the lowest natural gas and renewable prices 

in history. These price pressures are contributing to the early closure of units across 

the country, such as the accelerated shutdown of the Oyster Creek facility in New 

Jersey. While Oyster Creek is very old and was due to close soon anyway, there are 

also newer plants capable of many more years of production that are threatened for 

closure because of these economic pressures. 

As a result, many States are taking action or formally considering action to preserve the operation of their nuclear plants. The fate of these plants is up to the companies who own them, the Governors and legislatures of those States, and the 

courts. Those are the proper venues and players to make those decisions, not FERC. 

Meanwhile, advancements in nuclear technology, particularly in the area of small 

modular reactors, hold the possibility of a newer, safer generation of nuclear power, 

and I support the work that companies like New Jersey’s Holtec are doing in this 

area. The test for the industry is to show that such units can be brought online in 

a timely and cost effective manner—a question that continues to remain unanswered. 

We also still need to address the storage and disposal of nuclear waste and the 

rapidly accelerating phenomenon of decommissioned units. The legislation authored 

by Chairman Shimkus that was overwhelmingly reported out of this committee last 

year is an important step toward dealing with that issue. I hope to see it on the 

House floor in the near future. 

I believe there is an important role for nuclear energy to play in addressing global 

climate change, but I want to make perfectly clear that safety must come first. This 

is a critical moment in time for the nuclear industry and its regulators. I commend 

the Commission for its ongoing efforts to adapt the size and structure of the NRC 

to today’s regulatory realities. However, it is critical we ensure that the Commission 

has the staff and resources it needs, not just to carry out its mission, but to carry 

it out well. The job of the Commission is to regulate nuclear power for the benefit 

of all Americans, not just one industry or sector, so we must work together to find 

a way forward for nuclear energy without sacrificing safeguards. 

Again, I want to thank the Commissioners for coming today, and I look forward 

to hearing the testimony. I yield the remainder of my time. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you very much, Ranking Member Pallone, 

and I’d also like to welcome the Commissioners for being here 

today. 

I’d like to echo the ranking member’s support for efforts to license an interim storage facility for spent nuclear fuel. 

As this committee is aware, it’s absolutely critical that we allow 

communities to redevelop shut-down reactor sites by moving forward with a process to consolidate spent fuel. 

11 

The current storage reality is wasteful of taxpayer resources and 

detrimental to communities. We have all seen the efforts to build 

a permanent repository repeatedly stall. 

But right now, we have a path forward to license a consolidated 

storage facility, meaning there is an opportunity to move the Nation’s spent fuel to one location. 

I am pleased that the NRC has docketed two applications for interim facilities and that the Commission is requesting the funding 

necessary to evaluate both concurrently. 

I look forward to hearing more from my Commissioners about 

the NRC’s work on the spent fuel storage licensing process. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentlelady and gentleman yield back their 

time? The answer is yes. 

We now conclude with Members’ opening statements. The Chair 

would like to remind Members, that pursuant to committee rules, 

all Members’ opening statements will be made part of the record. 

We want to thank all our witnesses for being here today and taking the time to testify before the subcommittee. Today’s witnesses 

will have the opportunity to give opening statements followed by a 

round of questions from Members. 

Our witness panel for today’s hearing will include the Honorable 

Kristine Svinicki, Chairman of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Honorable Jeff Baran, Commissioner, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Honorable Stephen 

Burns, Commissioner with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

We appreciate you all being here today. We will begin the panel 

with the Honorable Kristine Svinicki, and you are now recognized 

for 5 minutes to give an opening statement. 

Welcome to you all. We are glad to have you here. 

STATEMENTS OF KRISTINE SVINICKI, CHAIRMAN, AND JEFF 

BARAN AND STEPHEN BURNS, COMMISSIONERS, NUCLEAR 

REGULATORY COMMISSION 

STATEMENT OF KRISTINE SVINICKI 

Ms. SVINICKI. Good morning, Chairmen Upton and Shimkus, 

Ranking Members Pallone and Tonko, and distinguished members 

of the subcommittees. 

My colleagues and I appreciate the opportunity to appear before 

you today to discuss the U.S. NRC’s fiscal year 2019 budget request 

and related matters. 

The funding we are requesting for FY 2019 provides the resources necessary to accomplish our mission, which is to license 

and regulate the civilian use of radioactive materials to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety and to promote the 

common defense and security. 

The NRC’s fiscal year 2019 budget request, including resources for our Office of the Inspector General, is $970.7 million, which represents and overall increase of $59.8 million compared with the fiscal year 2018 as continuing resolution. 

This requested increase in resources is largely tied to the proposed activities related to the licensed application authority at the 

12 

Yucca Mountain geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and 

other high-level radioactive waste. Additional funding is also requested for further development of the regulatory infrastructure 

needed to review advanced reactor technologies and for additional 

work on accident-tolerant fuel. 

The NRC proposes to recover $815.4 million of the requested 

budget from fees assessed to NRC’s licensees. This would result in 

a net appropriation of $155.3 million, with $47.7 million to be derived from the nuclear waste fund. 

The 2019 request for our largest single budget line, the nuclear 

reactor safety program, reflects an overall funding increase of $25.8 

million but a decrease of 125 full-time equivalent employees when 

compared to the 2018 annualized CR budget. 

The 2019 budget request for the agency’s other principal budget 

line, nuclear materials and waste safety programs, is $183.7 million, and that reflects an increase of $46.8 million. 

Again, this is principally attributed to the resources requested 

for the high-level waste program, as previously mentioned. 

In summary, the NRC’s budget request reflects our continuing efforts to achieve additional efficiencies while carrying out our core 

safety and security mission but also preparing for future responses 

to current realities. 

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

appear before you and for your continuing support of our important 

public health and safety mission. 

We will be pleased to answer your questions at the appropriate 

time. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Svinicki follows:] 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you very much. 

The Chair now recognizes the Honorable Commission Baran for 

5 minutes. 

I am sorry. We are fighting over spelling back here so—— 

STATEMENT OF JEFF BARAN 

Mr. BARAN. Chairman Upton, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking 

Member Tonko, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

It’s great to be back 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 effort to 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 results of Project Aim in our very limited external hiring have been dramatic. 

In just 2 years, NRC’s workforce has declined by more than 12 

percent. The agency started the current fiscal year with around 

3,200 employees. That’s about the same staffing level as in 2006, 

before NRC started to 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 on 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. 

As Chairman Svinicki noted, the NRC has launched a transformation initiative to identify any steps the agency should take to 

improve its approach to reviewing new and novel technologies such 

as advanced reactors, accident-tolerant fuel, and digital instrumentation and controls. 

I think that’s 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 efforts underway at NRC including the implementation of post-Fukushima safety enhancements, the power reactor decommissioning rulemaking, the 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, and I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes Commissioner Burns for 5 minutes. 

28 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN BURNS 

Mr. BURNS. Thank you, Chairman Shimkus. I also appreciate 

being here, Chairman Upton, Ranking Members Pallone and 

Tonko, and distinguished members of the committee, appreciate 

the opportunity to testify before you today. 

I also appreciate Chairman Upton’s kind words. I can tell you, 

40 years ago at this point in time, I had a big weight off my shoulders because I knew in my last semester of law school I had a job 

coming up in August. So that was saying—— 

I didn’t actually expect I would stay in this field for 40 years, but 

it’s been an interesting one. I’ve always enjoyed not only the legal 

issues but working with technical staff and others, both in our 

country and internationally. 

I support the Chairman’s testimony this morning and agree that 

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

As a number of you have noted, the NRC has undertaken some 

significant efforts over the last few years to improve that efficiency 

and effectiveness. 

Project Aim was a major part of those efforts. But additional improvements have included implementation of improvements to the 

NRC’s rulemaking processes, to its budget formulation, to its fee 

calculations and billing, and also to agency staffing and workforce 

planning, although the vast majority of the specific tasks under 

Project Aim were completed and its spirit still endures and we are 

still working to continue to be an effective agency. 

It’s important not to lose sight, however, of the fundamental safety and security mission of the agency. We can always strive to perform better in that mission and to better risk inform our decisions, 

but that safety and security of the public must always be the central focus. 

Having spent 37 years of my professional career with the NRC, 

I know there are times that when we have had to learn from our 

experience—learn to do better and to improve our performances irregular. 

But on the whole, I can say that I think we hit the mark the vast 

majority of the time in achieving a high standard of performance, 

and if anything, over those nearly 40 years, I’ve come to the conclusion it’s never good to say, ‘‘We’ve always done it that way, let’s do 

it more that way.’’ 

There’s always ways—and I can think of times across my career 

where we’ve had to reset, think about how we are doing things, 

think about how we can do them better, and I think that’s what 

we are doing under the Chairman’s leadership. 

Over the past year, we’ve continued to hold the industry accountable through regulation and oversight, ensure the effective implementation of the lessons learned from the Fukushima Daiichi accident. 

We focused on cybersecurity, worked effectively with our partners and the States to ensure the safety of our radioactive materials program and brought, and sought improved performance by 

fuel cycle facilities. 

29 

At the same time, we’ve undertaken reviews of the first small 

modular reactors submitted for design certification. We are implementing strategies to be better prepared for the review of advanced 

reactor, or Generation IV designs. 

Credit belongs largely on a day-to-day basis to the work of our 

dedicated staff in achieving these accomplishments, and I appreciate their day-to-day focus on ensuring adequate protection of the 

public. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you, and 

I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. We thank you. 

I will now begin with questions, and I will start with recognizing 

myself for 5 minutes. 

So the first one will go to Chairman Svinicki and Commissioner 

Burns. First, let me thank you for your vote last summer to take 

the next steps to determine what is necessary for the resumption 

of the Yucca Mountain licensing process. 

A few weeks ago, NRC staff had a public hearing to discuss what 

steps are needed to reconstitute the licensing support network, or 

LSN. The LSN is a database of licensing documents associated 

with the Yucca Mountain license application. 

The NRC requested $30 million in fiscal year 2018 to continue 

its statutorily required review of the license application and $47.7 

million for 2019. 

Will you please describe what Commission-level decisions and 

guidance will be necessary when Congress appropriates funding to 

resume the NRC’s adjudication of the license? 

Chairman. 

Ms. SVINICKI. Thank you, Chairman Shimkus. 

In broad terms, if funding is provided, we need to begin to rapidly put in place the infrastructure to resume the adjudication that 

was suspended some years ago. 

As you have mentioned, in preparation for that and under the 

court’s remand to expend previously appropriated nuclear waste 

fund money—which we have at this point, I think, based on the 

monthly report we sent to you yesterday, a little bit under half a 

million left—we have looked at alternatives to reconstituting the 

document library that would support the evidentiary process in the 

licensing hearing, and also we are undertaking a high-level real estate survey of facilities that might be available in Nevada to support conducting the hearings near to the facility, which is our policy. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Commissioner Burns. 

Mr. BURNS. I would agree with what the Chairman said. I think 

the point she makes is essentially where we are at this is that— 

at the point where the adjudicatory proceeding was suspended several years ago and that’s the point where we would begin again, 

because the staff has done the safety evaluation reviews and the 

environmental reviews that they need to do up to date. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And let me go both to the same questionnaires. 

What are we doing to preserve the workforce expertise that may 

be necessary to adjudicate the license? 

Chairman. 

30 

Ms. SVINICKI. That adjudication having been suspended so many 

years ago, candidly, the staff were, upon completion of the safety 

evaluation report and environmental work, reassigned to other duties, which was a way to keep them within the agency’s span 

should funding be provided. 

However, over the course of time, we have had some significant 

retirements, by my observation, of people that had long history on 

and knowledge of the project. 

The good news is that, with the safety evaluation report being 

concluded, I have asked if an expert was assigned and was fresh 

to the project, if they had the relevant scientific expertise, could 

they just acquaint themselves with the record, with the conclusions 

of their predecessors, and I am told that some experts view that 

they could possibly become conversant in as little as 6 months. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Great. 

Commissioner Burns. 

Mr. BURNS. I would align myself with the Chairman’s answer. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. That’s fine. Thank you. 

Let me ask this question: Chairman, can you just state—because 

we have new members of this subcommittee, new members of Energy and Commerce—so what was the basic conclusion from the 

safety and evaluation report, which you issued a couple years ago? 

Ms. SVINICKI. The NRC’s expert staff documented their conclusion that there were no safety or environmental impediments to 

the issuance of a license. 

However, they did note—and this is a construction permit license, because this is two-step licensing—they did note, however, 

that the applicant, the Department of Energy, lacks the water 

rights and they don’t have clear ownership or title to the land, 

which is a requirement of our regulations. But those were the two 

impediments to issuing the license, and they were not safety or environmental. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And those were some of the things we tried to address in our legislation, just for some of my colleagues. There’s also 

a—correct me if I am wrong—there was also a statement that, if 

constructed and the facility, long-term geological repository, was in 

place, based upon current information or current knowledge, that 

storage would be safe for a million years. Wasn’t that a conclusion 

of the safety and evaluation report? 

Ms. SVINICKI. That was the conclusion of the expert staff. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Anyone disagree with that—the rest of the panel? 

Thank you. 

With that, I think I will just yield back my time and recognize 

the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and again, thank you to our 

witnesses for being here. 

The mission of the agency is very critical. So it is important that 

we understand your resource requirements. 

Some Members may believe that the Commission has too heavy 

of a hand, that burdensome regulations on the industry are hurting 

its competitiveness. 

So to our Chair Svinicki, can you give us a sense of the types of 

major new rules the Commission has approved in recent years? 

31 

Ms. SVINICKI. Well, to take ‘‘recent‘‘ fairly broadly, post-9/11 

there was a suite of new security requirements that were imposed 

and after Fukushima, although the regulations were not significantly modified, new measures were required for what we call severe low probability hazards, very severe earthquakes and floods 

and other things that were additional protections that were mandated at nuclear power plants. 

Also in response to the cybersecurity threat against the United 

States in recent years, the NRC has instituted new cybersecurity 

regulations. So those are the major areas that come to mind in the 

last 10 years. 

Mr. TONKO. And as it relates to licensees, have there been many 

major rules for new requirements on those licensees? 

Ms. SVINICKI. The areas I described did involve new rules. You 

know, major, minor—I would say that the post-9/11, that was a 

major impact in new requirements. 

Fukushima I would not describe as being a major impact, and 

the cybersecurity regulations are sincerely new regulations. 

Mr. TONKO. Commission Baran, what’s your sense? Is the Commission imposing many new and burdensome requirements on industry? 

Mr. BARAN. Well, I can give you a shorter-term perspective. Commissioner Burns and I have been on the Commission now about 

31⁄2 years. 

In that time, I can think of only three final rules that went into 

effect that involve any kind of new regulatory requirements. 

Only one of those three rules relates to power reactors. That was 

a rule that involved a requirement for a licensee of a power reactor 

to let us know—notify us in the event of a cyber event. That was 

a low-cost rule, and one that I think is pretty clearly needed. 

The other two didn’t involve reactors at all. One had to do with 

medical uses, and was something that, by and large, the medical 

community was very interested in having done, and then the final 

one affected only a handful of materials licensees in the Caribbean. 

It had to do with meeting treaty requirements. 

So since late 2014, three rules—that’s it. I would actually argue 

there are a couple of rules we should finalize that we haven’t yet. 

One relates to post-Fukushima safety enhancements. It’s the rule 

on mitigating strategies that’s been before the Commission for a 

while. That’s a rule that’s really the culmination of years of work 

to enhance safety after Fukushima. 

There’s another rule that would assist in better preparing the 

agency for accident-tolerant fuel applications by having technologyneutral performance-based standards in place as opposed to the 

standards we have now, which are actually technology-specific. 

We have particular technologies that are established into regulations. If you want to do something new and innovative, you’re looking at an exemption to do that. 

So it’s been very limited over the last 31⁄2 years, and I think 

there are actually a couple we should do. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. And it seems to me that Project Aim has 

achieved its goals. I fully understand the need for the Commission 

to right size but, as I mentioned earlier, I am concerned about the 

32 

consequences of continuing staffing reductions at this rate moving 

forward. 

Could anyone explain the potential impacts of further significant 

FTE reductions? 

Ms. SVINICKI. I would just respond, Mr. Tonko, that right now 

the budget we’ve submitted for FY ’19 we are confident does not 

have or cause a diminishment of our ability to carry out our safety 

mission. 

In my time on the Commission, we were once at a peak of slightly over 4,000 employees. Onboard strength—the number reported 

to me yesterday was just a few over 3,000. 

So we have come down quite a bit since the days of the nuclear 

renaissance, and I think the one thing that we are looking at is 

high fidelity in terms of our workforce planning. 

This is something we pay a lot of attention to, to make sure that 

as we have attrition we are not losing the core competencies that 

we need. 

We are also very focused on training and development of staff so 

that they can fulfill future needs as staff retire. 

Mr. TONKO. Right, and I appreciate that. That still seems like a 

huge cut. 

I heard earlier, as Chair Shimkus talked about that expertise for 

Yucca Mountain, I know the Commission has an aging workforce 

and, similar to hiring the next generation of NRC staff, we are seeing new technologies including advanced reactors being developed 

and an increasing need for cybersecurity. 

So within those disciplines we have, you know, a concern also. 

I am guessing these changes require new expertise among the 

Commission staff. If hiring freezes continue and the next generation of Commission staff cannot be recruited, what is the potential 

loss of institutional knowledge? 

Ms. SVINICKI. We do not have—although we have strict hiring 

controls in place, we do not have a hiring freeze in place. What we 

do is we look very closely at the core competencies of retiring staff 

and work to make sure we either have redundancy and/or are 

training people for the future. So we do monitor that closely. 

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman yields back his time. 

Chair now recognizes the chairman of the full committee, Mr. 

Walden, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome our 

panel today. I was upstairs, and we got an opioids investigative 

hearing going on. So I kind of have to bounce back and forth, as 

do some of my colleagues. 

There’s enormous potential with the development of small-scale 

modular reactors including from my home State of Oregon in 

NuScale, and I know NRC staff has met a significant milestone 

earlier this year when they determined that SMR design would not 

be required to meet certain offsite power requirements, which 

avoided unnecessary and unneeded regulatory planning. 

So Chairman Svinicki, will you please provide an update on the 

status of NRC’s review of the SMR design application, and to your 

knowledge is NRC staff on track to meet its targeted 42-month reVerDate Mar 15 2010 15:55 Jul 11, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\115THCONGRESS\115X111NRCBUDGET\115X111NRCBUDGETWORKING WAYNE
33 

view window, including meeting the various milestones within the 

overall review period? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Thank you, Chairman Walden. 

As you note, the NuScale design was docketed for review, and although we are in early days and early months of that review, the 

staff is proceeding on schedule with what we call interim milestones of the review. 

I’ve also had an opportunity to engage the applicant, NuScale. 

They provided positive feedback that the NRC staff is proactive on 

the other item you mentioned, which is the resolution of the unique 

and novel elements of this design and resolving anything that 

arises in terms of aligning our regulatory framework and regulations with the new and enhanced features of this design. So my observation is that the review is proceeding according to schedule so 

far. 

Mr. WALDEN. And are there outstanding policy issues that must 

be addressed to successfully complete this licensing process, that 

you’re aware of? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes, but I—so there are policy issues being resolved regarding both NuScale and small modular reactors, broadly. 

But those have high visibility within the agency. I would assess 

that the NRC staff has scoped the universe of those issues and 

there are policy resolution plans for each of them. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right. And what is the NRC’s forecasted total 

cost to complete the NuScale design review, and are you aware if 

NRC is currently performing with respect to the forecasted budget? 

Ms. SVINICKI. My previous answer had to do more with the 

schedule. I would need to take that question for the record. I am 

not sure of what our estimates are as far as cost or man-hours expended. 

Mr. WALDEN. Recently, the NRC staff implemented a new procedure to manage what are known as requests for additional information, or RAIs. 

Are you aware if NRC staff applied this new RAI process to 

NuScale’s SMR application? If so, can you speak to the number of 

RAIs relative to any comparable licensing action? 

Ms. SVINICKI. The new discipline around requests for additional 

information has been applied to the NuScale review and has been 

applied broadly throughout the agency. 

A brief description would be that, prior to requesting additional 

information from an applicant, the NRC expert must identify the 

safety or environmental conclusion that is supported by that data, 

and what that does is it ties the request to the agency’s underlying 

findings that we need to make. 

NRC managers report that that discipline has really improved 

the efficiency and effectiveness of the request for additional information process and it is in place for NuScale, although I don’t have 

a specific report on how it’s affected the numbers of requests. 

Mr. WALDEN. Yes? 

Mr. BARAN. Mr. Chairman, I would just add I had a meeting last 

week with NuScale, and this issue came up and what they reported 

to me was that they had kind of going into this process an estimate 

of how many of these requests for additional information they 

34 

would likely have. But the numbers have been lower than what 

they anticipated. So it’s going well now. 

Mr. WALDEN. Oh. All right. Very good. Very good. 

I had the opportunity to go to Idaho Falls with Chairman Mike 

Simpson and tour the INL lab there, too, and I know some of this 

may get built out there eventually. But the lab is doing amazing 

work in space nuclear fuel and their other missions. I was very, 

very impressed. 

Chairman, one other question. It’s more rhetorical than anything 

else, but not hard to answer. You have served on the Commission 

with a full complement of five Commissioners as well as four, and 

now three. 

While the current setup allows the NRC to fulfill its mission, 

would you agree that a full slate of five Commissioners as established in law allows for a more robust organization and diverse 

viewpoint and decision making? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes, and may I add my full-throated support for 

my optimism and hope that the Senate will act on the three qualified nominees, including my colleague for reappointment. I hope 

that that happens before June 30th. 

Mr. WALDEN. That would be a hint-hint from this body to the 

other that we’d like to see these Commissions all fully—I will call 

it staffed, but fully filled with very competent people, and we’ve 

dealt with this out of this committee with other Commissions that 

are still waiting for nominees upstairs. 

In fact, the DEA, it’s an acting administrator. We don’t even 

have anybody nominated to be the administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration. And so it’s something that I think we 

share—that robust, full-fledged Commissions are good things. 

So with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership on 

these nuclear issues and other energy environment issues, and I 

would yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank the 

chairman and ranking member for holding today’s hearing on the 

NRC budget. 

The NRC does important work, and it’s essential we have a body 

adequately funded for their mission. While the budget is the focus 

of today’s hearing, there’s a few other policy I would like to focus 

on as well. 

It’s been 33 years since Congress passed a nuclear waste policy 

act, and we still haven’t a permanent or interim storage facility, 

cheating ratepayers out of billions of dollars in collecting fees and 

leaving utilities holding the bag for thousands of gallons of nuclear 

waste. 

This Congress needs to pass—enact legislation authorizing the 

creation of more than one interim storage facility while we work 

with States and agencies toward opening a permanent geological 

repository. 

My questions—Chairman Svinicki and Commissioners, thank 

you for being here today. Approximately 90 percent of your budget 

35 

comes from annual fees assessed to the NRC licenses. Is that correct? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes, that’s correct. 

Mr. GREEN. As some of the older nuclear sites continue to shut 

down, do you expect a strain on the Commission’s budget for the 

loss of revenues from these fees? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes. As the mathematics work, as the number of 

operating reactors declines, the fixed costs of the regulatory program are spread amongst fewer licensees. Therefore, it does have 

an effect of increasing the burden on each remaining operating reactor. 

At some point, mathematically that reaches a point that it would 

be very difficult to support. 

Mr. GREEN. I know the Chair and the Commissioners are in a 

different issue, but—or concern. Do you support opening of an interim storage facility? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Our Commission, because we are the safety and security regulator, would be policy neutral on whether or not the Nation should move forward with an interim storage facility. 

We would be the independent arbiters of the safety of that facility through issuance of a license. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. With the Yucca Mountain permanent storage 

issue being what it is, what would be the benefit of opening an interim storage? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Well, again, not as a policy view of our Commission but as a practical matter, it would take sites that have permanently shut down and other locations that are storing a lot of spent 

nuclear fuel, and it would move it into one safe and secure location. 

But that’s not a policy view of our Commission. It’s simply an observation. 

Mr. GREEN. Do you believe the private industry could be capable 

of safely and responsibly operating an interim storage facility 

under supervision? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Well, we will reach that determination if either of 

the two contemplated storage locations should move forward with 

the licensing again. 

The Holtec site in New Mexico is under our review right now, 

and the Waste Control Specialists location in Texas has been suspended at the applicant’s request. However, there is some signal 

that that may move forward under new ownership. 

Mr. GREEN. Currently, those two applications you mentioned for 

consolidated member storage facilities have been submitted. 

I have to admit both of those storage facilities geographically are 

fairly close to each other—I think maybe even share the same strata in west Texas and southern New Mexico. 

NRC—one is in Andrews County and one is in Lee County in 

New Mexico. Where are these applications currently at process? I 

know you said the one in Texas temporarily suspended, although 

there’s been a huge amount of investment, I think, in both of them. 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes. The Holtec facility in New Mexico has been 

submitted. We have docketed that application, which means that 

we’ve assessed that it is complete for purposes of review. So we’ve 

begun the review of that application. 

36 

We were at the stage of reviewing the WCS Texas location. However, the applicant asked us to suspend. There is an acquisition of 

that company now ongoing. The new owners have indicated that 

they will be giving us some communication in the near future 

about the potential resumption of that. 

We don’t know if that would be asking us to resume what we had 

in house or if they’re going to modify or somehow have a revised 

approach. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I have no other questions, but I know you and I 

and a number of people share the frustration that decisions were 

made in the ’80s that have been put off now until a new century 

and, hopefully, this Congress can actually move that ball down the 

road, so to speak, or either that, change the field. But Congress 

needs to do something, and thank you for holding this hearing. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Chairman thanks the gentleman. 

The Chair now recognizes Chairman Upton from Michigan for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would start off by 

saying in Friday’s New York Times on the front page there’s a 

story that’s headlined ‘‘U.S. Says Hacks Left Russia Able to Shut 

Utilities.’’ 

The first sentence of that story reads, ‘‘The Trump administration accused Russia on Thursday of engineering a series of 

cyberattacks that targeted American and nuclear power plants and 

water and electric systems, and could have sabotaged or shut 

power plants off at will.’’ 

So my question is, What can you tell us in a nonclassified answer 

that relates to the story specifically? Can you tell us if they were 

penetrated in a safety-significant consequence? 

I would note that the story continues to say that Russian hackers 

had not leapt from the company’s business networks into the nuclear plant controls. Is that still accurate? Can you give us that assurance? 

And what role does the NRC have with these—in hearing about 

these situations? What technical expertise concerning power reactors is relevant that you might be able to share with us this morning? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Thank you, Chairman Upton, and respecting the 

open setting, I would state that the NRC’s role is that we are fully 

integrated with the FBI, the Justice Department, and the other 

agencies that made the announcement last week. 

These were matters known to us prior to them being publicly released on Friday. Our role is not the security of the electricity grid 

as a whole. We leave that to our colleagues at the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission. 

In terms of the penetrations, of course, as the committee is well 

aware through its work on cybersecurity, the cyberattacks against 

the United States are persistent and serious, and the U.S. Government Interagency, including the U.S. NRC, are involved in constant monitoring of the sophistication of these attacks—of the success, but even the attempts. There’s a lot of monitoring of the unsuccessful attempts. 

37 

It is true that corporate networks at U.S. nuclear utilities were 

probed, as was described in the announcements. However, safety 

systems at operating nuclear power plants were not penetrated. 

This is principally due to the fact that these systems are isolated 

from the corporate systems, and that provides a measure of, if you 

will, air gapping of that, and you’d have to leap over that, which 

is technologically, at least to date, not possible to do. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. 

The NRC sends the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee a monthly status on NRC’s licensing activities, staffing, and 

related information. Would you be able to send that report to us 

as well? 

Ms. SVINICKI. I see no reason why—— 

Mr. UPTON. Yes. That’s an easy one. 

Ms. SVINICKI [continuing]. We would not provide that. I am surprised that we are not. But yes. 

Mr. UPTON. And in January, NRC’s executive director of operations initiated a transformation effort with a focus on identifying 

transformative changes to NRC’s regulatory framework, culture, 

and infrastructure. 

And, as you know, Chairmen Walden, Shimkus, and I wrote recently to express our interest in this initiative, and we appreciated 

your timely response to the letter, which was received yesterday. 

This NRC effort appears centered on new and novel technologies, 

including in the areas of digital instrumentation and controls, accident-tolerant fuel, advanced reactors, big data, et cetera. 

Yet, the benefits of these new technologies require a change in 

how NRC executes its mission and ultimately regulates the nuclear 

industry. 

I understand that the NRC staff will be providing recommendations and strategies for implementation to the Commission in May. 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes, although I am aware that they’ve received in 

excess of, I think, 500 or 600 proposed transformation initiatives. 

So if the staff were to need additional time to synthesize and prepare a set of recommendations for the Commission, just for myself 

I would be supportive of that. I think they’ve been kind of deluged 

with good ideas. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman yields back his time. 

The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, Congressman Pallone from New Jersey, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My questions are of Mr. Baran. In her written testimony, the 

Chairman notes that, while the fiscal year 2019 budget request 

represents a proposed increase in funding for the Commission overall, most of that increase would go towards activities related to the 

Yucca Mountain project and reviewing advanced nuclear technologies. 

While I am not looking to quarrel with the increased focus on 

these articular programs per se, I am concerned about what those 

choices mean for other activities that I believe must be priorities 

for the Commission. 

38 

So Commissioner Baran, I understand that NRC recovers the 

majority of its budget through fees, and I have some questions 

about the proposed fees and what it means for staffing at the NRC. 

First, I am concerned by the sharp drop in full-time employees 

at the Commission and what this means for safety. Do you believe 

that the Commission has the amount of employees it needs to do 

its job well, not just adequately? 

Mr. BARAN. I think most of the cost-cutting measures we’ve implemented to date over the last few years make sense. 

But I would echo Mr. Tonko’s point. I don’t think any further 

steep reductions would be sustainable. Going forward, I would like 

to see our funding and FTE levels stabilize. 

I think we need to be careful that we are not so focused on cutting costs that we do erode the technical capabilities of the agency 

or our inspection activities. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. 

And a second question is, Is the current 90 percent fee structure 

putting undue pressure on the Commission’s budget because of the 

shrinking number of nuclear plants and the economic pressure the 

industry is facing due to competition? 

Mr. BARAN. Well, as Chairman Svinicki noted earlier, you know, 

in theory, if you have fewer operating plants, that that increases 

the amount each remaining operating plant would have to cover. 

Mr. PALLONE. And she actually said that at some point it would 

be unsustainable. 

Mr. BARAN. Yes. We haven’t gotten to that point yet and, in large 

part because of Project Aim, we have seen our costs come down 

over the last few years. So fees have not gone up over the last few 

years for power plants. They’ve gone down, actually. 

But at an extreme, if there were a large number of plants that 

shut down, you could have an effect there where it would be a challenge. 

Mr. PALLONE. But you’re saying, as she did, that that’s, you 

know, something that could happen but you don’t see it happening 

in the immediate future? 

Mr. BARAN. It has not happened to date, and I don’t see it as 

something that, you know, we are worried about right now. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. Thanks so much. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman yields back his time. 

The Chair now recognizes the chairman emeritus, Joe Barton 

from Texas. 

Mr. BARTON. Well, thank you. More importantly, I am the current vice chairman, such as that is. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I stand corrected. 

Mr. BARTON. Well, I will take both. I think they’re both complimentary. 

My question is a basic question. I am looking at the briefing 

book, and it says that you get $804 million in fees. What portion 

of that is supposedly going into the high-level waste fund to help 

dispose of high-level nuclear waste? 

Ms. SVINICKI. None of that amount. Again, the Yucca Mountainrelated activities are all funded from the appropriations from the 

nuclear waste fund, and we have to execute and keep that money 

39 

in budgetary purposes. It is executed and outlaid separately from 

the fee collection. 

Mr. BARTON. So the $804 million are operating fees from the existing reactors. Is that correct? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes. Those are invoiced directly from the NRC to 

the utilities, and then we receive the payments from them. 

Mr. BARTON. And the fee that the utilities pay to help dispose 

of high-level waste, if we were ever to license one that’s a separate 

fund and a separate amount of money in addition to these other 

fees? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes. It was separately enacted in the Nuclear 

Waste Policy Act of 1982. The Department of Energy established 

one mil, which is a thousandth of a cent, I think, for per kilowatt 

hour charge that ratepayers paid in their utility bills, and I think 

that that was then collected by utilities provided to the U.S. Treasury. 

Mr. BARTON. And how much of that, Madam Chairwoman, has 

been collected over the history of its collection? Do you know? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Many tens of billions. But I would have to respond 

with a precise figure. Of course, the fee is in suspension now because the U.S. utilities went to court and said, in the absence of 

progress on the disposal site, they asked for relief, and the collection of that fee has been suspended for some years now. 

Mr. BARTON. So it’s accrued as a contingent liability, but it’s not 

actually been collected from the utilities. Is that right? 

Ms. SVINICKI. You know, I am not sure of the court’s treatment 

of that in their decision. I know that they offered the relief of the 

suspension of the collection of the fee. 

I don’t know if the liability continues to accrue and upon resumption of activity on Yucca Mountain if that would be then reimposed 

on the utilities. I am not sure. 

Mr. BARTON. Now, you’re aware that we passed a bill that’s languishing, I believe, in the Senate that would change the law and 

it would allow for licensing of a high-level waste permanent repository, but also it would allow temporary storage to also go forward? 

Mr. SHIMKUS. If the gentleman would sustain, it’s languishing in 

leadership, not the Senate. 

Mr. BARTON. Oh, I thought we had passed it in the House. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Not on the floor. 

Mr. BARTON. I stand corrected. I can’t blame that on the Senate, 

then. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. You can blame it on leadership. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BARTON. I will. 

But Subcommittee Chairman Shimkus has been laboring, you 

know, very heroically to get some money appropriated so we could 

actually begin the review and hopefully the license of a permanent 

waste repository. 

I believe that’s about $130 million. John, is that right? 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I am sorry? 

Mr. BARTON. How much are we asking for to actually let high- level waste be reviewed: $150 million, $130 million? 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, in the fiscal year ’18 it was $120 million to 

DOE and $30 million to NRC, and then in fiscal year 2019 it’s 

40 

$47.7 million for the NRC and another $120 million for DOE, I believe. 

Mr. BARTON. It’s fun to ask questions of the subcommittee while 

you guys are out there. Shows what a good subcommittee we have. 

In any event, my question to you, Madam Chairwoman: Does the 

NRC support Chairman Shimkus in his effort to actually get some 

real money appropriated so we can proceed with the review of a 

high-level waste permanent repository? 

Ms. SVINICKI. The NRC has requested funding in our budget for 

fiscal years 2018 and 2019 to resume these activities. 

Mr. BARTON. So that’s a yes. 

Ms. SVINICKI. But as an independent safety regulator, we have 

not taken a policy position on the pending legislation. 

Mr. BARTON. Well, I take that as a yes. 

I am going to yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman yields back his time. 

The Chair now recognizes his gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 

Doyle, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you and 

the ranking members of the committee for holding this hearing 

today. 

As many on this committee know, I am a strong supporter of nuclear energy. I am greatly concerned by the dramatic increase in 

plant retirements or announced retirements in the last few years. 

Prior to three plants retiring in 2013, no reactors had retired 

since 1998. We then faced another round of retirements and are 

now staring down eight more announced retirements starting in 

October 2018 and through the summer of 2025. 

These retirements represent a loss of reliable and affordable electricity and family-supporting jobs, and it’s not like the demand for 

thousands and thousands of megawatts these plants provide disappears. 

As the Energy Information Administration explains, the vast majority of this lost generation has been replaced with either coal or 

natural gas, and it seems very likely that that trend will continue 

into the future. 

As I said at our nuclear infrastructure hearing in February, it’s 

imperative that we maintain or even bolster our nuclear fleet here 

to adequately address climate change, and I hope our committee 

pursues greater action on the issue in the future. 

Madam Chairman, let me ask you, and I want to follow up on 

one of the responses that you provided on an important question 

from Representative Green regarding the NRC’s fee structure. 

There are bipartisan legislative proposals in both the House and 

Senate that provide a backstop for fees that NRC could collect from 

each plant. 

I would think that with increased appropriations, if necessary, 

this would provide greater certainty to your agency as well. 

Otherwise, I fear the NRC may face the situation where the dramatic drop in plants from which you can collect fees jeopardizes 

your agency’s ability to generate a sufficient operating budget without being overly draconian. 

I think many could see this as becoming a downward spiral. 

Chairman, let me ask you: Do you think our committee should purVerDate Mar 15 2010 15:55 Jul 11, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\115THCONGRESS\115X111NRCBUDGET\115X111NRCBUDGETWORKING WAYNE
41 

sue or consider changing the NRC’s fee structure to make it more 

sustainable both for the NRC and the individual plants? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Our Commission hasn’t established a position on 

this. But speaking as a 10-year member of the Commission and answering for myself, I would note that the potential wave of retirements is noticeable and appreciable, and although I don’t know at 

what point the number of operating reactors has diminished so far 

that the 90 percent fee recovery is not sustainable, I think that the 

predicted number of potential shutdowns does make this a timely 

issue for the Commission and the Congress to engage on a dialogue 

on this matter. 

Again, the 90 percent recovery is a provision of law. So, if it is 

something that looks like it is having an unintended consequence 

or an unsupportable effect, it would be, in my view, appropriate for 

the Commission and your committee to examine the question. 

Mr. DOYLE. OK. Thank you. 

Let me ask you some efficiency questions, too. Your testimony 

highlighted the NRC’s recent announcement establishing of a 

transformation team that would, in your words, seek to identify potential transformative changes to the NRC’s regulatory framework, 

culture, and infrastructure. 

Do you have a time line as to when we could expect those proposals, and what type of changes can we anticipate? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Transformation is meant to encompass not just a 

small, easily implementable change, which we are terming more an 

innovation than a transformation. 

The team that’s been chartered to look at the proposals I believe 

has in excess of 500 or 600 proposals now pending. Those come 

from both inside the agency, but they’ve also engaged broadly on 

transformative and innovative organizations. 

So the Commission is scheduled to receive a set of recommendations in May. But I think that the amount of proposals that have 

been generated may make the staff want to have a little more time 

to evaluate those, and then we would take the proposals and recommendations they make to us out of that process and consider 

those after we receive them in May. 

But, again, I am trying maybe to signal a little bit of opening for 

relief with the staff. I think it would be difficult for them to look 

at 500 or 600 ideas in the amount of time that they have. 

Mr. DOYLE. Yes, I can appreciate that. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. I am going to yield back my time. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Would the gentleman yield his last 26 seconds? 

Mr. DOYLE. Yes, sure. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. When the payments are made to utilities based 

upon the nonperformance of the Government, where does that 

money come from? Do we know? 

Ms. SVINICKI. This is perilous, because this is my memory of the 

court’s decision. I thought they suspended the collection from the 

ratepayers—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. They did. 

Ms. SVINICKI [continuing]. So that the utilities are not receiving 

any revenues, because their request of the court was to be allowed 

to suspend the recovery of it from consumers. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Anyone else can answer that. 

42 

Mr. BARAN. You’re talking about the litigation piece? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Oh. Oh. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Right. 

Mr. BARAN. That comes from the judgment fund. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And the judgment fund—— 

Mr. BARAN. Is taxpayer funds. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. Thank you. With that, I thank my colleague. 

Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Olson, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. OLSON. I thank the Chair, and welcome to our three witnesses. 

This first question is for you, Chairman Svinicki, and you, Commissioner Burns. 

Last August, the NRC issued a press release announcing it was 

going to conduct a review of, quote, ‘‘past administrative regulations,’’ unquote, to find any that are outdated or duplicative. 

That was supposed to start in the fall of 2017. However, I 

haven’t heard anything about that since then. So my question is, 

Will either of you talk about, first, why reviewing these regulations 

is important for an industry that is struggling, and number two, 

is there an update on time we can inspect this report and move forward? 

Chairman, you first, ma’am. 

Ms. SVINICKI. I will begin. Thank you. 

I think that the voting has moved along on that proposal, and 

I believe that mine may be the lagging vote to complete the Commission’s deliberation on the matter. 

It is still under review by the Commission in terms of the Federal Register notice and other underlying things that would kick off 

that review. So it is still contemplated, and I suspect it would move 

forward in the coming months. 

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Burns, do you want to add something to that, 

too? 

Mr. BURNS. Yes. What I would add, one of the things that—this 

was an issue that came to my attention when I was a Chairman, 

and how it came up is, you know, drop-in visits from utilities, 

interactions I had at conferences and things like that, and it’s—the 

question of there may well be in terms of some of the administrative reporting requirements going of the structure of them, for example, that might be more efficient, and I think that’s what we are 

intending to look at. 

The example would be—and I can’t pull, unfortunately, out of my 

head right now maybe a good example—but the idea was we are 

asking particular reporting requirements in an age—like, when I 

began at the agency, we didn’t work through the internet. 

We worked through—fax machines was the technology of the, 

you know, of the day. So some of those types of things—how you 

can report—you know, what you need to report. 

It’s not that reporting is bad or doesn’t need to be done but can 

you do it more efficiently, you know, through electronic communication—are there duplications and things like that? That’s the type 

of thing I think I would like to get at. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you. 

43 

The final question is for all three of you. There have been some 

situations where disagreements between headquarters and the 

NRC region have resulted in NRC being unable to make timely decisions to provide necessary certainty to licensees. 

In one case, a licensee chose to shut down the reactor because 

headquarters in the regions were at an impasse. What’s the process 

for resolving these disagreements between headquarters and the 

regions to ensure that timely decisions are made and the licensees 

are provided regulatory certainty? 

Ms. SVINICKI. The NRC is obligated to provide clarity and give 

timely decisions. We are also obligated to implement a cohesive and 

coherent program across the United States so that a regulatory 

outcome in one region would be the same outcome in another region. 

Like any large organization, this requires very effective and continuous communications between the agency’s very senior executives, the Commission, and a faithful execution of our regulatory 

framework across the country. 

Are we perfect? No, although I don’t recognize the specific incident you allude to. 

This is something that both our inspector general and the Government Accountability Office occasionally audit for us, and we do 

look at the consistency of the findings and regulatory outcomes 

across the country. 

But there are a lot of inspectors and a lot of individuals in the 

loop. Again, the basic process is escalation through management, 

through executives and the agency, and then coming to one unified 

decision. 

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Baran, very quickly, I have 48 seconds left to 

add something to the Chairwoman’s comments. 

Mr. BARAN. No, I think she covered it very well. 

Mr. BURNS. I agree. 

Mr. OLSON. OK. And one final point of observation. 

Chairwoman, congratulations. Your Michigan beat my University 

of Houston Cougars in the NCAA finals—going to the Final Four. 

But they’ll play another Texas team, and pretty quick you will hear 

from Mr. Flores about his Aggies. So I yield back. 

Ms. SVINICKI. Thank you. I wondered if I might hear something 

while Chairman Upton was in the room but—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Oh, I hope the gentleman’s yielding back his time. 

Mr. OLSON. I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California I would 

like to personally thank for all her work on this issue, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

As I outlined earlier, I am extremely supportive of efforts to 

transfer our country’s civilian-spent nuclear fuel to a consolidated 

storage facility. Communities across the country, including those 

near the former Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station in Sacramento County, have been waiting decades for a spent fuel storage solution. 

44 

And I have to also thank Chairman Shimkus’ willingness to work 

together on these spent fuel issues. We were able to make real 

progress as his Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act moved 

through this committee, and I continue to support our compromise 

that was included in the bill. 

Chairwoman Svinicki—is that right?—can you please tell us 

more about the consolidated interim storage facility licensing process generally? What do you look for in an application? How is it 

evaluated? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Thank you for that question, Representative Matsui. 

As you noted in your earlier remarks, the agency—the NRC—has 

one current and one suspended review in front of us for the development of consolidated interim storage facilities. 

There is a facility contemplated in New Mexico, and the contractor is Holtec. We have docketed that application for review, and 

the review is ongoing. 

In general, it’s our estimate that it would take approximately 3 

years to conduct this type of review. We have some experience. In 

the 1990s, there was a similar proposal of private fuel storage in 

Utah. 

However, we issued the license as an agency, but the facility was 

never developed. But, again, to return to the two active contemplated facilities, the first is the Holtec facility in New Mexico. 

The other is in Texas and it is Waste Control Specialists. That 

review was suspended at request of waste control specialists. Their 

company is undergoing a merger or acquisition. 

I am not—so it may be an acquisition. The new owner, although 

that process is ongoing, has indicated that they will be making a 

communication to the NRC regarding that suspended review. 

We don’t know exactly what form that would take. They, of 

course, have the option of modifying or withdrawing that and submitting something different. 

So, if they were to just ask us to reactivate the review that is 

suspended, that is something that could be more readily done. 

If they want to modify or significantly alter the proposal, then we 

would just have to wait to see what our estimate of the time to review it would be. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. If you take the first step there, what are your 

next steps in the licensing process if you restart this? 

Ms. SVINICKI. The general process involves both a comprehensive 

safety review, and a separate team of environmental experts will 

conduct a review of any environmental impacts of the facility or the 

proposed action. 

Those proceed in parallel tracks and so there is some synergy 

and expertise between those two teams, and we develop a safety 

evaluation report and then an environmental review and those are 

the basic products that come out of our review. 

We are looking for no negative impacts on public health and safety and in accordance with storage and transportation regulations 

that we have that are very well established. 

Ms. MATSUI. Can you outline some of the differences between the 

facilities envisioned by the two applications? 

45 

Ms. SVINICKI. I think, in general, they are very similar, much 

more similar than they are different, and there may be some differences in the way that they’ve structured how they intend to operate or the fuel that they would take. But I would need to respond 

with those details, for the record. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. Certainly. 

And as I said earlier, I am pleased to see that you requested adequate funding to be able to consider both the WCS and the Holtec 

license request in fiscal year 2019. 

It’s critical that we move forward with both licensing process at 

the same time in order to maximize our chances of really reaching 

a viable interim storage solution that reduces the burden on taxpayers. 

What constraints on licensing are you facing at your current 

funding level? 

Ms. SVINICKI. You’re correct that we have requested funding in 

fiscal year 2019 for two reviews. I would also note that, although 

we do not have an enacted level for fiscal year 2018, yet we do 

have funding in there for two, as well. 

Even though the one is suspended, we provided a budget flexibility so that, if it were resumed, we would be able to begin that 

in the current fiscal year. 

So we are not aware that we have any shortfalls in those requested amounts. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. Fine, and thank you very much, and I appreciate—I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentlelady yields back her time. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, 

for 5 minutes. 

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

thanks to our Commissioners for being with us today. 

The NRC’s fiscal year 2019 budget request includes about $10 

million to develop the regulatory framework for advanced nuclear 

technologies. 

While the NRC is required to recover about 90 percent of its 

budget from fees charged to licensees, the Commission is allowed 

to request certain funding to be appropriated by Congress outside 

of the fee base. 

Though I would note the Advanced Nuclear Technology Development Act, which I sponsored and was unanimously passed by the 

House in January of this year, provides—or last year, excuse me— 

provides for this funding to be exempt from the fee recovery base. 

Similar to that provision, in my legislation, NRC’s budget request for this funding in previous years provided for a direct congressional appropriation. 

Would any of you like to address why the source of this funding 

from off the fee base that’s subject to fee recovery has changed 

from the previous years? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Thank you for that question, and I realize that 

Congress has indicated a willingness to provide direct appropriated 

funds instead of recovering this from the fee base. 

I would observe, perhaps commensurate with the continued work 

that we are doing on advanced reactors, it is our projection that in 

46 

fiscal year 2019 we may have actual submittals of designs for review. 

And so some of the thinking about having it be in the fee base 

is that we do try to allocate and recover costs from a company if 

the costs are directly attributable to that company. 

So in fiscal year 2019 is the earliest date at which we think we 

may have a company come in with an actual design submittals. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. Just to clarify—just to make sure of that—so 

that you would support my legislation which would amend the underlying statute to clarify the source of the funding to develop a 

regulatory framework for that advanced nuclear technology? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Our Commission has no policy view, but as a member of the Commission, not as Chairman, I would indicate that the 

funding that is provided off fee base has been, I think, advantageous because developers will come in and engage the NRC if 

they know that they’re not going to receive an invoice every time 

they want to come in and learn more about the regulatory framework or perhaps float a concept of a design attribute that they’re 

worried that we would never license. 

And so Congress’ support of money off the fee base, I think, is 

generating a regulatory efficiency because the technology developers are more likely to come in and get early regulatory engagement, and I think it’s also helping us that, when we get a design, 

we’ll know a lot more about it. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. 

Use of the digital instrumentation and control, or digital I&C 

technology, is of growing importance for the current nuclear fleet 

and the next generation of reactors. 

This technology can enhance safety, reliability, and efficiency 

while replacing obsolete analog components. Many licensees are not 

pursuing modifications that implement digital technology due to 

uncertain regulatory approaches and associated challenges. 

For new plants, the uncertainty risks the promise of advanced 

digital I&C systems will not be accomplished. 

To address these issues, industry has formed a digital I&C working group to engage industry experts with the NRC staff to resolve 

high-priority technical issues, improve the regulatory infrastructure, and facilitate efficient implementation of DI&C projects. 

Madam Chairman, in reality, as a number of our nuclear reactor 

facilities have passed 4 years of operations, much of the technology 

still being used in these facilities can be dated back to World War 

II. 

Do you believe that updating these systems and components to 

digital technology is important to sustaining these facilities? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes. The obsolescence issues in the supply chain 

are very real, and it is not only important, I think it will be essential for the NRC to develop a working framework for the adoption 

of digital I&C technologies. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. 

Commissioner Burns, do you believe there is an obligation to acknowledge potential safety benefits with increased usage of digital 

controls, and how do you view these benefits can be represented in 

NRC’s regulatory regime? 

47 

Mr. BURNS. Yes, I would agree that the newer digital controls 

have benefits. I’ve seen that from when I’ve gone to power plants, 

in terms of areas where they have been able to implement it. 

What we have to do, which I think—what our Chairman was alluding to is, we need to keep on our staff in terms of working with 

the industry in terms of getting over some of the humps, if you 

will, that become some barriers toward better integration on some 

of these systems. 

I think we are seeing it in the new technologies. It’s been a lot 

in terms of, as you noted, the retrofitting onto what were originally 

analog systems and getting more digital systems in there. 

But it’s something I am certainly in favor of us continuing to 

work on. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, my time has expired, and I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman yields back the time. 

Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I thank the chairman, and I thank the Commissioners for your work. 

Last year, Secretary Perry issued a proposed rule that power 

plants that have long-term fuel storage have a financial advantage 

over those that don’t. That was overturned by the FERC. 

Do you think that was a good idea, each one of you, given the 

financial crunch that nuclear plants are facing? Starting with the 

Chairman. 

Ms. SVINICKI. Our Commission was not involved in that, and we 

are not economic regulators like our colleagues at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 

Candidly, even as a personal matter, this is outside my realm of 

expertise. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Secretary? 

Mr. BARAN. This is pretty far outside NRC’s mission here. We 

leave this to FERC. 

Mr. BURNS. Right. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. Well, the next question was, Do you think 

the traditional nuclear power plant is viable, moving into the future, you know, in terms of economics? Do you think they’re going 

to be viable? 

Ms. SVINICKI. My understanding, again—and I don’t have access 

to any proprietary business information, I read the same reporting 

as others do—but some of the units in the regions where they operate are operating at kind of breathtaking losses and are not economic. 

Others operate in other markets in the country and have other 

regulatory rate recovery mechanisms—that they are profitable. So 

it appears to be a very geographic situation. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. That’s interesting. 

Do you think the new technology is going to be more economic 

than the older technology like the small modular reactors? Any—— 

Ms. SVINICKI. It’s difficult to say by their design attributes. They 

appear to preliminarily offer certain efficiencies, but I think the 

competitiveness of this technology in the market is dependent on 

48 

natural gas prices and other things into the future that I am not 

really even expert on. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. All right. I will change the subject. 

You know, local buy-in is critical, in my opinion, for a nuclear 

waste repository. 

How much chance is there for a local buy-in in Yucca Mountain? 

Whoever wants to answer that. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman needs to define ‘‘local.’’ 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I would say the State of Nevada. Is that 

State of Nevada going to tolerate moving forward with the Yucca 

Mountain storage facility? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Well, again, we are the independent licensing body 

that would make the ultimate determinations on issuance of a license. 

So the State of Nevada, many Nevada counties and also California counties are parties to that licensing proceeding, and we are 

the quasi-judicial body over that. So I think it’s perilous for us to 

opine on that. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. Well, in my opinion, again, complete transparency is absolutely necessary for a long-term storage repository 

to be accepted. 

What is the NRC doing to make sure that there’s transparency 

in these sorts of deliberations? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Well, I would note that the adjudicatory proceeding 

has, gosh, I think maybe two dozen admitted parties—that those 

proceedings are all conducted publicly. There are over 300 specific 

challenges issued that will be adjudicated if that is funded and that 

adjudication occurs. 

So, again, that is a public licensing proceeding where all of these 

matters in contention or challenged would be litigated in a very 

public forum. 

Mr. BARAN. I would just add, if the adjudication resumes, I think 

it’s essential for NRC to hold the hearings in Nevada close to 

where many interested stakeholders are located. 

That’s been NRC’s longstanding policy, that if you have a contested adjudication that it be held, you know, as close as to the vicinity of the proposed facility. 

There’s, obviously, very high public interest in this proceeding if 

it were to resume. So my view is it’s very important that those 

hearings be held in Nevada. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Are there any other sites around the country 

that are being considered, and if there are, are you reaching out, 

you know, in advance to get local interest and buy-in? 

Mr. BURNS. No, because the law requires us to consider the 

Yucca Mountain application. That was the consequence of the 1987 

Amendments Act, which focuses on Yucca. So we are not authorized to go look at other sites, at this point. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. But wasn’t the Nevada site also held up—I 

mean, if you’re not allowed to do it by law elsewhere and you’re not 

allowed to do it in Nevada, what choices are there? 

Mr. BURNS. No, the Waste Policy Amendments Act 1987 directed 

the NRC and I think also DOE to focus on the Yucca Mountain 

site. 

49 

So that’s why the efforts that have gone on that eventually led 

to an application in the mid-2000s focused on Yucca. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I yield my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. They are correct. The gentleman yields back his 

time. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 

Kinzinger for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank 

all of you for being here. Thanks for being at our hearing. 

You know, I think it’s unbelievable that we are still talking 

about Yucca Mountain years and years later, and people’s opposition to it is based on witch science, you know, and concerns and 

it’s the law and it’s the right thing to do and anyway—but my district is home to four nuclear power plants, in Byron, Braidwood, 

Dresden, and LaSalle. It’s the most of any district in the country. 

Meaning that the work you all do is vital not only to the safety 

of these communities but also to my constituents who work in 

these plants, pay their utility bills, and especially in Illinois rely 

on nuclear power to power their homes and businesses no matter 

the weather. Fifty percent of power is, in fact, nuclear in Illinois. 

H.R. 1320, which I sponsored with Representative Doyle, includes language to control corporate overhead costs and keep them 

in line with other Federal agencies. 

I am concerned about a lack of transparency and accountability 

in the corporate support budget proposal, because these costs are 

passed along to ratepayers, including my constituents, through 

charges that the NRC charges to the NRC licensees. 

Specifically, the fiscal year 2019 budget requests an increase of $1.5 million for corporate support, even though staff is decreasing 

by 108. 

The justification states the increase is a result of salary and benefit growth, increases for ITS at management, operations, maintenance, and security of core IT systems, and targeted investment 

and development and modernization efforts. 

However, there’s no details or support in the budget. To the 

Chairman, can you explain in more detail why there’s an increase 

in corporate support costs? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Thank you, Representative Kinzinger. 

In general, you have described the areas that are causing the increase, and if we have not provided a detail, perhaps we can work 

with your staff after the hearing to provide some fuller 

supplementing detail on this. 

I would note that the cost of living—the percentage increases 

that have been funded in general agencies have been asked to find 

those within existing budgets. 

Also, as our workforce gets smaller, it tends to be older employees do stay with the agency and they received certain higher levels 

of seniority. 

Also, the benefits part of salary and benefits for every Federal 

employee with increases in healthcare costs, there is some escalation in that figure year to year due to rising healthcare costs. 

Also, the NRC does have, as part of Governmentwide IT modernization, we have some unsupported platforms for various agency 

IT systems. 

50 

I know we report to other committees of the House regarding our 

overall IT modernization and also the securing of those systems 

against cyber threats, and there are increasing costs throughout 

the Government related to those matters. 

I think in general those are the nature of the expenses that 

caused the increase in the fiscal year 2019 budget. 

Mr. KINZINGER. I see. I just think—you know, the important 

point I want to make is, obviously, continue to take tangible steps 

to maintain discipline on that, as you know. 

It’s Congress’ responsibility to regularly review statutory authority and, when appropriate, to make updates reflecting our changing 

world. 

For example, the outlook for global nuclear power is fundamentally different from when Congress first allowed the use of peaceful 

atomic energy in 1954 or established the NRC in 1974. Congress 

hasn’t completed a comprehensive reauthorization of the NRC in 

over 30 years. 

To the Chairman, are there legacy provisions, including the foreign ownership control or domination restrictions or the required 

advisory committee or reactor safeguards, that warrant revisiting 

by Congress? 

Ms. SVINICKI. As a general matter, it is useful to revisit a statute, although I would note that I continue to be impressed with the 

wisdom that is enshrined in the Atomic Energy Act. 

I think, for a statute as old as it is, there was a lot of foresight 

on having, you know, technology, flexibility, and things like that. 

But there are the many intervening decades of experience in the 

United State nuclear power program in general. The technology is 

understood at a vastly deeper level now, and there are also many, 

many operating reactor years and decades worth of experience. 

So I think that relooking at what the smart individuals in the 

1950s thought is probably a worthwhile endeavor. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you. 

I think it’s important to note, you know, I think the United 

States is losing or has lost its edge in nuclear power and we’ve 

given it to other countries, and that’s a big problem and something 

that I think we need to address wholeheartedly. 

And lastly, to Commissioner Burns: Are there other areas Congress should examine, given the state of nuclear energy today, in 

your mind? 

Mr. BURNS. Going back to your question on the Atomic Energy 

Act, I appreciate in your bill you noted a couple areas where I 

thought were worth looking at, in terms of foreign ownership in a 

mandatory hearing. 

I agree with Chairman Svinicki. One of the, I think, the beauties 

of the Atomic Energy Act is the flexibility that allows the Commission to adapt over time. 

So there’s some of these that are legacy provisions—mandatory 

hearing provisions, for example just because I was doing some research earlier this year on it. It was really actually a punishment 

of the Atomic Energy Commission for a lack of transparency. 

It actually imposed it both at the construction permit and operating license level, and it was because the AEC wasn’t transparent 

51 

about its licensing. I think we’ve come a long way since 1957 and 

then 1962 on that. 

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

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman yields back his time. 

Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Vermont, Mr. Welch, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you very much, and I thank the Commissioners. 

My concern that I want to address is decommissioning. In 

Vermont, Vermont Yankee, located in southern Vermont right on 

the Massachusetts and New Hampshire border, was one of the 

first—I think the first merchant plant to be decommissioned. 

So we are sort of at the tip of this spear addressing the combination of issues between the industry that has to shut that down and 

the local and State communities that want to have a say in the 

process. 

And over the course of the last couple of years, Senator Sanders 

and Senator Leahy and I, on behalf of Vermonters, have been raising some questions that we want included in rulemaking: 

One, the lack of State and local stakeholder involvement in the 

decommissioning process is a concern. 

Two, the questionable uses of the decommissioning trust fund, 

such as for spent fuel management, is a recurring issue at the 

Vernon plant. 

Three, the reality that the use of safe stored decommissioning 

procedure will effectively delay the cleanup in the redevelopment 

of the nuclear site for decades is a big issue for us. We’d like to 

put that place back into operation, sooner rather than later. 

And then four, the reduction of emergency planning functions 

during periods when spent fuel remains are in spent fuel pools. 

That’s an ongoing concern. 

That’s an issue for us in Vermont. But as more and more plants 

are going offline, that’s going to be an issue for them, as well. 

And the questions that I wanted to start asking about were on 

the rulemaking process, and in the initial phases of this it appeared that the NRC in fact was paying attention to many of those 

concerns that I just cited, but there’s been a tug of war in the process, and the industry concerns appear to me, and I think to Senator Leahy and Senator Sanders, to be paramount. 

They want flexibility on some of the safety issues, but they really 

are resistant to the four issues that I mentioned. 

So that’s of real concern to us, and not just to us, because this, 

as I mentioned, is going to be relevant for all these other plants 

that are going to get decommissioned. 

So I will start, Madam Chair, with you, if you would. Do you believe that State and local stakeholder concerns should be considered on equal footing with those of the industry and believe that 

a final decommissioning rule that codifies regulatory and safety exemptions that industry has requested but don’t address concerns 

over the use of the decommissioning trust fund, the local input in 

the postshutdown rules, would be problematic? We’d like both included. 

52 

Ms. SVINICKI. Congressman, thank you for this question, and you 

and the people you represent have been very, very active in the 

rulemaking process. 

The stage we are at right now is that the NRC staff has developed a regulatory basis, and they will begin the process of developing a proposed rule to come before our Commission. 

My approach as a member of the Commission is to look at the 

totality of the public comment record, and I don’t look at who sent 

the comment. 

I look at the underlying matter that the comment is raising, and 

I look to make sure that the agency is responsive to that comment. 

So I don’t want to prejudge where I would be on a proposed rule 

that hasn’t come before me yet. But as part of my review, I will 

certainly look at that. 

Mr. WELCH. No, I understand you can’t prejudge it. But we’d 

really want some assurance that the local concerns have a seat at 

the table. That’s really the bottom line of what we want, and 

there’s a tug of war because the industry concerns are sometimes 

different. 

They want to get out sooner rather than later, and the local community wants that property back in service and, obviously, concerned about the decommissioning fund. 

Mr. Baran, can you tell me what opportunity State and local 

stakeholders will have over the coming year to weigh in on the decommissioning rulemaking? 

Mr. BARAN. Sure. Well, the main opportunity—there have been 

two periods of public comment to date, and as the Chairman mentioned, we got a couple hundred comments. 

I looked at them all, and you’re right—States and local governments are very engaged on this issue. They want to be heard. The 

next big opportunity will be when the proposed rule is prepared. 

The Commission will vote on a proposed rule and that’ll go out 

for public comment, and that’ll be the first time that stakeholders 

will have an opportunity to look at what is it that the agency is 

proposing to do and what is their reaction to that. 

Mr. WELCH. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Burns, thanks for your work over the years. This basic request that our communities have to be at the table as a full and 

equal partner? 

Mr. BURNS. I would agree with what my colleagues have said. I 

think, as the proposed rulemaking comes before us, one of the 

things I am going to look at is some of those process issues as well 

as the substantive issues about, you know, what does safety demand, and assuring that we have clarity on things like the decommissioning trust funds. 

You know, it’s interesting. We had a good meeting I think about 

a year or two ago. We had—one of the representatives from the 

Citizens Advisory Committee from Vermont was there, and heard 

her there. 

Some of these things, I think, will be regulatory solutions. Some 

of them are going to be the interactions within the States themselves. But I do think it’s important that the voices are all heard. 

Mr. FLORES [presiding]. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Johnson, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

53 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the Commissioners for being with us today. 

The last time that you were here before this committee 2 years 

ago, I expressed concern then about the regulatory creep associated 

with what is known as application of the back-fit rule. 

This authority is one of the most powerful regulatory tools at 

NRC’s disposal, which is why it is critically important, in my view, 

that the Commission is vigilant about the staff’s use of the backfit rule. 

So in regards to the committee to review generic requirements, 

since your last appearance here, NRC was in the process of providing new guidance to what is known as the CRGR—the Committee to Review Generic Requirements. 

This committee, composed of senior NRC staff, is intended to review these back-fit requirements, which are regulatory requirements imposed on all nuclear power reactors. 

So Commissioner Burns, under your leadership as Chairman, 

CRGR was directed to update its charter and revise its review procedures. Has CRGR issued its revised charter and, if so, what are 

the principal updates to the document? 

Mr. BURNS. Yes. I believe that they have. I am not familiar with 

all the details of it but, clearly, at the time one of the things that 

I was looking for—and I had the support of my Commission colleagues at the time—was to reinfuse some vigor in the CRGR process, also to provide some more consistency across the agency, particularly in the staff, because on a day-to-day basis that’s where 

things are going to happen about consistency in the back-fitting 

process. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And you are still—— 

Mr. BURNS. But we can probably provide for the record, you 

know, the specific things that would help answer you. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. Yes, please do. You are still the leader—I 

mean, the chairman of the CRGR, right? 

Mr. BURNS. No, no. I am not the—actually never been the chair. 

The head of the CRGR is a senior staff executive. 

Mr. JOHNSON. How often do they meet? 

Mr. BURNS. I don’t know how often. Ed Hackett, who is deputy 

director for research, is the current chair of the CRGR. 

Mr. JOHNSON. How do they report to you guys on what their status is, as the Commissioners? 

Ms. SVINICKI. They report to the executive director for operations, but they also provide routine reporting on a number of their 

activities. 

They may meet as needed to review a proposed regulatory measure. But, again, we can provide greater clarity for the record. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. Thank you. 

Chairman Svinicki, what are the next steps for CRGR to enhance 

its role to review and approve, or disapprove, staff’s proposed backfits? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Since the Commission last appeared before you, 

Congressman, and engaged on this issue, the agency’s return to 

greater adherence and fidelity on back-fit moved far beyond the 

CRGR. 

54 

Although we have undertaken the measures that you described, 

it became apparent in the reviews ordered by the executive director 

for operations that comprehensive retraining was needed of agency 

staff. 

That has been conducted and, again, we are not changing the 

back-fit rule. We realized that with the amount of staff growth and 

staff turnover we had had that we needed regular training on adherence to the back-fit rule, and there will even be, I believe, a 

wave of follow-on training that is going to occur. 

So there certainly has been a higher spotlight on adherence to 

back-fits since we last appeared before you. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. All right. 

Recent guidance from Office of General Counsel which has been 

endorsed by the Commission states that, when the NRC staff identifies back-fitting, it should first consider whether one of the adequate protection exemptions apply to the back-fit in question. 

So, Chairman Svinicki and Commissioner Burns, given the maturity of the NRC’s regulatory framework, would you agree that situations requiring imposition of back-fits should be relatively rare 

and would typically require significant new information indicating 

that a safety issue is not adequately addressed by the Commission’s current regulations? 

Ms. SVINICKI. As a member of the Commission, I am in agreement with that statement. That would be, I think, a reasonable description of the maturity of adequate protection determinations 

that have been previously made. 

However, there can’t always be new knowledge, as you note, and 

so I would say, as a member of the Commission, any time the staff 

is contemplating an adequate protection exemption to the back-fit 

rule, that gets my attention very closely for the reasons you state. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. All right. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. FLORES. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Ca ́ rdenas, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Thank you very much. Appreciate the opportunity to have this discourse, Commissioners. 

My question is to whichever Commissioner wants to answer the 

question regarding the potential elimination of 149 full-time equivalent employee positions. 

If that were to take place by the design of the Commission, if 

that’s a fact, would there be more or less scientists involved, going 

forward, than are today, overall? 

Are we talking about positions that are in the science arena or 

the technical folk? Are we talking about tertiary positions? 

Where would the crux of those 149 or so positions come from? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Let me begin by stating there is no contemplated 

involuntary separation or reduction of employees that we contemplate now. 

The figures may have to do with—if they arise from the fiscal 

2019 budget. We have areas of work that are completing this year, 

and so it really isn’t individual employees that are on board right 

now. 

55 

The figures vary up and down, depending on the licensing work 

that we project to have before us in the 2019 budget. So it is not 

that we’ve identified positions for elimination. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. OK. So we are talking about positions that are 

basically having to do with the work structure in the past and 

present and going forward, and a better structure for the department? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes, that’s correct. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. OK. Thank you. 

Aside from that, how is the department doing when it comes to 

recruiting today’s technical folks that the department needs to fill 

the positions that would be ongoing? How is that environment 

today? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Well, I will say that you identify, I think, one of 

the greatest challenges for Federal agencies, and that is making 

certain that we are preparing ourselves for the future by bringing 

in the promising new entrants, recent college graduates. 

Again, under a declining workload for our agency, we are not as 

active out with colleges and universities and recruitment. We do 

that only on a very, very targeted basis as we have attrition of people from positions. 

So we are, over time, becoming an organization that has more 

senior people at higher pay grades, and we do pay attention to 

making sure that we are at least bringing some newer employees 

into the pipeline. 

But, again, our work in general has been declining, and the opportunity to do that has been less. 

Mr. BARAN. I would just add, you know, in a 2-year period the 

number of employees we had at the agency dropped by around 12 

percent, which is a really dramatic decline—— 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. That is. 

Mr. BARAN [continuing]. For just a couple years. That was largely the result of attrition. So we have a certain number of people 

who are retiring each year, moving on, and pairing that with very, 

very limited external hiring during those years. 

Going forward, for the health of the agency we are going to have 

to have some extra hiring. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. OK. 

Mr. BARAN. We are going to need to bring new talent to the 

agency. That’s true for any organization. It’s fine to have a period 

of a couple years where we just through attrition shrink pretty significantly. But for our long-term health, we are going to have to 

make sure we bring in new talent so that we have the capabilities 

we need 5, 10, 15, 20 years in the future. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. There is no question that there’s probably not an 

industry in America that isn’t affected by the baby boomer retirement bubble that we are going through right now. 

But at the same time, when I was in college, I was an engineering student. By the time I got my degree, I had done some internships with various great, great organizations that actually went out 

there and recruited students like myself. 

Are you able to focus on that kind of recruitment or, unfortunately, is it kind of like a hodgepodge of trying to pull together a 

56 

little bit of resources to do so? Or is it a concerted effort to recruit 

some of that great talent out there, that new talent? 

Ms. SVINICKI. I will note that we do continue to have a summer 

intern program. We get engineers and scientists and I believe 

maybe even have some legal interns or law clerks opportunities to 

prepare for the future. 

Again, it is commensurate with the projections that we will continue to have a declining workload. But I think, as Commissioner 

Baran notes, we continue to recognize the importance of having 

younger employees come into the pipeline. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. OK. Well, to the benefit of all of us who represent 

literally different parts of the country with different makeups, Mrs. 

Chairman, if we could get a report from the Commission on the 

program and how local communities can enlist and making sure 

that young people—young talented folks—can actually apply to 

these kinds of programs or, for example, the campuses that you are 

already involved in or the campuses that you’d like to be involved 

in—if there’s some kind of blueprint or something that the—again, 

every single Member here represents a different part of America, 

and I am sure that we would like to make sure that the young talent from our communities certainly have an opportunity to enlist 

their talent with your organization. 

Ms. SVINICKI. I think we can certainly provide more specifics for 

the record. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I yield back. 

Mr. FLORES. The gentleman yields back. I will recognize myself 

for 5 minutes. 

I thank the panel for joining us today and, to follow up on Mr. 

Olson’s initial comments regarding the men’s and women’s Sweet 

Sixteens, I am proud to report my district has more teams than the 

others, with four. 

Anyway, let’s get down to business. New technologies provide 

great promise to increase safety and performance from nuclear reactors while also affording increased efficiency and improving economic competitiveness. 

One of the critical path resources to get from here to there, 

though, is the NRC’s qualification of advanced fuels, and I am concerned that our advanced nuclear community will be stifled at the 

outset if there’s not clarity and predictability with respect to time 

lines for innovators and investors to have certainty that the NRC 

will allow new fuel compensation and design. 

So, Chairman Svinicki, what is the NRC doing to consider fundamental issues associated with qualifying advanced fuels? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Thank you for the question, and this is a growing 

area of work for the industry and for our agency as a result. 

To begin with, in order to qualify a new fuel type, developers 

have to be able to have access to performance data, meaning if you 

have got new materials, new alloys, and new configurations, you 

need to be able to put what are called lead test assemblies in nuclear power reactors so that you can then harvest those as kind of 

samples and you can take performance data. 

We do have a number of utilities right now that either have inserted lead test assemblies for new fuel types or are in the process 

57 

of documenting the safety of doing so. So that exploration of these 

lead test assemblies and development of the underlying data for 

new fuels is currently underway. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. Thank you. 

Commissioner Burns, given your long experience with NRC and 

your having had a front-row seat for seeing technological advances, 

would you please describe your expectations with respect to having 

a predictable path for advanced fuel development? 

Mr. BURNS. I would echo much of what the Chairman said. 

I think part of it for us, too, is assuring that the regulatory process is in a state that allows that to go forward. 

I will give a recent example. I think the staff, with respect to the 

ability of utilities to start testing advance or accident-tolerant fuels 

in terms of just the process of getting some lead test assemblies in 

there, has clarified its guidance and that’s gelled, and those are the 

types of things. And in addition to the technology aspect, which is 

extraordinarily important, of course, that will help the process 

along. 

Mr. FLORES. So you have talked about the real-world testing and 

existing reactors. What sort of advanced modeling and simulation 

and computational tools do you have to predict the behavior of 

these advanced fuels? 

Mr. BURNS. I would have to defer to the staff and maybe forward 

the thing, unless the Chairman wanted to add. 

Ms. SVINICKI. The NRC does not have as many tools as the U.S. 

Department of Energy. So, as a result, our experts in these areas 

have begun discussion with the Department of Energy regarding 

what tools they have and to what extent they could be made available for us to use in making safety determinations going forward. 

Now, as an independent safety regulator, we will want to have 

some measure of independent or confirmatory analysis that we will 

do. But it may be that the tools can be utilized by us to do that 

confirmatory work. 

I would say that those discussions are somewhat at the beginning stage. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. Thank you. 

My district includes College Station, which is the home of Texas 

A&M University. The Aggies have an outstanding nuclear engineering program, and it partners with both the NRC and the Department of Energy to help train the next generation of nuclear engineers through congressionally funded education programs, principally through the Integrated University Program, or IUP. 

Unfortunately, once again, the NRC budget zeroes out this critical program. If that’s the budget that ultimately comes to fruition—I don’t think it will be, but if it does—where do we train the 

workforce of the future without the IUP? 

Chairman Svinicki. 

Ms. SVINICKI. I will respond by stating that the Commission’s 

failure to include that in the budget is so that our budget will adhere to administration policies regarding programs such as this. 

Having said that, I will state that we have derived great value 

from when Congress has provided funding. We have executed that 

program I think with a lot of energy behind it and made good use 

of the funding that Congress has provided previously. 

58 

So it is not any indication on the value of it by this Commission. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. That’s helpful. 

My expectation is that Congress will continue to fund that program because, as you have stated, we’ve had good results in terms 

of an advanced nuclear workforce. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. Duncan, you’re recognized for—oh, I am sorry. OK. 

Mr. Hudson, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HUDSON. I thank the chairman and thank the witnesses for 

being here today. Thank you for the good work you do. 

I represent Fort Bragg, the largest military installation in the 

world. I understand the importance of making sure that our troops 

have the necessary resources they need for the battlefield. 

A 2016 report from the Department of Defense’s Defense Science 

Board concluded that, quote, ‘‘There is an opportunity for expiration of the use of nuclear energy applications at forward and remote operating bases and expeditionary forces,’’ end quote. 

These applications would result in first-of-a-kind deployment opportunities similar to how the Navy’s deployment of nuclear reactors helped drive the construction and commercialization of existing 

fleet of nuclear power plants. 

However, for these advanced technologies to be successfully deployed, the NRC’s regulatory regime and approved processes must 

be predictable and disciplined. 

One example of how the NRC manages what are known as requests for additional information, or RAIs: NRC staff uses RAIs 

frequently during its regulatory review, and GAO has noted the 

process can be time-consuming and costly. 

GAO reported the NRC staff and licensees identified two weaknesses in the RAI process: first, a gap between NRC’s expectations 

and licensees’ understanding of license application content, and 

second, staff departure from RAI guidance, which may result in redundant or unrelated questions and lead to additional time and resources required for licensees to address RAIs. 

Following GAO’s review, NRC has updated its guidance, including increased management review and, as with the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Regulation efforts, to conduct onsite audits or a 

public meeting to reduce the number of RAIs. 

Chairwoman, I would like to ask you a few questions with respect to RAIs. How is NRC ensuring that staff are following the 

guidance? For example, is NRC tracking data on RAIs and, if so, 

has the new guidance reduced the number of RAIs? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Thank you for the question, Congressman. 

There has been a focus on the discipline of the RAI process. In 

addition to the measure you noted, which is perhaps meeting with 

an applicant and getting greater clarity so that we could just completely reduce the need for certain questions to be asked, we also 

have instituted what are called job aids, and they are kind of 

checklists that are used by reviewers. 

And when it come to RAIs, that job aid mandates that they have 

to identify the regulatory determination that is supported by the 

request for additional information, meaning, if you’re going to ask 

this question, what of the necessary findings does it feed into? 

59 

And in some ways, there is enhanced management review. But 

a job aid such as that basically forces someone to take that into 

consideration. So it builds the discipline into the process, and the 

staff has thought of these measures which, again, I think are really 

helpful to both the analysts that are adhering to the new discipline 

on RAIs and they kind of keep the system in check. 

So it’s those. But there is, as you said, enhanced management review, as well. 

Mr. HUDSON. Makes a lot of sense. 

Can you provide updated RAI tracking information to the committee? 

Ms. SVINICKI. I know we have been working to begin to collect 

that, and I am not sure how many months of data we have now. 

Could I provide to the record either data or a status update on getting those tracking systems in place? 

Mr. HUDSON. That would be much appreciated. 

Do managers in the Offices of the Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

and New Reactors review additional rounds of RAIs, as GAO reported was the agency’s intent? 

Ms. SVINICKI. I believe that that is still occurring. I don’t know 

to what extent. As we get the job aids and other measures in place, 

it may be that there isn’t as much need for the direct review because, again, the checklists and process are basically forcing the 

new accountability and discipline. But we can provide that for the 

record. 

In early stages, there was management review of all subsequent 

rounds. 

Mr. HUDSON. I appreciate that, and I would be very interested 

in knowing what you found during these reviews in both offices. 

So thank you very much for that. 

Mr. Chairman, unless any other witnesses would like to chime 

in—great. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. With that, 

I yield back. 

Mr. FLORES. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Duncan, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the panelists for being here as long as you have. 

One thing about being a junior on this, you get to go last. All the 

groovy questions have been asked already, so we are going to reach 

into our tool chest here. 

First off, I want to encourage my friends over in the United 

States Senate to confirm a great South Carolinian to the NRC, and 

that’s David Wright, and would be a great addition to the NRC. 

I want to lend my voice to—Mr. Shimkus and others have talked 

about Yucca Mountain and a need for a long-term, stable storage 

facility for nuclear waste. 

They have 40 years’ worth of nuclear waste sitting at the Oconee 

nuclear station on the beautiful shores of Lake Kilwee, and that’s 

just one nuclear reactor or nuclear power plant in the country that 

has nuclear waste stored onsite either in dry cask or wet cask storage. 

And we could throw in Savannah River site, Hanford, Idaho 

Flats, Oak Ridge, and all these things where we have waste coming 

out of the environmental management efforts there. 

60 

They need to go somewhere, too. Vitrify it, put it somewhere for 

long-term, stable storage. 

I want to talk about V.C. Summer a little bit. One-half of all the 

new reactors under construction in the United States happen to be 

happening in South Carolina at V.C. Summer, and 7, 8 years into 

the project, the rug gets pulled out from under and the construction 

stops. 

And, you know, I wonder how we as a nation will be able to go 

forward with nuclear power generation and new nuclear reactor 

construction after V.C. Summer. 

How are you going to incentivize investors to put that kind of 

money up and the tens of years that takes and the tens of billions 

of dollars in investment just for the permitting and licensing before 

you even get into the construction? 

How are you going to encourage investors to go that length, 

knowing that 7, 8 years into the investment, the rug could get 

pulled out from under them and they lose that investment? 

Now, they couldn’t foresee the bankruptcy of Westinghouse and, 

you know, there were a lot of unforeseen things that kind of led 

into it, I guess. 

But I am concerned about the future of nuclear energy, and I will 

assume since you’re all in NRC, you all support nuclear power production. Would that be a safe assumption? 

It’s a yes-or-no question. Do you support nuclear power generation? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Well, we have to maintain objectivity in our independent safety and security licensing determinations. But I would 

note, as a degreed nuclear engineer, I didn’t choose to go into the 

field because I thought poorly of the technology. 

But that’s not as a member of the Commission where, again, I 

have to step back from a view on advancing the nuclear power program or not. We have to be policy neutral on that. 

Mr. DUNCAN. So, Madam Chair, last year at V.C. Summer you 

all had a number of NRC staff assigned to that project. Do you remember how many were assigned? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Well, the onsite presence was five inspectors who 

were at V.C. Summer full time. They were supported by both in 

our Atlanta Region 2 office by supplemental inspections. 

Our theory or our approach to having Georgia and South Carolina where the two projects were located is that out of our Atlanta 

base we could surge the deployment of the inspectors for the different expertise. 

So they kind of supported out of a common pool. I am told, 

though, that the resourcing overall was 40 full-time equivalent positions. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Right. 

Ms. SVINICKI. So that would be kind of people on a fractional 

basis out of Atlanta and headquarters and the five at the site. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Right. 

So you have asked for an increase in the budget and the New Reactors office has significantly reduced workload, claims a 13 percent reduction in staffing, and yet you ask for an increase of $4 

million in funding. 

How do you explain that contradiction? 

61 

Ms. SVINICKI. Well, we could provide, I think, additional details 

for the record. But it would do with—as you note, there is a decline, such as the termination of the Summer project. But we do 

forecast that we will have increasing work on advanced reactors. 

We are very engaged with that community, and in FY ’19 we 

may have first submittals for designs to review of advanced reactor 

concepts. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I guess for my constituents they look at half the 

reactors that were under construction in this country, the V.C. 

Summer and that project shut down. You had 40 people there, and 

they’ve got to be reassigned somewhere, maybe with NRC. I get 

that. But you’re asking for an increase, going forward. 

I understand what you’re saying about looking at future technologies. That leads into my next question. 

I am a strong advocate for small modular reactors. I’ve done a 

lot of research into molten salt reactors, and I hope those are the 

technologies that you’re looking at because there’s energy poverty 

in the world. 

U.S. could be a leader in this. Right now, we are getting our 

butts kicked by Russia in the construction of nuclear reactors 

around the globe. 

So I hope that new technologies do come online and you guys expedite the approval process of that, and we can get more nuclear 

production online. 

Ms. SVINICKI. What I will just mention on molten salt technology 

is recognizing that we don’t have a lot of experts conversant with 

some of these different reactor types. 

We recently worked with Oak Ridge to develop a training course 

that we brought in house at NRC. We sent 90 of our folks through 

that training on molten salt reactor technology, and I was pleased 

that the staff included not just scientists and engineers but also 

lawyers and others that will have to have some kind of conversant 

knowledge of these new technologies. So we are working very much 

on the capability. 

Mr. DUNCAN. OK. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. FLORES. Gentleman’s time is expired. 

Mr. Carter, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize, bouncing 

back and forth. We had another subcommittee meeting at the same 

time. 

Madam Chair, if you don’t mind, instead of butchering your 

name, can I just call you Madam Chair? Is that OK? 

Ms. SVINICKI. That’s fine, but I do have a mnemonic. I happen 

to be a vegetarian, and I did live in Idaho and my Idaho friends 

are OK with it. But if you think of the terms finicky, like a finicky 

eater—— 

Mr. CARTER. Finicky. 

Ms. SVINICKI [continuing]. If you say Svinicki, and so that’s kind 

of—— 

Mr. CARTER. Swinicki. 

Ms. SVINICKI [continuing]. That’s the best mnemonic I can think 

of. 

Mr. CARTER. Swinicki? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Svinicki, with—— 

62 

Mr. CARTER. Finiski. I am from south Georgia. We talk in 

Geechee, so I’m—you know, I am just sorry. I—— 

Ms. SVINICKI. I don’t think I am making it any better. 

Mr. CARTER. I don’t think so. 

Madam Chair, I want to talk about accident-tolerant nuclear reactor fuels. From what I understand, this is a game changer. Potentially, it could be, and it’s something that I guess came out of 

the accident in Japan and through research they’ve come up with 

this. 

You know, I represent southeast Georgia near Plant Vogtle, 

where we are currently building the two reactors, and I am glad 

that they’re following up on that and they’ve decided to complete 

that project instead of abandoning it. 

But at the same time, Southern Company just recently announced that at Plant Hatch, another nuclear facility near there, 

that they are actually going to be loading the lead test assemblies 

for what is known as the accident-tolerant fuels, or ATF, if you 

will, and that this was a first for the industry. 

So my question is, What do you think about them? Is this a potential game changer, the ATFs? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Well, as you know, the loading of the lead test assemblies at Hatch is among the first in the Nation. 

We have some other proposals that we know utilities will be inserting assemblies, and accident-tolerant fuel is a generic term. 

There are various fuel vendors that are developing potential new 

fuels that fall under that heading. And this is the first step, is to 

collect the performance data from the lead test assemblies at Plant 

Hatch and other locations. 

If the concepts prove out and the materials perform as predicted, 

which, again, needs to be demonstrated, these fuels will have the 

ability to retain what we call source term and behave better in certain severe accident conditions. 

So you would have the potential for a diminished consequence off 

the reactor site should a low-probability accident occur. So that’s 

the—— 

Mr. CARTER. So, potentially, it could be a game changer, potentially? 

Ms. SVINICKI. It can be safety improvement. 

Mr. CARTER. So let me ask you, is the NRC changing any of their 

licensing approach to be ready for this—for the use of this—for 

these fuels? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Well, again, our regulations accommodate things 

such as lead test assemblies. Fuels have been developed and qualified in the past. 

So I think that we expect that that same framework can be utilized for the qualification of accident-tolerant fuels. It’ll just be 

something that, if new issues emerge or there are materials that 

have unexpected behavior, we’ll have to work closely with the applicants to understand their plans for resolving that. 

Mr. CARTER. So you believe you could use existing DOE codes? 

You wouldn’t have to come up with new codes? 

Ms. SVINICKI. We are engaged with discussion in DOE to learn 

the codes and tools that they have and to see if those could be utilized for our confirmatory analysis. 

63 

Mr. CARTER. OK. 

Mr. Burns, Mr. Baran, thank you for having pronounceable 

names. But I wanted to ask you about Plant Vogtle. 

As you know, there’s been a lot of problems down there, particularly in the permitting. And it’s been such a drawn-out process 

that, you know, we’ve actually had—Toshiba and Westinghouse, 

you know, went bankrupt, went out of business as a result of this. 

And I just want to know what the NRC can do to speed up the 

permitting process. I mean, obviously, we all want safety, but at 

the same time, not all of the blame goes on NRC for the permitting 

process. But some of what they were concerned about was the permitting process and all the hoops that they had to jump through 

in order to get things permitted. 

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

The interesting thing is to reflect back on the licensing process 

used, which is essentially adopted as a reform proposal in the late 

1980s, the Part 52 process. 

The advantages were enhanced standardization, so greater certainty. But the issue was in terms of some design changes and 

things as you went on, I think that’s a lesson learned from it. 

I think one of the things we are working through with Southern 

now is on the conformatory items called ITAAC. These are those 

last, in effect, a checklist when you’re getting ready for—toward operation, and in terms of how they can be consolidated. 

So, if anything, I think there are lessons learned there. I think 

we are trying to take those to heart. One of the things I would say 

too is going back, as you look at—you had a design that wasn’t 

fully certified. While the applicant was coming in with the application for the license, they had to wait for Westinghouse to get 

through it. 

That’s a little bit different than, I think, the expectation of how 

the process would work. But, again, where I think we have some 

learning on some of these things in terms of changed processes 

once the license is issued, and I think we are seeing some of that 

applied, particularly as we go into the advanced reactor technology 

because I would say—— 

Mr. CARTER. Well, I hope they’re—as you say, I hope there were 

lessons that were learned because we don’t want this happening 

again. We need nuclear energy. 

I am a proponent. I am an all-of-the-above and I believe this is 

clean fuel that we need, and we just need to learn our lessons from 

what was, obviously, you know, some serious mistakes that were 

made along the way. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. FLORES. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

Seeing that there are no further Members wishing to ask questions of the first panel, I wish to thank all of our witnesses for 

being here today. 

Before we conclude, I would like to ask unanimous consent to 

submit the following documents for the record. There are none. 

Pursuant to committee rules, I remind Members that they have 

10 business days to submit additional questions for the record, and 

I ask the witnesses to submit their response within 10 business 

days following the receipt of the questions. 

64 

Without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:27 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN

Good morning and welcome to our hearing as we receive testimony from the three 

current NRC Commissioners. I thank you for taking the time to appear before the 

committee to discuss critical issues facing our Nation’s nuclear industry. 

Located on the Columbia River upstream from my Oregon district sits the Columbia Nuclear Generating Station. In 2017, the Columbia power plant’s exceptional 

high-performance was recognized with a prestigious ‘‘Top Plant’’ award from a leading industry publication. 

Recently, the plant performed continuously for nearly 2 years from one refueling 

outage to the next and set a new monthly generation record in December by operating at a 104 percent capacity factor—this means the plant generated more electricity than its expected output, because of how precise and efficient the system performed. 

In addition to the Columbia nuclear station, six nuclear technology startups are 

in the Pacific Northwest. This includes Oregon-based NuScale Power, which is leading the way in Small Modular Reactor technology, and Terrapower, a Bill Gatesowned nuclear technology company. Both of those companies are partnering with 

the Department of Energy’s Idaho National Laboratory, which I toured last week. 

My visit to INL illustrated the vision and opportunity for America’s nuclear 

innovators. The laboratory’s nuclear scientists, in coordination with industry and 

academic partners, are developing new, safer nuclear fuels and the site is expected 

to host NuScale’s first-of-a-kind SMR project. 

To fully capture the potential benefits of nuclear innovation, the NRC must be 

prepared to review, license and regulate these new technologies in a timely and efficient manner. The NRC plays a vital role in assuring our Nation’s fleet of commercial nuclear power plants operate safely, overseeing the civilian use of nuclear materials in medicine and industrial applications, and managing the safe storage and ultimate disposal of nuclear waste. 

Technology is constantly changing in the world around us and we in Congress 

should facilitate and recognize how technology can improve the lives of our constituents. For example, this committee, led by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, 

support the application of game-changing innovative technologies for automated vehicles. I am optimistic that a similar technology-focused approach for advanced nuclear energy will provide immense consumer and environmental benefits. 

However, to enable this innovation, the NRC must identify barriers that would 

inhibit our nuclear innovators. This is why I’m pleased with NRC’s recent ‘‘Innovation and Transformation’’ initiative. As I noted in a recent letter with Subcommittee 

Chairmen Upton and Shimkus to Chairman Svinicki, this initiative is a great opportunity to rethink how the NRC approaches its mission and performs daily functions. 

I hope this initiative provides a fundamental examination of how new regulatory 

approaches can capture the benefits of new technologies, while preserving the same 

level of safety assurances. I look forward to hearing more about this initiative and 

what the Commission’s vision is to further a culture change throughout the organization. 

For example, the development of advanced nuclear fuels and certifying the use of 

those fuels through advanced modeling and simulation would significantly increase 

safety margins at nuclear power plants. 

NuScale is an example of one of those innovative nuclear companies. NuScale’s 

small modular reactor proposed design recently received approval for a significant 

milestone when the Nuclear Regulatory Commission signed off on the design’s passive cooling system. This decision is a gamechanger for the regulatory framework 

and I applaud both NRC and NuScale on this breakthrough. 

I appreciate the Commission’s leadership and interest in this licensing process. I 

am keenly interested in hearing more about the status of the staff’s review, the 

Commission’s resolution of outstanding policy issues process, and expectations for 

the completion of this process. 

The existing market and economic challenges for nuclear power are well known. 

But with a new generation of nuclear innovators enthusiastically tackling the big 

challenges, our nuclear future remains bright. 

65 

66 

67 

68 

69 

70 

71 

72 

73 

74 

75 

76 

77 

78 

79 

80 

81 

82 

83 

84 

85 

86 

87 

88 

89 

90 

91 

92 

93 

94 

95 

96 

97 

98 

99 

100 

101 

102 

103 

104 

105 

106 

107 

108 

109 

110 

111 

112 

113 

114 

115 

116 

Æ