American Nuclear Energy Expansion: Updating Policies for Efficient, Predictable Licensing and Deployment (U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Energy, Climate, and Grid Security)

Hearing	American Nuclear Energy Expansion: Updating Policies for Efficient, Predictable Licensing and Deployment
Committee	U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Energy, Climate, and Grid Security
Date	July 18, 2023

 

Hearing Takeaways:

• Nuclear Energy: The hearing focused on the prospects of increasing the U.S.’s use and deployment of nuclear energy sources. Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses were in broad agreement that nuclear energy can provide the U.S. with a safe and reliable source of emissions-free energy, which makes it very desirable. They also called it critical for the U.S. to be a leader in nuclear energy technologies given global interest in deploying and exporting these technologies (especially from adversarial countries such as China and Russia) and growing global energy demand. Subcommittee Democrats, Mr. Dorman, and Ms. Korsnick highlighted how the U.S. had recently enacted several policies to promote the domestic development and deployment of nuclear energy, including through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), the CHIPS for America Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.
  • Development and Deployment of Advanced Nuclear Reactors and Small Modular Reactors (SMRs): Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses expressed support for the U.S.’s efforts to develop and deploy of advanced nuclear reactors and SMRs. They discussed how these technologies have many advantages over traditional nuclear reactors, including smaller sizes, standardized designs (which can enable quicker construction and permitting), safety capabilities, lower costs, and spent nuclear fuel recycling capabilities. They recommended that the U.S. work to derisk the development and deployment of these technologies through public-private partnerships and power purchase agreements. Dr. Goff and Ms. Korsnick further stated that these domestic projects will be key for building foreign interest in U.S. nuclear energy technologies.
  • The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) Current Review Process for Nuclear Energy Projects: Subcommittee Republicans, Mr. Nordhaus, Ms. Korsnick, and Mr. Merrifield raised concerns that the NRC’s current review process for nuclear energy projects is too lengthy and expensive and that NRC staff does not provide sufficient assistance to applicants regarding this process. Mr. Dorman remarked that the NRC has worked to modernize its existing processes to support the deployment of new and advanced nuclear reactors through using risk-informed and performance-based techniques and regulatory guidance. He indicated that the NRC’s streamlining and efficiency efforts include “extensive” pre-application interactions, regulatory audits to enhance communication with applicants and licensees, and early engagement with its Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS). He attributed many of the recent review challenges to the increasing complexity of new nuclear project design proposals under consideration and the NRC’s staffing and resource constraints.
  • The NRC’s Environmental Justice Reviews: Subcommittee Democrats and Ms. Toth expressed interest in how the NRC is implementing the recommendations from its Environmental Justice Review Team. Mr. Dorman noted that the NRC is still reviewing the Environmental Justice Review Team’s recommendations and indicated that the NRC’s staff is awaiting direction on how to implement these recommendations.
  • Conversion of Brownfield Sites into Nuclear Energy Sites: Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses expressed interest in the U.S. nuclear energy industry’s efforts to convert brownfield sites (such as former coal plants and shuttered nuclear power plants) into nuclear power plants to take advantage of the existing infrastructure and workforce. They stated that these conversion efforts can prevent employment disruptions and enable the U.S. to make use of cleaner energy sources. 
  • U.S. Reliance on Foreign Sources for Nuclear Fuel: Subcommittee Members, Dr. Goff, Mr. Dorman, Ms. Korsnick, and Mr. Merrifield expressed concerns over the U.S.’s dependence on foreign sources for critical nuclear fuels. They cautioned that this dependence undermines the U.S.’s nuclear fuel security and provides financial support to hostile countries (notably Russia). They expressed interest in bolstering the U.S.’s ability to source these fuels both domestically and from friendlier countries (including Canada and Australia).
  • Nuclear Waste Storage: Subcommittee Members, Dr. Goff, and Ms. Korsnick highlighted how the U.S.’s lack of long-term nuclear waste storage capabilities serves as an impediment to the broader deployment of nuclear energy technologies and can pose health and safety problems for communities living near interim nuclear waste storage facilities. They called on the U.S. to develop a long-term nuclear waste storage capability. Of note, several Subcommittee Republicans, Mr. Dorman, and Mr. Merrifield highlighted how many advanced nuclear energy technologies can recycle large amounts of nuclear waste, which has the potential to reduce the scale of this problem. 
  • Nuclear Industry Workforce: Subcommittee Members, Mr. Nordhaus, Ms. Korsnick, and Mr. Merrifield expressed interest in bolstering the U.S.’s supply of capable workers to staff nuclear energy projects and commented that labor shortages will inhibit the U.S.’s ability to increase its deployment of nuclear energy. They highlighted that these projects will require more than just nuclear engineers and will also need plumbers, pipefitters, electricians, and instrumentation and controls (I&C) technicians. They stated that community colleges, high schools, on-the-job training programs, and labor unions can help to train workers for these positions.
  • Impact of Climate Change on Nuclear Energy Projects: Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL) and Dr. Goff expressed concerns that the growing prevalence of extreme weather events resulting from climate change can impact the U.S. ability to build and extend nuclear energy projects. Mr. Dorman testified that the NRC had engaged in a complete review of flooding and seismic issues for all operating nuclear power plants in the U.S. following the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
  • Risk of an Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack on U.S. Nuclear Energy Facilities: Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-AZ) expressed interest in the U.S. nuclear energy sector’s ability to defend itself from an EMP attack. Ms. Krosnick testified there have been assessments of the U.S. nuclear energy sector’s ability to withstand an EMP attack and that EMP vulnerabilities tend to exist on the transmission and distribution side. She indicated however that the nuclear power plants themselves have been evaluated to be “relatively resilient.”
• Potential Nuclear Energy Legislative Reforms: The hearing considered several proposed legislative reforms to support the U.S.’s development and deployment of nuclear energy technologies and projects.
  • The NRC Mission Alignment Act: Subcommittee Chairman Jeff Duncan (R-SC), Mr. Nordhaus, Ms. Korsnick, and Mr. Merrifield expressed support for the NRC Mission Alignment Act, which would align the mission of the NRC with the policy goals of the Atomic Energy Act. These policy goals are to expand nuclear energy to maximize the general welfare. They raised concerns that the NRC has narrowly interpreted its mission, which has limited its regulatory activities to consideration of potential public health impacts of using nuclear energy. However, Full Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and Ms. Toth expressed concerns that this legislative proposal could undermine the NRC’s independence, which would in turn undermine public confidence in the Commission and nuclear energy technologies.
  • The Efficient Nuclear Licensing Hearings Act: Subcommittee Republicans expressed support for the Efficient Nuclear Licensing Hearings Act, which would eliminate the need for a hearing at the end of the NRC’s licensing process when stakeholders do not request the hearing. They asserted that this hearing is superfluous and noted how the legislative proposal is based on 2008 proposal from the NRC. Subcommittee Democrats and Ms. Toth expressed concerns however that this legislative proposal would reduce opportunities for public comment in the NRC’s licensing process, which could undermine confidence in the process. Of note, Dr. Dorman stated that removing this hearing requirement would not impact the NRC’s safety conclusions.
  • The Nuclear Licensing Efficiency Act: Subcommittee Republicans and Mr. Merrifield also expressed support for the Nuclear Licensing Efficiency Act, which would streamline NRC application and site permit reviews, update the NRC’s performance metrics and milestones, and make other reforms the NRC’s processes. Subcommittee Democrats and Ms. Toth expressed concerns that this legislative proposal may undermine public confidence in the NRC and nuclear energy technologies.
  • The Modernize Nuclear Reactor Environmental Reviews Act: Rep. Scott Peters (D-CA) discussed how his legislative proposal, the Modernize Nuclear Reactor Environmental Reviews Act, would reform the environmental assessment process for nuclear energy projects through allowing for broader usage and potentially adding new categorical exclusions. Some Subcommittee Democrats and Ms. Toth expressed concerns that this legislative proposal may undermine public confidence in the NRC and nuclear energy technologies.
  • The Nuclear Advisory Committee Reform Act: Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI) and Mr. Merrifield expressed support for the the Nuclear Advisory Committee Reform Act, which would expedite the licensing process for nuclear energy projects through making reforms to the NRC’s ACRS. Full Committee Ranking Member Pallone raised concerns however that this legislative proposal would diminish the ACRS by only requiring the Committee to provide input upon request from the NRC.
  • The Advancing Nuclear Regulatory Oversight Act: Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-AZ) discussed her legislative proposal, the Advancing Nuclear Regulatory Oversight Act, which would require the NRC to produce three reports that would provide recommendations for improving regulatory oversight. She indicated that these reports would detail lessons learned from technologies used during the COVID-19 pandemic and consider whether these technologies could be applied on a permanent basis, evaluate specific elements of oversight and inspections that could be modified using technology, improved planning, and a continually updated risk-informed assessment, and review office and facility space requirements.
  • The Advanced Reactor Fee Reduction Act: Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-IN) mentioned how he had proposed the Advanced Reactor Fee Reduction Act, which seeks to reduce the cost of the application process for advanced nuclear energy technologies.
  • The Advanced Nuclear Reactor Prize Act: Subcommittee Vice Chair John Curtis (R-UT) mentioned his legislative proposal, the Advanced Nuclear Reactor Prize Act, which would authorize the U.S. Secretary of Energy to make target awards to cover regulatory costs of first technologies that are licensed and made operational in certain categories. He commented that this legislative proposal’s reward will help first movers to submit quality applications.
  • The Global Nuclear Energy Assessment and Cooperation Act: Several Subcommittee Members and Ms. Toth expressed support for the Global Nuclear Energy Assessment and Cooperation Act, which would prohibit the U.S. from importing nuclear fuel assemblies from hostile foreign nations (such as Russia and China) and would establish the U.S. International Nuclear Reactor Export and Innovation Branch at the NRC. This Branch would focus the U.S.’s international nuclear energy efforts, including training and sharing U.S. nuclear energy expertise with allied countries.
  • The Strengthening American Nuclear Competitiveness Act: Subcommittee Republicans, Ms. Korsnick, and Ms. Toth expressed support for the Strengthening American Nuclear Competitiveness Act, would extend the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act’s liability protections, end the current bans on commercial nuclear energy investments coming from entities in allied and friendly countries, and require the NRC to study the unique licensing issues for certain nuclear energy technology applications. Subcommittee Ranking Member Diana DeGette (D-CO) expressed interest in whether this legislative proposal would impact the U.S.’s ability to export nuclear materials to other countries (such as Japan).
  • The Nuclear Fuel Security Act: Several Subcommittee Members expressed support for the Nuclear Fuel Security Act, which seeks to expand the U.S.’s domestic capability to produce, convert, and enrich uranium for the existing U.S. nuclear fleet and for advanced nuclear reactors that are currently under development.
  • The Nuclear for Brownfields Site Preparation Act: Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY) and Ms. Toth expressed interest in the proposed Nuclear for Brownfields Site Preparation Act, which would facilitate NRC reviews for nuclear projects located at brownfield sites. Rep. Tonko raised concerns however that this legislative proposal uses the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980’s (CERCLA) definition of the term “brownfield site.” He indicated that this definition excludes numerous types of facilities, including facilities that had received permits under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). He expressed concerns that many former coal power plant sites might therefore not meet the definition of a brownfield site under the legislative proposal and that the NRC might not include these sites in their evaluations. He expressed interest in receiving technical assistance from the NRC and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ensure that the legislative proposal under consideration would not exclude potential beneficiaries from the proposal.
  • The Strengthening the NRC Workforce Act of 2023: Subcommittee Democrats and Ms. Toth expressed support for the Strengthening the NRC Workforce Act of 2023, which would provide the NRC Chairman direct hire authority during candidate shortages or when there is a critical hiring need for certain positions. They noted how a significant portion of the NRC’s workforce is retirement eligible and warned that employee shortages may impede the Commission’s ability to review the anticipated uptick in nuclear energy project applications. They indicated that this direct hire authority is similar to the direct hire authority that Congress had provided to the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as part of the Energy Act of 2020. Ms. Merrifield stated however that the NRC’s hiring authorities should be modeled off the hiring authorities of federal financial regulators rather than the hiring authorities of FERC. He also noted how the NRC Workforce Act of 2023 would solely vest direct hiring authority in the NRC Chairman and asserted that the entire NRC should possess this authority. He further suggested that the length of this authority be extended beyond five years given the current competition for qualified workers. Mr. Nordhaus also remarked that adding NRC staff without having an accountable, streamlined, and performance-based licensing process will not result in additional efficiencies. He stated that the NRC’s staffing issues must be explicitly linked to expectations of expeditious review.
  • The NRC Office of Public Engagement and Participation Act of 2023: Subcommittee Democrats and Ms. Toth also expressed support for the NRC Office of Public Engagement and Participation Act of 2023. This legislation would establish the Office of Public Engagement and Participation at the NRC, which would increase the ability of communities impacted by NRC decisions to access its proceedings. Mr. Merrifield raised concerns however that an NRC Office of Public Engagement and Participation will have a mandate of submitting contentions and hearing requests, which will challenge the NRC staff’s licensing process. He commented that the end result of these challenges could be further NRC licensing delays.
  • The Storage and Transportation of Residual and Excess (STORE) Nuclear Fuel: Rep. Doris Matsui (D-CA) expressed support for the STORE Nuclear Fuel Act, which would authorize an interim spent nuclear fuel storage program at the U.S. Department of Energy.
• Additional Nuclear Energy Policies and Proposals: Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses further used the hearing to consider existing federal nuclear energy policies and to suggest additional nuclear energy policy proposals.
  • The NRC’s Proposed Part 53 Rule: Full Committee Chairman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Mr. Nordhaus, Ms. Korsnick, and Mr. Merrifield expressed concerns over the NRC’s proposed Part 53 rule, which seeks to create an alternative regulatory framework for licensing advance nuclear reactors. They asserted that the NRC had failed to account for stakeholder input when developing the proposal and called the proposed rule unworkable. They called on the NRC to fully restart this rulemaking process. Mr. Dorman defended the NRC’s proposed part 53 rule and testified that the NRC staff is now awaiting direction from the Commission on how to proceed on the rule.
  • Implementation of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023: Mr. Dorman testified that the NRC is currently reviewing the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023’s permitting reform provisions. He stated that the NRC is taking actions to consider an advanced reactor generic environmental impact statement (EIS) and to review the categorical exclusions that exist in 10 CFR Part 51. He also stated that the NRC is considering process improvements to reduce the level of required details in the NRC’s documentation. Mr. Nordhaus remarked that Congress must direct the NRC to process license applications quickly under the requirements of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 through its oversight role. He also suggested that the NRC could remove new reactors as an automatic trigger for performing EISs. He commented that EISs should only need to be performed if there is a significant environmental impact associated with a nuclear energy project. He stated that a small factory-manufactured nuclear reactor should not automatically be subject to the EIS process and commented that this process had been designed for larger reactors.
  • U.S. Department of Energy’s High-Assay Low Enriched Uranium (HALEU) Availability Program: Rep. Bob Latta (R-OH) and Ms. Korsnick expressed concerns with the U.S. Department of Energy’s slow implementation of the HALEU Availability Program and noted how HALEU is key for many proposed advanced nuclear reactor technologies. Rep. Latta commented that the U.S. Department of Energy’s inaction is causing private companies (such as Centrus Energy and TerraPower) to move forward on their own plans to domestically produce HALEU. Dr. Goff noted that the U.S. Department of Energy had just received comments on the draft request for proposal (RFP) for the HALEU Availability Program. He testified that the U.S. Department of Energy is now working to address these comments as part of its final RFP for the HALEU Availability Program.
  • The NRC’s Problem Identification and Resolution (PI&R) Program: Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-AZ) and Ms. Korsnick expressed interest in streamlining the NRC’s PI&R program, which follows up on how nuclear reactors identify and resolve issues. They stated that the COVID-19 pandemic had demonstrated that many inspections can be adequately conducted with fewer onsite inspectors. Mr. Dorman testified however that the NRC staff’s review had ultimately concluded that there would be no net benefit to changing the PI&R program’s inspection frequency from two years to three years.
  • The NRC’s Performance Indicators and Environmental Standards: Rep. Troy Balderson (R-OH) and Ms. Korsnick called on the NRC to adopt enhanced performance indicators so that the NRC, Congress, and the public can track the status and the duration of licensing reviews. Mr. Nordhaus also remarked that Congress should ground the NRC’s public health standards in epidemiologically observable metrics and harmonize these metrics with the EPA’s air toxic standards. He commented that the NRC has long enforced radiological health standards that are so low as to be entirely theoretical and that are far stricter than the EPA’s enforced standards for pollutants associated with similar energy production and industrial activities.
  • NRC’s Reliance on Fees from Operating Reactors: Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX), Ms. Korsnick, and Mr. Merrifield expressed concerns over how the NRC is deriving an increasing portion of its budget from fees. They stated that there appears to be a growing disparity between fee-for-service collections and overhead.  Mr. Merrifield suggested that the U.S. adopt guidelines that include a cost-share requirement for advanced nuclear reactor developers. He also stated that the NRC should be expected to adhere to its provided timeline after it accepts an application.
  • Support for Research Nuclear Reactors: Rep. Marc Veasey (D-TX) and Mr. Merrifield expressed support for efforts to promote the development of and access to fuel for research nuclear reactors. Mr. Merrifield expressed concerns that current appropriations language restricts the U.S.’s ability to construct these reactors.
  • The NRC’s Review of Proposed Nuclear Energy Projects Located on Brownfield Sites: Mr. Merrifield discussed how the NRC requires prospective nuclear energy projects to perform an analysis of a need for power as part of the EIS process. He asserted that this requirement would be redundant if the project involved the conversion of a brownfield site into a nuclear power plant. He further remarked that state public utility commissions tend to require nuclear energy projects to perform a need for power analysis and noted that many applicants will perform these types of analysis on their own. He questioned the necessity of these analyses for nuclear energy reactors located on brownfield sites.
  • Support for Global Nuclear Energy Projects: Dr. Goff and Mr. Merrifield remarked that the Export–Import Bank of the U.S. (EXIM Bank) and the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) could help to finance foreign nuclear energy nuclear projects using U.S. technologies. They suggested that enabling these agencies to provide equity financing for these projects could be helpful. Mr. Merrifield also criticized the World Bank for not providing funding for nuclear energy projects in developing countries. He stated that the U.S. should work to lift this prohibition as the World Bank’s largest funder.
  • The U.S. Department of Energy’s Consideration of the Palisades Nuclear Generating Station: Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI) expressed interest in working to reopen the Palisades Nuclear Generating Station in Michigan and called on the U.S. Department of Energy to approve this reopening. Dr. Goff testified that the U.S. Department of Energy is currently assessing the various options for the Palisades Nuclear Generating Station.

Hearing Witnesses:

Panel I:

1. Mr. Dan Dorman, Executive Director of Operations, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
2. Dr. Michael Goff, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Nuclear Energy, U.S. Department of Energy

Panel II:

1. Ms. Maria Korsnick, President and CEO, Nuclear Energy Institute
2. The Hon. Jeffrey S. Merrifield, Chairman, Advanced Nuclear Working Group, U.S. Nuclear Industry Council
3. Mr. Ted Nordhaus, Founder and Executive Director, The Breakthrough Institute
4. Ms. Jackie Toth, Deputy Director, Good Energy Collective

Member Opening Statements:

Subcommittee Chairman Jeff Duncan (R-SC):

• He remarked that the hearing would support the development of bipartisan legislation to expand American nuclear technology.
  • He expressed interest in ensuring that the U.S.’s relevant laws and policies are up-to-date and enable the “full promise” of nuclear energy for both the U.S. and the U.S.’s commercial and strategic relationships globally.
• He stated that a recent bipartisan Congressional Delegation (CODEL) trip to Japan and South Korea had underscored the importance of the U.S.’s nuclear leadership and commercial nuclear relationships.
• He mentioned how he had joined Full Committee Chairman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Full Committee Chairman Frank Pallone (D-NJ), and Subcommittee Ranking Member Diana DeGette (D-CO) in issuing an April 2023 bipartisan request for information (RFI) to solicit policy recommendations from nuclear energy stakeholders.
  • He commented that the RFI’s responses and Subcommittee hearings in the ensuing months indicate that the Subcommittee can do more to update how the NRC and the U.S. Department of Energy implement their respective missions.
• He discussed how the legislative proposals under consideration at the hearing seek to make changes to laws and regulations to align Executive Branch actions with the U.S.’s broader goals for advancing nuclear energy.
  • He also commented that these legislative proposals reflect several of the key recommendations from stakeholders.
• He mentioned how one of the legislative proposals under consideration would align the mission of the NRC with the policy goals of the Atomic Energy Act.
• He also mentioned how several of the legislative proposals under consideration would improve the efficiency and predictability of the NRC’s licensing process.
  • He specifically commented that these proposals would require more effective decision making milestones, timeframes, and metrics to measure performance and results, avoid duplicative analyses in  siting and environmental reviews, update NRC reviews to reflect the realities of advanced nuclear energy technologies, provide new regulatory processes for advanced manufacturing and technologies, reduce the hourly fees the NRC charges by half for new advanced reactor applicants, and reform a key advisory committee to the NRC.
• He noted how another legislative proposal under consideration would eliminate the need for a “superfluous” hearing at the end of the NRC’s licensing process when stakeholders do not request the hearing.
  • He added that another legislative proposal under consideration aims to update NRC practices to incorporate more efficient oversight to free up resources to focus on safety significant matters.
• He called the aforementioned legislative proposals good examples of reasonable and widely supported improvements that will result in more effective, efficient, and predictable regulations.
• He then discussed how other legislative proposals under consideration involve the U.S. Department of Energy.
  • He highlighted how one of these legislative proposals would update the U.S. Department of Energy’s nuclear export reviews and the Department’s role to promote nuclear energy among U.S. allies.
  • He indicated that other legislative proposals would remove barriers to foreign investment in U.S. nuclear energy projects by U.S. allies and would extend the liability protections necessary for nuclear energy (as well as many U.S. Department of Energy operations).
• He stated that not all of the legislative proposals under consideration will advance in their current forms and commented that this hearing seeks to obtain feedback and recommendations for these proposals so that they can be improved upon.
• He further remarked that modernizing the NRC and the U.S. Department of Energy does not mean moving away from principles of safety.
  • He asserted that the Subcommittee must ensure that nuclear energy regulations are updated to reflect the advances and capabilities of the modern nuclear energy industry.
• He expressed optimism regarding the U.S.’s ability to be the global leader in nuclear energy technology.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Diana DeGette (D-CO):

• She remarked that the hearing would serve as an important opportunity for the Subcommittee to identify lessons for developing a U.S. nuclear energy industry that emphasizes public health and safety.
  • She also stated that nuclear energy has the potential to “meaningfully” drive down the U.S.’s emissions as it moves towards eliminating carbon dioxide emissions from its energy sector.
• She mentioned how nuclear energy currently comprises 20 percent of the electricity generated within the U.S. and nearly half of the U.S.’s carbon-free electricity.
  • She asserted that nuclear energy could supply a “significant” portion of the U.S.’s future carbon-free baseload power needs.
• She remarked however that the U.S. can only continue to “deeply” invest in nuclear energy if it prioritizes public health and safety.
• She thanked Subcommittee Chairman Jeff Duncan (R-SC) for including her NRC workforce bill as part of the hearing.
  • She called it critical for the NRC to possess the necessary staff, tools, and resources to operate at the highest level possible.
• She mentioned how NRC Chairman Christopher Hanson had previously told the Subcommittee that the NRC must maintain a highly qualified workforce.
  • She noted however that one-third of the NRC’s current staff is eligible for retirement.
• She stated that the NRC’s expected staff attrition combined with the expected increase in nuclear reactor applications creates challenges for the NRC.
• She discussed how her legislation, the Strengthening the NRC Workforce Act of 2023, would provide the NRC Chairman with direct hire authority during candidate shortages or when there is a critical hiring need for certain positions.
  • She commented that this legislation’s direct hire authority is similar to the direct hire authority that Congress had provided to FERC as part of the Energy Act of 2020.
• She also noted that the Strengthening NRC Workforce Act of 2023 would enable the NRC to increase compensation for its existing employees and commented that this ability would better enable the NRC to retain staff.
• She then expressed appreciation for the Subcommittee’s consideration of the NRC Office of Public Engagement and Participation Act of 2023.
  • She indicated that this legislation would establish the Office of Public Engagement and Participation at the NRC.
• She stated that community input is a key element of any public energy project and that a lack of public participation can result in energy projects being delayed.
  • She commented that early and meaningful public engagement enables energy project developers to avoid problems and to make the changes necessary to stop unnecessary project slowdowns.
  • She further stated that an Office of Public Engagement and Participation would provide communities with necessary support so that they can fully understand the impact of a given project.
• She then expressed concerns with some of the legislative proposals under consideration at the hearing and noted how some of these legislative proposals would reduce the review process for nuclear energy projects, eliminate critical hearings, and expedite licensing processes.
• She asserted that the highest standards of public safety and health cannot be sacrificed for the purposes of “rushing” projects through the NRC review process.
  • She commented that the legislative proposals under consideration are not intentionally seeking to undermine public safety and health and that she is merely concerned about the unintended consequences of these proposals.

Subcommittee Chairman Jeff Duncan (R-SC):

• He expressed interest in working to ensure the safety of nuclear energy and the security of nuclear fuels.
  • He mentioned how these topics had been raised during his recent CODEL trip to Japan and South Korea.

Full Committee Chairman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA):

• She remarked that U.S. global leadership in nuclear energy technology is “critical” to the U.S.’s economic and national security.
  • She asserted that increasing the deployment of American nuclear technology both domestically and abroad is essential for reducing emissions, providing reliable, affordable, and clean energy to Americans, and building durable economic and strategic relationships around the world.
• She discussed how the Atomic Energy Act has supported the U.S.’s global nuclear energy leadership for almost 70 years.
  • She highlighted how this law works to ensure that nuclear energy maximizes its contribution to the general welfare, increases living standards, and strengthens free competition and private enterprise.
• She remarked that the U.S. must continue its global leadership in the nuclear energy space and noted how the U.S.’s adversaries (including China and Russia) are seeking to challenge this leadership.
  • She highlighted how China and Russia are seeking to dominate emerging nuclear energy markets and control supply chains for both nuclear energy technologies and fuels.
• She stated that the Committee must work to push back against Chinese and Russian competition within the nuclear energy space and asserted that U.S. allies are “eager” for U.S. nuclear energy leadership and technology.
  • She recounted her recent visits to the Czech Republic and Poland and mentioned how these countries are seeking U.S. nuclear energy technologies and U.S. support for deploying these technologies.
• She discussed how the U.S. has many innovative nuclear energy companies and projects, including NuScale Power, TerraPower, GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy, X-energy, OKLO, the Project PELE Mobile Nuclear Reactor, and the AP-1000 reactors at Plant Vogtle in Georgia.
  • She commented that U.S. allies are interested in adopting these technologies and learning from these projects to support their own nuclear energy deployment efforts.
• She remarked that the U.S. must ensure that its licensing, regulation, and oversight of the U.S. nuclear energy industry is predictable, efficient, risk-informed, performance-based, and protective of health and safety.
  • She indicated that many of the stakeholders that had responded to the Committee’s April 2021 bipartisan RFI had echoed these views.
• She stated that many of the legislative proposals under consideration at the hearing reflect an effort to meet the needs expressed by nuclear policy thought leaders.
  • She noted how several of the legislative proposals under consideration would refocus the NRC and the U.S. Department of Energy to ensure that these bodies are carrying out the foundational nuclear energy policies that have been established by Congress.
• She commented that the legislative proposals under consideration will update how federal agencies implement their responsibilities to ensure that these agencies will be efficient, predictable, and risk-informed.
  • She also asserted that these legislative proposals will ensure that federal agencies do not impede nuclear energy innovation and deployment.
• She expressed hope that the hearing could help to address certain reservations regarding the legislative proposals and support the development of bipartisan legislation.

Full Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ):

• He remarked that nuclear energy plays a key role in producing carbon-free power for the U.S.’s electric grid.
• He mentioned how the Subcommittee has already held two hearings to consider nuclear energy issues during the current 118th Congress and described the two hearings as very bipartisan.
  • He expressed hope that the current hearing would also have a bipartisan tone and examine ways to improve the U.S.’s nuclear energy policies.
• He commended the NRC’s efforts to ensure the safety and security of nuclear power and commented that the Subcommittee must now work to improve the efficiency of the NRC’s work without sacrificing its high safety standards.
  • He expressed interest in exploring how the legislative proposals under consideration at the hearing would advance these goals and how these legislative proposals could be improved.
• He expressed particular interest in the Strengthening the NRC Workforce Act of 2023, which would provide the NRC with the same alternative compensation authority as FERC and direct hire authority.
  • He stated that this legislation would enable the NRC to attract and retain talent and expertise and commented that this talent and expertise would be critical as the NRC begins to license advanced nuclear reactors.
• He also highlighted the NRC Office of Public Engagement and Participation Act of 2023, which would create an Office of Public Engagement and Participation at the NRC modeled off of FERC’s Office of Public Participation.
  • He mentioned how NRC Chairman Christopher Hanson had expressed support for the concept of an Office of Public Engagement and Participation during a recent Subcommittee hearing.
• He stated that the purpose of an Office of Public Engagement and Participation would be to “demystify” the NRC and increase the ability of communities impacted by NRC decisions to access NRC proceedings.
  • He expressed interest in obtaining feedback on the NRC Office of Public Engagement and Participation Act of 2023 and indicated that he is working on ways to advance this legislation.
• He further expressed support for the Nuclear Fuel Security Act and mentioned how he had offered this legislation as an amendment during the markup of the Prohibiting Russian Uranium Imports Act.
  • He asserted that the U.S. cannot ban Russian uranium without first ensuring that there exists an American supply chain that can replace Russian uranium.
• He then raised concerns that the Nuclear Advisory Committee Reform Act could diminish the NRC’s ACRS through only requiring the Committee to provide input upon request from the NRC.
  • He warned that this legislative proposal could create another layer of unintentional bureaucracy or sideline the ACRS.
• He also raised concerns over how the Efficient Nuclear Licensing Hearings Act would remove the requirement that the NRC hold hearings on new reactors.
  • He commented that this legislative proposal could diminish public confidence in the NRC’s ability to provide oversight of nuclear power plants.
• He further raised concerns over how the NRC Mission Alignment Act would change and codify the mission of the NRC.
  • He commented that this legislative proposal would result in an unnecessary expansion of the NRC’s authority and could threaten the NRC’s independence.
  • He further warned that this legislation could negatively influence other countries seeking to set up their own regulatory frameworks for nuclear energy.
• He then discussed how Congressional Democrats have worked over the previous four years to pass laws meant to support safe and clean nuclear power, including investments at the U.S. Department of Energy.
  • He indicated that these laws include the Energy Act of 2020, the IIJA, and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.
• He stated that these laws support clean energy technology investments, create clean energy jobs, and lower energy costs for Americans.

Panel I Opening Statements:

Dr. Michael Goff (Office of Nuclear Energy, U.S. Department of Energy):

• He first indicated that the U.S. Department of Energy does not have official positions on any of the legislative proposals under consideration at the hearing.
  • He thanked the Committee for its bipartisan support for the U.S. Department of Energy’s civil nuclear activities and the U.S. civil nuclear energy industry.
• He testified that the Biden Administration is prioritizing activities that keep the U.S.’s existing fleet of nuclear power plants in operation, deploy advanced nuclear reactor technologies, secure and sustain the nuclear fuel cycle, and expand international nuclear energy cooperation.
• He stated that nuclear energy provides emissions-free firm power that is necessary to support the transition to a carbon pollution-free electric grid by 2035.
  • He also commented that new reactor deployments can help decarbonize industrial applications in support of the 2050 net-zero emissions goals set by the U.S. and other countries.
• He remarked that the U.S. Department of Energy is working to address the U.S.’s energy security challenges in the face of ongoing global events.
• He noted how the U.S. had purchased 24 percent of the enriched uranium for its commercial nuclear reactors from Russia.
  • He asserted that the U.S. could not continue to infuse the Russian state with this income source.
• He stated that there does not exist a quick and easy path to reduce the U.S.’s dependence on Russian-supplied nuclear fuels and that expanding the U.S.’s domestic nuclear fuel capacity will require strategic investments coupled with import restrictions.
• He asserted that the U.S. must act swiftly to support domestic nuclear fuel enrichment capabilities and to prepare the U.S. nuclear energy industry for this transition.
  • He expressed the U.S. Department of Energy’s interest in working with Congress to address this national security vulnerability.
• He also remarked that the U.S. and its allies share “common visions” of democracy and safe and secure global economic and energy systems.
• He mentioned how the U.S. and other Group of Seven (G7) countries made clear in their June 2022 communique that they collectively intend to reduce reliance on civil nuclear and related goods from Russia.
  • He added that this communique had called for assisting countries that are working to diversify their nuclear energy supply chains.
• He indicated that the U.S., Canada, France, Japan, and the United Kingdom (UK) have identified potential areas of collaboration on nuclear fuels.
  • He commented that this collaboration will support the stable supply of nuclear fuels for currently operating fleets, enable the development and deployment of fuels for future advanced nuclear reactors, and achieve reduced dependence on Russian nuclear fuel supply chains.
• He stated that this multilateral effort aims to leverage the unique resources and capabilities of multiple civil nuclear sectors to establish a global commercial nuclear fuel market.
  • He commented that collaboration on strategic opportunities in uranium extraction, conversion, enrichment, and fabrication will support collective energy, climate change, and economic resilience objectives.
  • He further commented that this multilateral collaboration will enable the U.S. to strengthen its domestic nuclear energy sectors and to compete more effectively against predatory suppliers within the nuclear energy space.
• He lastly expressed appreciation for Congress’s efforts to implement long-term nuclear power purchase agreements, support the initial licensing of new nuclear reactor technologies, address nuclear fuel needs, and focus on nuclear energy exports.
  • He commented that these actions will ensure that nuclear energy is a critical part of the U.S.’s energy mix so that the U.S. can achieve its climate change goals, energy needs, and national security objectives.

Mr. Dan Dorman (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission):

• He discussed how the NRC’s staff is currently reviewing pre-application materials and submitted applications for new and advanced nuclear reactor designs.
  • He commented that these reviews are commensurate with the risk and safety significance of the proposed technologies.
• He remarked that the NRC has worked to support the deployment of new and advanced nuclear reactors through the application of risk-informed and performance-based techniques and regulatory guidance.
  • He indicated that the NRC’s streamlining and efficiency efforts include “extensive” pre-application interactions, regulatory audits to enhance communication with applicants and licensees, and early engagement with the NRC’s ACRS.
• He also testified that the NRC is “ahead of schedule” in developing a new optional regulatory framework for licensing new reactors in accordance with the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (NEIMA).
  • He mentioned how NRC staff had submitted its Part 53 rule to the NRC for consideration.
  • He explained that the proposed Part 53 rule would establish a technology inclusive, risk-informed, and performance-based regulatory framework for licensing and oversight of new commercial nuclear power plants.
• He further discussed how the NRC is considering how it assesses fees for reviewing new and advanced nuclear reactor applications to ensure that the reviews are fair and equitable.
  • He noted how NEIMA requires the NRC to bill entities for performed regulatory activities and indicated that these fees will vary based on the type and quality of the application, the novelty of the technology, and the complexity of the proposed design.
• He mentioned how the NRC had clarified the applicability of its variable annual fee structure for SMRs so that non-licensed non-light water SMRs are included.
  • He commented that this clarification enables the NRC to be technology inclusive and to establish a fair and equitable approach for assessing annual fees to all new and advanced reactors.
  • He indicated that this clarification will result in lower fees for many nuclear project applicants.
• He stated the NRC is continuing to assess and implement processes to streamline environmental reviews while still complying with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and related laws.
  • He testified that the NRC staff is working “aggressively” to implement the NRC’s direction to ensure that the NRC’s environmental regulations, supporting analyses, and guidance fully support the subsequent renewal of nuclear power plant operating licenses from 60 years to 80 years.
• He noted how the nuclear energy industry is interested in using brownfield sites (such as former coal plants and shuttered nuclear power plants) to take advantage of existing infrastructure and workforces.
  • He stated that existing data regarding brownfield sites can be leveraged to support improvements in the NRC’s environmental review process’s efficiency.
• He then discussed how the NRC’s international portfolio includes import and export licensing obligations and a broader range of international cooperation and assistance functions.
• He mentioned how the NRC has initiated a rulemaking to clarify that its export regulations include non-light water reactor technologies.
  • He commented that this policy will reduce potential regulatory uncertainty in its licensing reviews of export applications.
• He stated that NRC engages with its international partners to collaborate on a wide range of regulatory topics, including licensing and oversight of SMRs and advanced nuclear reactors.
  • He commented that the NRC has experienced “noteworthy success” in performing joint-technical reviews with the Canadian regulator on highly complex areas of interest for SMRs and advanced nuclear reactors, including fuel qualification.
• He also remarked that the NRC complements broader U.S. government nuclear energy outreach through providing targeted regulatory capacity development to countries with growing regulatory programs.
  • He commented that this targeted regulatory development helps to ensure that these countries are prepared to provide appropriate oversight of nuclear power and material used within their borders.
• He mentioned how the NRC had recently renewed its cooperation agreement with Poland’s National Atomic Energy Agency.
  • He indicated that this agreement enables the exchange of information to support Poland in expanding its regulatory program for licensing large light water reactors and SMRs.
• He also indicated that NRC Chairman Christopher Hanson is currently on official travel to Senegal and Ghana.
  • He mentioned how Ghana is embarking on a nuclear power program to meet its electricity needs and has signed an agreement with the U.S. to strengthen economic and diplomatic ties.
• He remarked that there has been an increase in the demand for nuclear energy regulatory support and international capacity building efforts.
  • He testified that the NRC is “actively engaged” with its federal partners to ensure that these efforts are coordinated and prioritized in a manner that is consistent with the U.S. government’s strategic objectives.

Congressional Question Period:

Subcommittee Chairman Jeff Duncan (R-SC):

• Chairman Duncan expressed interest in working to restore federal agency alignment with the policy goals of the Atomic Energy Act. He commented that these policy goals have helped the U.S. to become the global leader in nuclear energy technology and have spread the peaceful benefits of nuclear power. He asked Dr. Goff to indicate whether the U.S. should reassert the principles of the Atomic Energy Act to promote and deploy nuclear energy technologies. He highlighted how the U.S. currently faces competition within the nuclear energy space from Russia and China.
  • Dr. Goff called the Atomic Energy Act’s principles “very critical.” He remarked that the U.S. must reestablish its global leadership in nuclear energy technology and ensure that it sets the global standards for nuclear energy safety, security, and non-proliferation. He stated that the U.S. can accomplish these objectives through international engagement and exporting nuclear energy technologies. He concluded that the Atomic Energy Act’s principles will provide necessary direction for the U.S. to reestablish its global leadership in nuclear energy technology.
• Chairman Duncan asked Dr. Goff to indicate whether China prioritizes safety and security in their nuclear energy programs.
  • Dr. Goff stated that China likely maintains different safety and security standards for their nuclear energy programs. He indicated that China has operated some of their nuclear reactors in a safe manner. He asserted however that the U.S. should work to establish the world’s nuclear energy safety and security standards. He indicated that the U.S. has worked to ensure that its nuclear energy safety and security standards are being met in its export relationships with China.
• Chairman Duncan commented that the U.S. should lead the world in nuclear energy safety and security standards. He then discussed how the U.S. Navy has stated that that nuclear submarines seeking approval must meet safety standards and enable the U.S. Navy to fulfill its mission. He stated that it is unclear whether the NRC is performing its safety mission in service the broader mission of enabling nuclear energy. He asked Mr. Dorman to discuss how he is working to ensure that NRC staff are supporting the Agency’s broader mission of enabling nuclear energy.
  • Mr. Dorman remarked that the NRC works to enable the safe and secure use of nuclear energy technologies. He stated that the NRC is focused on reaching technically sound safety conclusions that support the applications that come before the Commission. He also mentioned how the NRC has focused on broader applications of risk insights and has worked to apply risk insights at the beginning of its review process. He stated that the NRC seeks to ensure that its activities are appropriately scoped and focused as it prepares for its safety decision making.
• Chairman Duncan then mentioned how he had previously raised concerns over subsequent NRC licensing renewals taking significantly longer and costing more. He noted how NRC Chairman Christopher Hanson has expressed agreement with these concerns. He commented that this situation suggests that the NRC is not learning, improving, and becoming more efficient. He noted how the inventory of the NRC’s licensing actions has declined steadily over the previous 20 years from 1,600 actions in 2003 to 800 actions today. He further noted how only 80 percent of this smaller number of actions is completed within the NRC’s budget. He expressed concerns over this situation. He asked Mr. Dorman to address how the NRC can improve the efficiency of its licensing process and implement lasting measures so that it can improve its performance.
  • Mr. Dorman stated that the NRC is focused on defining the scope of its staff’s review and providing a schedule for that review at the beginning of the application process. He then noted how the NRC’s decrease in its number of reviews coincides with an increase in the complexity of the reviews. He stated that many of the more mundane and administrative tasks that had been undertaken 20 years ago have been resolved through standardization of technical specifications across licensees. He then testified that the NRC has had conversations on using risk insights to review the scope of the work being conducted by NRC staff on subsequent license renewal applications. He stated that there exist several attributes regarding the aging of nuclear power plants that come into play during the 60-year to 80-year period that the NRC is not focusing on because these attributes had adequate margin during the 40-year to 60-year period. He indicated however that the NRC does consider some additional elements when reviewing license renewal applications for 60-year-old nuclear power plants. He reiterated that the NRC is considering ways to leverage risk insights so that it can sharpen its focus and expedite its safety decision process.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Diana DeGette (D-CO):

• Ranking Member DeGette discussed how she had introduced the Strengthening the NRC Workforce Act of 2023 to support public safety. She stated that sufficient NRC staffing is necessary for ensuring the timely review of NRC applications. She asked Mr. Dorman to confirm that roughly one-third of the NRC’s staff is eligible for retirement.
  • Mr. Dorman confirmed that roughly one-third of the NRC’s staff is eligible for retirement,
• Ranking Member DeGette also asked Mr. Dorman to confirm that the NRC is expecting a significant increase in applications for new reactor licenses given the growing interest in nuclear energy and advanced nuclear reactors.
  • Mr. Dorman stated that the NRC is expecting several applications for new nuclear reactor licenses within the near term. He indicated that these nuclear reactors seeking licenses will have novel designs and that additional companies will pursue nuclear reactor licenses based on these novel designs. He stated that the NRC thus expects a modest increase in nuclear reactor license applications in the near term and the potential for a fairly significant increase in nuclear reactor license applications in the not-too-distant future.
• Ranking Member DeGette asked Mr. Dorman to indicate whether the NRC will require a robust and highly educated staff to respond to the anticipated increase in license applications.
  • Mr. Dorman answered affirmatively.
• Ranking Member DeGette asked Mr. Dorman to address how the use of direct hire authority would prepare the NRC for the anticipated increase in its workload.
  • Mr. Dorman remarked that direct hire authority would be “of great assistance” to the NRC as it prepares for an increased workload. He mentioned how the NRC’s staffing had been reduced by about one third over the previous decade. He also noted how the age demographics of the NRC’s workforce has resulted in increased staff attrition. He stated that the NRC’s current hiring is meant to offset this attrition and that the NRC is starting to make progress on achieving its allotted full-time employee (FTE) count. He also highlighted how the U.S. nuclear energy industry is expanding, which forces the NRC to compete for workers.
• Ranking Member DeGette asked Mr. Dorman to indicate whether increasing compensation for the NRC’s existing workforce would help to ensure that the NRC remains fully staffed.
  • Mr. Dorman commented that increasing compensation for the NRC’s existing workforce would be a “great help.”
• Ranking Member DeGette asked Mr. Dorman to indicate whether the NRC could be more expeditious in its license reviews if it were to possess sufficient staffing and funding.
  • Mr. Dorman answered affirmatively.
• Ranking Member DeGette then expressed interest in the Efficient Nuclear Licensing Hearings Act. She asked Mr. Dorman to address how removing the requirement that the NRC hold hearings on new nuclear reactors would threaten public safety and undermine public confidence in the NRC.
  • Mr. Dorman remarked that there exists a “substantial” amount of information that is now available to the public as compared to when the U.S. had established the requirement for the NRC to hold hearings on new nuclear reactors. He highlighted how the NRC’s public facing web-based records management system has now been in place for over 25 years. He added that the NRC has upgraded this system with improved search engines to help make information available to the public. He stated that removing the requirement that the NRC hold hearings on new nuclear reactors would not impact the interest of any party seeking a hearing. He noted how the NRC staff would still perform safety evaluations and environmental reviews for prospective nuclear reactor projects.
• Ranking Member DeGette interjected to ask Mr. Dorman to indicate whether removing the requirement that the NRC hold hearings on new nuclear reactors will have an impact.
  • Mr. Dorman stated that the removal of this requirement would not impact the NRC’s safety conclusions.
• Ranking Member DeGette interjected to ask Mr. Dorman to indicate whether removing the requirement that the NRC hold hearings on new nuclear reactors will impact public confidence in nuclear reactor facilities.
  • Mr. Dorman remarked that the NRC maintains “significant” engagement with the public throughout its nuclear reactor review process. He commented that removing this requirement will therefore not significantly impact public confidence in nuclear reactor facilities.
• Ranking Member DeGette then noted how the Strengthening American Nuclear Competitiveness Act includes a section that addresses the U.S.’s exports of nuclear materials. She asked Dr. Goff to indicate whether this legislative propsoal would impact the U.S.’s ability to export nuclear materials to other countries (such as Japan).
  • Dr. Goff highlighted how the U.S. must abide by the A10 process for nuclear material exports. He noted several countries have general authorization for nuclear material exports, which makes it easier for the U.S. to transfer general nuclear energy technologies to these countries. He noted however that there are countries that require specific authorization for nuclear material exports and commented that the U.S. will need to perform more extensive reviews when attempting to export nuclear materials to these countries.

Rep. Bob Latta (R-OH):

• Rep. Latta remarked that nuclear power offers the U.S. a reliable and carbon emissions-free source of energy. He thanked the Subcommittee for considering his legislative proposal, the Nuclear Fuel Security Act. He raised concerns over the U.S.’s dependence on Russia for nuclear fuel, especially considering Russia’s recent invasion of Ukraine. He noted how the U.S. currently relies upon Russia, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan for nearly half of its natural uranium purchases. He asked Dr. Goff to discuss the need to ensure that the U.S. has robust domestic capabilities throughout the nuclear fuel cycle, including the production of natural uranium through conversion and enrichment.
  • Dr. Goff remarked that Russia’s unprovoked and unjustified invasion of Ukraine highlights that Russia is not a reliable supporter of energy security for any country. He expressed his agreement with Rep. Latta’s concerns that the U.S. is too reliant on Russia for uranium enrichment and conversion activities. He remarked that the U.S. must work with its allies to replace Russia as a uranium supplier. He commented that additional domestic uranium supplies could support this effort. He asserted that the U.S. must address these uranium supply concerns in a timely manner.
• Rep. Latta then expressed concerns with the U.S. Department of Energy’s slow implementation of the HALEU Availability Program (which had been established as part of the Energy Act of 2020). He commented that the U.S. Department of Energy’s inaction is causing private companies (such as Centrus Energy and TerraPower) to move forward on their own plans to domestically produce HALEU. He asked Dr. Goff to discuss how the U.S. Department of Energy is working to accelerate the implementation of the HALEU Availability Program.
  • Dr. Goff noted that the U.S. Department of Energy had just received comments on the draft review for the draft RFP for the HALEU Availability Program. He acknowledged that it had taken the U.S. Department of Energy time to release this draft RFP and attributed the length of this process to the interagency review process. He testified that the U.S. Department of Energy is now reviewing the comments that it had received and is working to address these comments as part of its final RFP for the HALEU Availability Program. He also expressed the U.S. Department of Energy’s agreement with Rep. Latta’s concerns that the U.S. Department of Energy must move rapidly to provide HALEU. He commented that HALEU will be key to supporting future advanced nuclear reactor demonstration programs.
• Rep. Latta asked Dr. Goff to indicate whether the Nuclear Fuel Security Act would help to expedite the HALEU Availability Program’s rollout.
  • Dr. Goff stated that the Nuclear Fuel Security Act could help to ensure that the U.S. possesses sufficient low-enriched uranium (LEU) and HALEU supplies. He testified that the U.S. Department of Energy is currently working to find these materials and to provide these materials to companies.
• Rep. Latta then commented that the U.S. nuclear energy industry has “deep concerns” with the U.S. Department of Energy’s draft RFP for the HALEU Availability Program. He asked Dr. Goff to discuss how the U.S. Department of Energy plans to address these concerns. He also asked Dr. Goff to indicate whether he could commit to engaging in further industry outreach prior to the U.S. Department of Energy’s finalization of the HALEU Availability Program RFP.
  • Dr. Goff expressed the U.S. Department of Energy’s commitment to engage in further industry outreach prior to the finalization of the HALEU Availability Program RFP. He mentioned how the U.S. Department of Energy is currently working to address the comments it had received on the draft RFP. He stated that the U.S. Department of Energy wants to make the HALEU Availability Program that will incentivize new HALEU production capacity.
• Rep. Latta called it important for the U.S. to make progress on the HALEU Availability Program to ensure that the U.S. is not dependent on “untrusted sources” for its uranium supplies.

Rep. Scott Peters (D-CA):

• Rep. Peters mentioned how he had proposed the Global Nuclear Energy Assessment and Cooperation Act, which would provide for the training of foreign nuclear energy experts and establish the U.S. International Nuclear Reactor Export and Innovation Branch. He commented that this legislation would help to ensure that the U.S. remains the world’s leading developer of nuclear energy. He stated that the Subcommittee will need to take a bipartisan approach to addressing the U.S.’s most pressing energy challenges, including climate change and energy security. He also expressed interest in having the Subcommittee address energy transmission issues and indicated that he expects Subcommittee hearings on this topic during the upcoming fall. He then applauded the U.S.’s efforts to support the decarbonization of its economy. He noted however that the U.S. only accounts for 10 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. He also expressed concerns that the U.S.’s use and export of coal energy could undermine this progress. He stated that nuclear energy could serve as a clean energy alternative for the developing world. He asked Dr. Goff to identify the current barriers to exporting U.S. nuclear energy technologies and expertise. He also asked Dr. Goff to recommend reforms that can help to address these barriers.
  • Dr. Goff remarked that the U.S. requires agreements with other countries before it can export U.S. nuclear energy technologies. He also stated that the U.S. must ensure that it possesses the right support mechanisms in place to support these nuclear energy technology exports. He commented that financing packages could support these exports and suggested that the EXIM Bank could help with financing. He noted however that other countries support their nuclear energy technology exports through equity financing and indicated that the U.S. cannot provide such financing for its nuclear energy technology exports. He also stated that the U.S. must ensure that it can successfully deploy its nuclear energy technologies domestically. He elaborated that most countries want to see nuclear energy technologies already being deployed before they decide to deploy the technologies themselves. He commented that successful domestic deployments of nuclear energy technologies will therefore support the U.S. in exporting the technologies.
• Rep. Peters asked Dr. Goff to indicate whether there are existing policy proposals that would enable the U.S. to provide equity financing for nuclear energy technology exports.
  • Dr. Goff stated that he was not aware of any specific proposals to enable the U.S. to provide equity financing for nuclear energy technology exports.
• Rep. Peters expressed interest in further exploring such proposals. He then noted how there exists bipartisan recognition in Congress that “common sense” permitting reforms are needed to boost energy security and reduce pollution. He commented that while nuclear energy has been a clean, secure, reliable, and safe source of energy for decades, he stated that the NRC’s legacy environmental review processes have impeded efforts to build new nuclear energy facilities. He noted how the Modernize Nuclear Reactor Environmental Reviews Act would reform the environmental assessment process for nuclear energy projects. He indicated that this legislative proposal would allow for broader usage and potentially add new categorical exclusions as part of these assessments. He asked Dr. Goff to provide his evaluation of the Modernize Nuclear Reactor Environmental Reviews Act. He also asked Dr. Goff to provide recommendations for supporting more rapid environmental reviews of U.S. nuclear energy projects.
  • Dr. Goff remarked that the U.S. must ensure that the environmental impacts of proposed nuclear energy projects are addressed in an efficient and non-duplicative fashion. He indicated however that the U.S. Department of Energy does not review proposed nuclear energy projects and expressed reservations on commenting about the review process.
• Rep. Peters expressed frustration that federal district courts throughout the U.S. must perform environmental analyses of nuclear energy projects (as well as non-nuclear energy projects). He expressed interest in working to streamline these review processes.

Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX):

• Rep. Burgess mentioned how the recently enacted Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 contains some reforms to the NEPA review process. He asked Dr. Goff to indicate whether these reforms are helpful for supporting the deployment of nuclear energy projects.
  • Mr. Dorman testified that the NRC is currently reviewing the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023’s permitting reform provisions, as well as the reforms in the legislative proposals under consideration at the hearing. He stated that the NRC is taking actions to consider an advanced reactor generic EIS and to review the categorical exclusions that exist in 10 CFR Part 51. He also stated that the NRC is considering process improvements to reduce the level of required details in the NRC’s documentation. He welcomed the Subcommittee’s interest in NRC efforts to streamline the permitting process for nuclear energy projects.
• Rep. Burgess asked Mr. Dorman to answer whether the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023’s permitting reform language had been helpful.
  • Mr. Dorman answered affirmatively.
• Rep. Burgess then remarked that collaboration between the NRC, the U.S. Department of Energy, and private companies will be vital to support American nuclear innovation. He asked Dr. Goff to discuss the scope of the power purchase agreements that the U.S. Department of Energy has entered into with advanced nuclear reactor companies.
  • Dr. Goff stated that the U.S. Department of Energy has not entered into power purchase agreements for advanced nuclear energy technologies. He noted how the U.S. Department of Energy lacks authorization for long-term power purchase agreements and indicated that the Department can only pursue power purchase agreements that are ten years or less. He noted however that power plants want power purchase agreements that are between 20 years and 30 years in length. He stated that long-term purchase agreements could provide advanced nuclear energy companies with the needed certainty to pursue their innovative technologies. He expressed the U.S. Department of Energy’s interest in obtaining the authority to pursue longer term purchase agreements with nuclear energy companies. He noted how the U.S. Department of Energy is looking to use its own sites to deploy advanced nuclear reactor technologies and commented that long-term power purchase agreements could support these efforts.
• Rep. Burgess then discussed how the U.S. Nuclear Navy has a very strong safety record. He asked Mr. Dorman to address how the U.S. Nuclear Navy could serve as a model for future nuclear energy deployments.
  • Mr. Dorman remarked that the U.S. Nuclear Navy is a model for nuclear safety and noted how it has been over 40 years since the U.S. had experienced the Three Mile Island nuclear accident. He stated that the U.S. has demonstrated a very strong nuclear safety record in the ensuing decades. He discussed how the NRC provides nuclear power plant performance information to the public on an ongoing basis. He stated that it is difficult to convey the safety of the U.S.’s nuclear energy industry to the public given the complexity of nuclear energy. He remarked that the NRC must work to provide comprehensive information about the U.S. nuclear energy industry’s safety record and the NRC’s work to ensure this safety.

Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY):

• Rep. Tonko remarked that the U.S.’s existing nuclear reactors are “essential” to the U.S.’s clean energy transition. He expressed hope that several of the legislative proposals under consideration at the hearing will support the deployment of new and advanced nuclear reactors. He also stated that the Subcommittee should work to ensure that the NRC remains a successful and independent regulator of the U.S. nuclear energy industry. He expressed support for the Strengthening the NRC Workforce Act of 2023 and the NRC Office of Public Engagement and Participation Act of 2023. He commented that the Subcommittee must ensure that the NRC maintains sufficient personnel to carry out its duties. He asked Mr. Dorman to discuss the challenges that the NRC faces in terms of competing with the private sector for a limited number of qualified employee candidates.
  • Mr. Dorman remarked that the NRC’s employee recruiting advantages are its safety mission and reputation as a great place to work. He noted however that there are 17 nuclear energy technology developers, which means that the NRC faces strong competition for workers. He testified that the NRC’s non-retirement staff attrition rate is about 2 percent this year, which he described as “slightly” higher than the NRC’s historic non-retirement staff attrition rate. He stated that the private sector is poaching many of the NRC’s workers and commented that the NRC cannot offer these workers competitive salaries. He expressed support for providing the NRC with additional tools to attract and retain employees.
• Rep. Tonko then asked Mr. Dorman to address how the enactment of the legislative proposals under consideration would increase the NRC’s workload.
  • Mr. Dorman remarked that he does not believe that the legislative proposals under consideration would increase the NRC’s workload if enacted. He noted however that the NRC is expecting to receive four applications for the construction and authorization for two light water reactors and two non-light water reactors in the next 12 months. He commented that the successful advancement of these projects will likely result in a “substantial” increase in the NRC’s workload in the following years.
• Rep. Tonko reiterated his support for the Strengthening the NRC Workforce Act of 2023 and commented that the legislation would enable the NRC to take on additional workload. He also stated that the U.S. should provide FERC with similar hiring authority to ensure that FERC has the technical, legal, and other necessary expertise to carry out their responsibilities. He then asked Mr. Dorman to indicate whether the NRC has any views on the legislative proposals under consideration that would streamline the NRC’s licensing hearings and other proceedings.
  • Mr. Dorman stated that he could not speak to the NRC’s views on these legislative proposals. He expressed the NRC’s willingness to work with the Subcommittee on these legislative proposals.
• Rep. Tonko then expressed interest in ensuring that the general public and host communities will have opportunities to participate in NRC proceedings. He stated that the Subcommittee should work to ensure that streamlined regulatory processes do not lead to fewer public comment opportunities.

Full Committee Chairman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA):

• Chairman McMorris Rodgers mentioned how she had recently joined a bipartisan and bicameral letter to the NRC urging the Commission to better develop risk-informed regulations for advanced nuclear reactors. She expressed frustration that it had taken the NRC two years to develop regulations for advanced nuclear reactors that stakeholders call unworkable. She asked Mr. Dorman to address how he is working to instill a results-oriented culture among the NRC’s staff.
  • Mr. Dorman remarked that the NRC is working to focus on risk insights. He discussed how the NRC has historically taken a risk-informed approach, which involves using risk studies of reactor technologies to inform its final decision making. He stated that the NRC has worked over the previous several years to make use of these risk insights earlier in its review processes. He commented that this strategy enables the NRC to more efficiently allocate its resources during its review process.
• Chairman McMorris Rodgers then stated that communications are key to supporting an efficient licensing and regulatory process. She noted however that NRC staff will tell applicants seeking clarifications on rules, guidance, and expectations that the NRC cannot act as a consultant due to its independence and that the NRC does not provide informal advice. She asked Mr. Dorman to confirm that the NRC does not provide clarifications to applicants. She also asked Mr. Dorman to address how the NRC can improve the efficiency of its review process if it does not provide clarifications to applicants.
  • Mr. Dorman remarked that the NRC has been promoting and encouraging pre-application discussions with technology developers. He stated that these discussions enable NRC staff to better understand the technology being developed and to ensure that the NRC possesses the requisite skills to review the application when it is received. He also stated that these discussions enable technology developers to anticipate potential questions and prepare more complete applications for submission. He commented that these more complete applications will support more efficient NRC reviews. He expressed interest in receiving additional feedback as to how the NRC can better communicate with applicants.
• Chairman McMorris Rodgers asked Mr. Dorman to indicate whether the NRC has plans for measuring and verifying progress on its licensing decisions.
  • Mr. Dorman answered affirmatively. He testified that the NRC establishes a review schedule for applications when the staff determines the applications to be sufficiently complete. He stated that the NRC works to adhere to these review schedules and identify potential issues early in the process for resolution.
• Chairman McMorris Rodgers then asked Dr. Goff to identify any lessons from how the U.S. Department of Energy regulates and works with innovators that can inform the NRC’s efforts to improve their regulatory interactions.
  • Dr. Goff noted how the U.S. Department of Energy can authorize nuclear energy facilities and reactors and maintains a process for reviewing these facilities and reactors. He highlighted how the U.S. Department of Energy tends to license novel nuclear energy technologies, which necessitates that the Department maintain a flexible licensing process. He commented that a key element of this flexible process involves communication between the independent authorizer and the entity that is trying to deploy a nuclear energy facility. He testified that the U.S. Department of Energy tends to not make its requests for information written and instead relies upon verbal communications. He commented that this communication results in a faster review process. He indicated that the U.S. Department of Energy typically makes its written requests for information toward the end of its review process and indicated that these requests generally pertain to major issues. He also noted how the U.S. Office of Nuclear Energy oversees the Idaho National Laboratory and how Battelle Energy Alliance operates this Laboratory. He testified that the U.S. Office of Nuclear Energy’s contract with Battelle Energy Alliance contains metrics for the review process, including metrics that govern document response times.

Full Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ):

• Ranking Member Pallone mentioned how NRC Chairman Christopher Hanson and Commissioner Jeff Baran had previously expressed support for proposals to establish an Office of Public Participation at the NRC. He also noted how the NRC Office of Public Engagement and Participation Act of 2023 would require the NRC to establish a similar office. He further mentioned how the NRC had established its Environmental Justice Review Team two years ago to review how the Commission’s programs, policies, and activities would address environmental justice issues. He noted how this Team had made six formal recommendations, including that the NRC enhance its environmental justice-related outreach activities and that the Commission implement formal mechanisms to enhance how environmental justice is addressed. He asked Mr. Dorman to discuss how the NRC is implementing its Environmental Justice Review Team’s recommendations. He also asked Mr. Dorman to address how a potential NRC Office of Public Participation could support the implementation of the recommendations. He further asked Mr. Dorman to identify current gaps in the NRC’s process for engaging communities impacted by the NRC’s decisions.
  • Mr. Dorman remarked that stakeholder confidence is one of the goals in the NRC’s strategic plan and indicated that the NRC seeks to foster stakeholder confidence in its projects. He highlighted how the NRC has Agreement State officers and state liaison officers in its regional offices. He also mentioned how the NRC has tribal programs in its Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. He stated that a potential Office of Public Engagement and Participation could be integrated into the NRC’s existing operations. He remarked however that the NRC currently views stakeholder confidence as an important strategic goal and testified that the NRC holds over 1,000 public meetings each year.
• Ranking Member Pallone interjected to ask Mr. Dorman to comment on the NRC’s efforts to implement its Environmental Justice Review Team’s recommendations.
  • Mr. Dorman testified that the NRC is still reviewing the Environmental Justice Review Team’s recommendations and indicated that the NRC’s staff is awaiting direction on how to implement these recommendations.
• Ranking Member Pallone then noted how U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm had previously expressed conditional support for a ban on Russian uranium imports so long as the U.S. could develop a domestic nuclear fuel cycle supply chain. He asked Dr. Goff to indicate whether he agrees with Secretary Granholm’s assessment that a ban on Russian uranium imports would require the U.S. to possess a sufficient domestic nuclear fuel infrastructure. He also asked Dr. Goff to discuss the benefits of a federal program to ensure nuclear fuel security, such as the one authorized under the proposed Nuclear Fuel Security Act.
  • Dr. Goff expressed agreement with Secretary Granholm’s assessment that a ban on Russian uranium imports would require the U.S. to possess a sufficient domestic nuclear fuel infrastructure. He stated that the U.S. currently lacks sufficient uranium enrichment capacity outside of Russian sources to support the nuclear reactors operating outside of Russia. He asserted that the U.S. must therefore add new uranium enrichment capacity if it seeks to ban Russian uranium imports.
• Ranking Member Pallone asked Dr. Goff to identify the point at which the U.S. could adopt an absolute ban on Russian uranium imports.
  • Dr. Goff estimated that the U.S. might need four or five years to develop new uranium enrichment capacity. He stated that the development of this new capacity would ensure that a ban on Russian uranium imports would not harm the continued operation of the U.S.’s nuclear reactors.
• Ranking Member Pallone asked Dr. Goff to indicate whether the Nuclear Fuel Security Act would enable the U.S. to move away from using Russian uranium.
  • Dr. Goff indicated that the Nuclear Fuel Security Act would grant the U.S. Secretary of Energy with waiver authority to permit some Russian nuclear material imports as the U.S. works to transition away from using Russian uranium.

Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-VA):

• Rep. Griffith mentioned how he had worked to develop the Efficient Nuclear Licensing Hearings Act to reform the NRC’s mandatory hearing process. He asked Mr. Dorman to discuss the NRC’s current mandatory hearing process and to describe the typical license application process before a mandatory hearing.
  • Mr. Dorman explained that the NRC’s staff conducts a safety evaluation and an EIS upon receipt of an application. He also noted how the ACRS provides an independent review of the salient portions of the safety evaluation and the EIS. He indicated that the Commission then conducts a hearing based on the work of the NRC’s staff and the ACRS and will ultimately render a decision on the application.
• Rep. Griffith asked Mr. Dorman to discuss the types of cases that trigger a mandatory hearing and to explain the preparation that is needed for these hearings.
  • Mr. Dorman noted that the NRC conducts a mandatory hearing in any uncontested proceeding and indicated that these hearings are for nuclear power plants and certain nuclear fuel facilities. He stated that a mandatory hearing does not impact the ability of any interested party to request a hearing.
• Rep. Griffith asked Mr. Dorman to indicate who are the participants in an NRC mandatory hearing.
  • Mr. Dorman noted that the participants in an uncontested NRC mandatory hearing are generally the Commission and the NRC staff.
• Rep. Griffith asked Mr. Dorman to explain the differences between an NRC contested hearing, an NRC mandatory hearing, and an NRC adjudicatory hearing.
  • Mr. Dorman noted how an NRC contested hearing is an adjudicatory proceeding. He indicated that the party that is raising a concern with an application in this type of hearing must demonstrate standing (i.e., that they are impacted by the action under consideration) and that they have admissible contentions.
• Rep. Griffith asked Mr. Dorman to indicate whether it is necessary from a safety standpoint for an uncontested application to undergo a mandatory NRC hearing.
  • Mr. Dorman stated that it is not necessary from a safety standpoint for an uncontested application to undergo a mandatory NRC hearing.
• Rep. Griffith asked Mr. Dorman to indicate whether he is familiar with the NRC’s 2008 proposal on the Atomic Energy Act that was transmitted to then-Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). He also asked Mr. Dorman to confirm that the NRC had recommended the elimination of mandatory hearings for uncontested proceedings in this proposal.
  • Mr. Dorman answered affirmatively to both questions.

Rep. Marc Veasey (D-TX):

• Rep. Veasey discussed how the U.S. has 93 operating commercial nuclear reactors at 55 power plants across 28 states (including his state of Texas). He indicated that these nuclear reactors account for about 20 percent of the U.S.’s total annual electricity generation and about 46 percent of the U.S.’s zero-carbon electricity. He remarked that the U.S.’s maintenance and expansion of nuclear energy will be beneficial from an environmental standpoint. He expressed interest in working to ensure that the licensing and regulation of new nuclear reactors will be done in a manner that protects public health and safety while also addressing the U.S.’s growing energy demands. He stated that nuclear energy has long been one of the safest forms of energy and largely attributed this safety performance to the NRC and the nuclear energy industry’s innovation. He noted how some nuclear energy stakeholders have called on the NRC to adjust its policies to account for new nuclear energy technologies that offer safety and security benefits. He mentioned how one of the legislative proposals under consideration at the hearing would amend the duties of the ACRS in scheduling reviews and would impose term limits on ACRS members. He asked Dr. Goff to indicate whether this legislative proposal would offer improvements to the current NRC review process or create additional layers of bureaucracy. He also asked Dr. Goff to address how the NRC is considering the unique characteristics and safety features of innovative nuclear energy technologies while maintaining its high standards for safety evaluations and risk-informed regulatory processes.
  • Dr. Goff discussed how many of the advanced nuclear reactor concepts that are being developed and deployed rely upon additional passive safety features. He stated that the NRC’s licensing process could be reformed to account for these new features. He commented that Mr. Dorman would be better suited to discuss the proposed reforms to the ACRS.
  • Mr. Dorman noted how the ACRS is an independent committee composed of external experts. He stated that the ACRS’s leadership is working diligently to remain informed on the safety innovations that come before the Committee. He remarked that the ACRS’s input provides critical contributions to the NRC’s review process and testified that the ACRS’s input has proven helpful in some of the NRC’s recent actions. He asserted that the ACRS should be provided with some leeway to follow their expertise when assessing applications before the NRC.
• Rep. Veasey then asked the witnesses to indicate whether the U.S. government should increase its public communications regarding its efforts to promote cleaner energy technologies. He commented that there appears to not exist sufficient communications regarding the U.S.’s efforts to transition to cleaner energy technologies.
  • Dr. Goff remarked that the U.S. government should improve its public communications regarding its efforts to transition to cleaner energy sources. He commented that while there is growing public support for the adoption of nuclear energy, he asserted that the U.S. government must continue to educate the public on its nuclear energy policies and how nuclear energy technologies will interact with other energy technologies.

Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH):

• Rep. Johnson discussed how his legislative proposal, the Strengthening American Nuclear Competitiveness Act, would (among several items) extend the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act’s liability protections. He stated that these protections have been essential for supporting the buildout of the U.S.’s civilian nuclear energy industry. He asked Dr. Goff to discuss the importance of the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act’s liability protections for maintaining and expanding the U.S.’s nuclear energy industry. He also asked Dr. Goff to address why the U.S. should extend these liability protections.
  • Dr. Goff remarked that the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act’s liability protections are important for both the U.S. nuclear energy industry and the U.S. Department of Energy. He stated that this law protects both the U.S. nuclear energy industry and the U.S. Department of Energy in the event of an unforeseeable accident. He indicated that the law’s liability protections have not needed to be used thus far.
• Rep. Johnson explained that Congress had passed the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act to address the fact that insurance companies did not know how to insure the U.S. nuclear energy industry. He commented that the U.S. nuclear energy industry will face significant challenges attracting investments if they lack insurance.
  • Dr. Goff noted how insurance companies and many countries still face challenges when attempting to properly assess the risks associated with nuclear reactors.
• Rep. Johnson then discussed how the Strengthening American Nuclear Competitiveness Act would also end the current bans on commercial nuclear energy investments coming from entities located in allied and friendly countries. He called these bans “outdated” and stated that these bans could hold back critical investments in the U.S. nuclear energy industry. He mentioned how NRC Chairman Christopher Hanson has expressed receptiveness to changing this current policy. He asked Dr. Goff to provide his views on ending the U.S.’s current bans on commercial nuclear energy investments coming from entities located in allied and friendly countries.
  • Dr. Goff remarked that while the U.S. wants to ensure that it maintains control over its nuclear facility assets, he stated that there exists opportunity to open up the U.S. nuclear industry’s ability to receive investments from certain foreign sources.
• Rep. Johnson then noted how the Strengthening American Nuclear Competitiveness Act would require the NRC to study the unique licensing issues for certain nuclear energy technology applications. He expressed particular interest in expediting the manufacturing of SMRs and microreactors and in considering innovative uses for these reactors in manufacturing. He also stated that SMRs and microreactors may eventually be used to heat and power large industrial facilities, data centers, and other energy intensive industries. He asked Mr. Dorman to indicate whether the NRC is currently looking into novel nuclear energy technology applications. He also asked Mr. Dorman to discuss the NRC’s preparation to review license applications for new manufacturing techniques using nuclear energy and future non-electric applications of nuclear energy.
  • Mr. Dorman testified that the NRC is currently looking into novel nuclear energy technology applications. He mentioned how the NRC anticipates that X-energy’s upcoming application will provide process heat to a Dow facility. He also noted how the NRC’s staff is looking at the factory manufacture and transport of microreactors and indicated that the staff is developing a paper on this topic for the Commission.
• Rep. Johnson expressed his pleasure with the answers provided to his questions by Dr. Goff and Mr. Dorman.

Rep. Ann Kuster (D-NH):

• Rep. Kuster discussed how the U.S. has 54 nuclear power plants (including one in her state of New Hampshire) and highlighted how these nuclear power plants provide nearly 20 percent of the U.S.’s generated electricity. She stated that preserving existing nuclear resources plays an important role in helping the U.S. to achieve its carbon dioxide reduction goals. She mentioned how a recent study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) had found that the closure of the U.S.’s existing nuclear power plants would lead to an increase in coal and natural gas production to compensate for the loss in power generation. She discussed how the IIJA had included the Civil Nuclear Credit Program and how the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 had included a production tax credit for existing nuclear generators. She asked Dr. Goff to address how these policies are helping the U.S.’s existing nuclear fleet.
  • Dr. Goff first expressed appreciation for Congress’s recent actions in the IIJA and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 and called these actions “critical” to prevent nuclear power plant closures. He noted how the Civil Nuclear Credit Program has conducted an initial round of solicitations and is expected to move forward on one application. He then noted how the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022’s production tax credit for existing nuclear generators has not yet been implemented and anticipated that this tax credit will be implemented over the next year. He stated that these policies will complement each other.
• Rep. Kuster then remarked that the legislative proposals under consideration at the hearing indicate that Congress seeks to ensure the U.S.’s global leadership in advanced nuclear technologies. She noted how advanced nuclear reactors are designed to be safer and have fewer environmental externalities than traditional light water nuclear reactors. She asked Dr. Goff to provide recommendations for how Congress could promote the U.S.’s global leadership in advanced nuclear energy.
  • Dr. Goff remarked that the U.S. is the global leader in advanced nuclear technology innovation and highlighted how the U.S. has innovative advanced nuclear energy companies and vendors. He stated that the U.S. must ensure that it can effectively deploy and export these technologies. He asserted that the U.S. must work to derisk the deployment of advanced nuclear energy technologies and noted how these technologies tend to be very capital intensive. He called it especially important for the U.S. to derisk the deployment of “first of a kind” advanced nuclear energy technologies. He expressed the U.S. Department of Energy’s appreciation for Congress’s funding of the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program (ARDP) and the Carbon Free Power Project (CFPP). He stated that public-private projects will enable the U.S. to derisk the initial deployments of advanced nuclear technologies, which will ultimately enable the U.S. to export these technologies.
• Rep. Kuster then asked Mr. Dorman to identify the resources that the NRC needs to ensure that advanced nuclear reactors can be safely deployed.
  • Mr. Dorman indicated that the NRC’s budget request identifies the resources that the NRC needs to ensure that advanced nuclear reactors can be safely deployed. He also stated that the NRC must continue its hiring efforts to ensure that the Commission possesses critical skills.
• Rep. Kuster added that Congress must be cautious regarding proposals to reduce the NRC’s budget.

Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI):

• Rep. Walberg remarked that nuclear energy provides clean, reliable, and affordable power and mentioned how his Congressional District contains two nuclear power plants. He stated however that the current licensing and regulatory processes for new nuclear energy projects, the uprating of current nuclear reactors, and the maintenance and operations of the U.S.’s existing nuclear fleet are all very onerous. He asserted that Congress must update the U.S. government’s processes for nuclear energy projects. He discussed his legislative proposal, the Nuclear Advisory Committee Reform Act, which would expedite the licensing process for nuclear energy projects through making reforms to the ACRS. He asked Mr. Dorman to explain the role of the ACRS. He also asked Mr. Dorman to discuss the types of licensing actions that the ACRS participates in and to indicate how often the ACRS participate in these actions.
  • Mr. Dorman discussed how the ACRS is a group of independent experts that provides independent reviews of the NRC staff’s licensing work. He noted how the ACRS generally participates in the NRC’s reviews of new license applications, license renewal applications, and other significant licensing actions.
• Rep. Walberg mentioned how nuclear energy stakeholders have called on the NRC to implement a more efficient process for reviewing licenses. He also stated that the NRC should consider approaches to streamline license amendment applications for uprates so that nuclear energy facility operators do not have to prepare redundant applications. He noted how the U.S. has over 2 gigawatts of new clean energy capacity available from potential uprates. He asked Mr. Dorman to address how the NRC is working to reverse the trend of longer and more costly uprate reviews.
  • Mr. Dorman noted how the NRC has not engaged in uprate reviews for several years. He stated that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022’s incentives are causing the nuclear energy industry to “actively” consider power uprate applications. He estimated that the NRC will begin receiving these applications in late 2025 or 2026. He testified that the NRC is reviewing its uprate renewal processes and working to streamline these processes.
• Rep. Walberg then referenced a recent University of Michigan study that had estimated that the premature closure of the Palisades Nuclear Generating Station in Covert Township, Michigan will adversely impact its surrounding region by more than $250 million annually. He also stated that this nuclear power plant plays a key role in supplying Michigan’s baseload power needs. He mentioned how Michigan Republicans and Democrats had worked together to fund the plant’s reopening and indicated that the U.S. Department of Energy must approve this reopening. He asked Dr. Goff to indicate whether there are any updates regarding the U.S. Department of Energy’s consideration of the proposal to reopen the Palisades Nuclear Generating Station.
  • Dr. Goff commended the efforts of Michigan Republicans and Democrats to reopen the Palisades Nuclear Generating Station. He expressed support for efforts to keep nuclear power plants open. He testified that the U.S. Department of Energy is assessing the various options for the Palisades Nuclear Generating Station.
• Rep. Walberg called on the U.S. Department of Energy to expeditiously assess the Palisades Nuclear Generating Station. He emphasized the bipartisan support for nuclear power and described this bipartisan support as unprecedented. 

Rep. Kim Schrier (D-WA):

• Rep. Schrier remarked that uranium constitutes a critical fuel source for the U.S. She highlighted how nuclear power provides nearly 20 percent of the U.S.’s electricity and half of the U.S.’s carbon-free power. She also stated that the U.S. must eliminate its reliance on Russia for nuclear fuel and prevent U.S. dollars from supporting Russian interests. She mentioned how the Committee had recently approved legislation to ban Russian uranium imports and indicated that this legislation includes safeguards to ensure that the U.S. nuclear fleet maintains near-term access to nuclear fuel. She stated that this ban will provide the U.S. nuclear energy industry with certainty around nuclear fuel needs and demands. She also highlighted how Russia’s cheap uranium has eroded the U.S.’s uranium supply capabilities. She mentioned how the Nuclear Fuel Security Act is under consideration at the hearing. She stated that this legislative proposal seeks to expand the U.S.’s domestic capability to produce, convert, and enrich uranium for the existing U.S. nuclear fleet and for advanced nuclear reactors that are currently under development. She asked Dr. Goff to address how the Nuclear Fuel Security Act would work in tandem with a Russian uranium import ban to restore the U.S.’s domestic nuclear fuel cycle capabilities and to enhance the U.S.’s national security.
  • Dr. Goff expressed the U.S. Department of Energy’s support for policies that would incentivize the development of additional domestic uranium conversation and enrichment capabilities. He also remarked that the American Assured Fuel Supply (AAFS) Program could further address the U.S.’s uranium shortfalls. He stated that these efforts to enlarge the U.S.’s nuclear fuel supply will enable the U.S. to respond to uranium supply disruptions. He also commented that these efforts will support the U.S. in reducing its dependence on Russian uranium over the long-term.
• Rep. Schrier expressed the Committee’s interest in working to support the U.S. Department of Energy in bolstering the U.S.’s uranium supply. She then asked Dr. Goff to identify “friendlier” countries that the U.S. can source uranium from.
  • Dr. Goff discussed how the U.S. commercial nuclear fleet currently uses about 15 million separative work units (SWUs) per year, which he explained is the measure for uranium enrichment. He indicated that the U.S. only has about 4.5 million SWUs. He noted how the U.S. heavily relies upon Europe for its enriched uranium and how the U.S. obtains 24 percent of its enriched uranium from Russia. He stated that the U.S. is working with its allies and partners to obtain uranium.
• Rep. Schrier asked Dr. Goff to indicate whether the U.S. can source uranium from Canada.
  • Dr. Goff noted that Canada provides the U.S. with both raw uranium material and uranium conversion services. He indicated however that Canada does not engage in uranium enrichment and highlighted how Canadian reactors do not rely upon enriched uranium.

Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY):

• Rep. Guthrie discussed how his commonwealth of Kentucky is an energy producing state and is working to convert brownfield sites (particularly former coal-fired power plant sites) into nuclear energy sites. He asked Dr. Goff to indicate whether siting and licensing decisions are faster at brownfield sites (especially when the brownfield sites have critical infrastructure in place). He also asked Dr. Goff to discuss the U.S. Department of Energy’s actions to coordinate siting and licensing decisions at brownfield sites.
  • Dr. Goff remarked that there is the potential for siting and licensing decisions to be faster at brownfield sites. He noted that existing brownfield sites have a great deal of characterization that could be used to support environmental reviews. He stated that the U.S. Department of Energy is supportive of efforts to convert brownfield sites into nuclear energy sites. He mentioned how the Department had issued a 2022 report that sought to identify brownfield sites that could be viable nuclear energy sites. He also highlighted how brownfield sites have workers with significant energy experience and commented that these workers are well-suited to staffing new nuclear energy sites. He mentioned how TerraPower’s Wyoming nuclear demonstration project will occur at a retiring coal-fired plant and commented that this project will provide valuable lessons.
• Rep. Guthrie asked Mr. Dorman to address how the NRC is providing guidance to brownfield sites seeking to convert into nuclear energy sites.
  • Mr. Dorman expressed agreement with Dr. Goff that there exist opportunities to convert brownfield sites into nuclear energy sites. He stated that the recency, data, and methods that characterized a brownfield site will impact the NRC’s ability to streamline its review of a brownfield site seeking to become a nuclear energy site. He also noted how coal ash might contain naturally occurring radioactive material. He stated that the NRC must consider the presence of this radioactive material when reviewing the site’s suitability for a nuclear energy project. He then mentioned how the NRC had recently completed the staff safety evaluation for a demonstration nuclear reactor in Tennessee that is located on a former nuclear energy site. He testified that the NRC had been able to use some of the insights from the former nuclear energy site to streamline its review of the site.

Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL):

• Rep. Castor discussed how Congressional Democrats and the Biden administration have made “tremendous” investments in the U.S. nuclear energy industry and called on Congress to build upon these investments. She mentioned how the IIJA had provided $6 billion for the Civil Nuclear Credit Program and commented that this Program would ensure that the U.S.’s existing nuclear fleet remains safe and competitive. She noted how the U.S. has 93 nuclear reactors at 55 plants and indicated that these reactors provide 20 percent of the U.S.’s electricity generation and 46 percent of the U.S.’s carbon-free power. She also mentioned how the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 had established a tax credit of up to 1.8 cents per kilowatt-hour for zero-emission nuclear energy and had provided the U.S. Department of Energy with $700 million to invest in increasing the availability of next generation nuclear fuels for advanced nuclear reactors. She then asked Mr. Dorman to identify the oldest nuclear reactor in the U.S. that remains in operation.
  • Mr. Dorman stated that he believes that the oldest nuclear reactor that remains in operation is the Dresden Generating Station in Illinois.
• Rep. Castor asked Mr. Dorman to indicate the age of the Dresden Generating Station.
  • Mr. Dorman estimated that the Dresden Generating Station is around 53 years old.
• Rep. Castor expressed concerns over the possibility of extreme weather events and stated that policymakers must account for these events when considering whether to extend its current nuclear fleet’s lifespans. She mentioned how Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station had its license extension rolled back as a result of a safety review. She asked Mr. Dorman to indicate whether the NRC has the authority to consider the impacts of climate change when reviewing the U.S.’s existing nuclear power plants. She indicated that these impacts could include extreme heat, flash floods, and hurricanes.
  • Mr. Dorman mentioned how the NRC had engaged in a complete review of flooding and seismic issues for all operating nuclear power plants in the U.S. following the Fukushima nuclear disaster. He also noted how the NRC had established its Process for Ongoing Assessment of Natural Hazards Information. He explained that this Process involves the collection of seismic information from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), weather information from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and dam reliability information from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). He stated that the NRC possesses sufficient authority to address the licensing deficiencies of nuclear energy facilities based on the receipt of new information.
• Rep. Castor asked Dr. Goff to indicate whether Congress must consider the potential for extreme weather events when adopting policies governing the lifespans of nuclear energy facilities and the selections of SMR sites.
  •  Dr. Goff remarked that the U.S. must account for the impacts of climate change and water usage in its nuclear energy policymaking. He noted how many advanced nuclear power plants have dry cooling capabilities and therefore have lower water needs. He commented that these lower water needs might be more important moving forward.
• Rep. Castor interjected to ask Dr. Goff to confirm that water temperature had recently posed a problem for a French nuclear reactor site.
  • Dr. Goff discussed how nuclear power plants will often need to be downrated because their cooling water becomes too warm. He commented that this issue often occurs during the summer months.
• Rep. Castor asked the witnesses to indicate whether federal departments and agencies require additional authorities to conduct proper reviews of nuclear energy facilities.
  • Dr. Goff stated that the U.S. Department of Energy currently possesses sufficient authorities to conduct proper reviews of nuclear energy facilities.
• Rep. Castor asked the witnesses to indicate whether any of the legislative proposals under consideration at the hearing would undermine the authority of federal departments and agencies to conduct proper reviews of nuclear energy facilities.
  • Dr. Goff stated that he was unaware of any provisions within these legislative proposals that would undermine the authority of federal departments and agencies to conduct proper reviews of nuclear energy facilities.
  • Mr. Dorman also stated that he was unaware of any provisions within these legislative proposals that would undermine the authority of federal departments and agencies to conduct proper reviews of nuclear energy facilities.

Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL):

• Rep. Palmer discussed how advanced nuclear reactors can recycle spent fuel rods and commented that this recycling capability can “virtually eliminate” the U.S.’s reliance on any foreign supply chain for enriched uranium. He mentioned how an official from the Idaho National Laboratory had previously told the Committee that advanced nuclear reactors with spent fuel rod recycling capabilities could enable the U.S. to operate its nuclear facilities for about 100 years. He then expressed interest in the safety and power generation capacity of nuclear submarines. He highlighted how nuclear submarines have standard designs and how their nuclear components can be assembled remotely and be installed in the submarine. He also noted how nuclear submarines are very durable. He then asked Mr. Dorman to confirm that an SMR can produce up to 300 megawatts of power.
  • Mr. Dorman stated that the NRC is anticipating that it will receive SMR applications that can produce in the range of 300 megawatts of power.
• Rep. Palmer also noted how it can be difficult to install new power sources into the U.S.’s energy grid. He commented that this problem is especially present with renewable energy sources. He stated that a chief advantage of SMRs is their ability to be more easily installed into the energy grid. He asked Mr. Dorman to comment on his assessment of SMRs.
  • Mr. Dorman noted that the NRC is more focused on safety issues than on energy grid compatibility issues. He stated however that Mr. Dorman’s assessment of SMRs appears reasonable.
• Rep. Palmer remarked that SMRs have strong safety capabilities. He also expressed interest in the potential use of microreactors and noted how microreactors could be deployed to support energy needs in post-natural disaster situations. He asked Mr. Dorman to confirm his assessment of microreactors.
  • Mr. Dorman expressed agreement with Rep. Palmer’s assessment of microreactors.
• Rep. Palmer expressed support for having the U.S. further pursue the development and deployment of SMRs and microreactors. He highlighted how SMRs and microreactors could be deployed to locations that cannot support wind turbine farms, solar panel farms, and large nuclear reactors. He asserted that SMRs and microreactors should be subject to shorter permitting processes. He asked the witnesses to comment on this topic.
  • Mr. Dorman highlighted how SMRs and microreactors can have standardized designs. He stated that the NRC’s approval of a SMR or microreactor should make it easier for the NRC to approve subsequent SMRs or microreactors using the same designs. He noted how the U.S.’s current nuclear fleet varies in terms of design, which necessitates that the NRC consider the individual characteristics of these reactors. He asserted that standardized nuclear reactor designs would thus enable the NRC to streamline its review process for new nuclear reactors.
• Rep. Palmer mentioned how France’s nuclear reactors have standardized designs and argued that the U.S. should also pursue standardized designs for its nuclear reactors.

Rep. John Sarbanes (D-MD):

• Rep. Sarbanes remarked that the Subcommittee can advance bipartisan legislative proposals to expand the U.S.’s deployment of nuclear energy. He stated that developing and maintaining a robust federal workforce will play a key role in these efforts. He asserted that this federal workforce is necessary to ensure safe and secure nuclear energy operations, as well as enable technological advancements. He also commented that this federal workforce will foster public confidence in nuclear energy technology. He asked Mr. Dorman to discuss the need for the NRC to retain its current staff and recruit new staff at both the early- and mid-career levels. He also asked Mr. Dorman to address the consequences that would result from an insufficient NRC workforce.
  • Mr. Dorman noted how about one-third of the NRC’s current workforce is retirement eligible and commented that this figure demonstrates the dedication and commitment of the NRC’s workforce. He stated however that this workforce will eventually retire and that the NRC is working to replenish its staff. He mentioned how the NRC had hired over 200 people last year and plans to hire between 250 people and 300 people this year. He noted how this hiring would mean that between 15 percent and 20 percent of the NRC’s workforce will have limited experience. He testified that the NRC is “very focused” on staff development training to ensure that these new workers are adequately prepared to carry out the NRC’s responsibilities. He also mentioned how the NRC has reinstituted its entry-level hiring program, which is known as the Nuclear Regulator Apprenticeship Network (NRAN) Program. He further stated that the NRC heavily relies upon experienced employees and works with these employees to develop regulatory expertise.
• Rep. Sarbanes asked Dr. Goff to discuss the U.S. Office of Nuclear Energy’s workforce situation and to address the strategies that the Office is employing to recruit and retain employees.
  • Dr. Goff remarked that the U.S. Office of Nuclear Energy faces similar staffing challenges to the NRC. He noted how much of the Office’s staff is retirement eligible and mentioned how the Office has experienced staff attrition in recent years due to these retirements. He indicated that the Office has a smaller staff than the NRC and is responsible for overseeing some of the U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories. He testified that the U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories are experiencing “significant” hiring increases. He stated that the U.S. Department of Energy is experiencing increased competition with nuclear energy vendors for workers. He commented that this competition for workers is causing greater staff turnovers within the U.S. nuclear energy industry.
• Rep. Sarbanes interjected to comment that the Strengthening the NRC Workforce Act of 2023 would “significantly” help to support the NRC’s staff recruitment and retention efforts. He then asked the witnesses to elaborate on how the NRC and the U.S. Office of Nuclear Energy must compete with nuclear energy vendors for workers.
• Note: Rep. Sarbanes’s question period time expired here.

Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-IN):

• Rep. Bucshon recounted his recent CODEL trip to Poland and the Czech Republic and highlighted how these countries are interested in pursuing nuclear energy programs. He then remarked that nuclear energy is a valuable component for an “all of the above” energy strategy, will help to lower emissions, and will increase the diversity of the U.S.’s energy mix. He expressed interest in bolstering the U.S.’s development and deployment of advanced nuclear energy technologies and noted how companies often face challenges when seeking to license these technologies. He asked Mr. Dorman to discuss the interactions that a new nuclear project application has with the NRC from the pre-application meeting and planning phases to the acceptance review phase and through the actual licensing process.
  • Mr. Dorman noted that while the NRC’s pre-application process is entirely voluntary, he indicated that the NRC “strongly” encourages applicants with new and innovative technologies to engage in this process. He stated that the pre-application process provides the NRC staff with an opportunity to learn about the new and innovative technologies and to better prepare for receiving the application. He also stated that the pre-application process provides the applicant with a better understanding of the NRC’s interests, which can enable them to prepare a more complete application. He indicated that this pre-application process can take several years and that this timeframe can depend on the status of the application’s design at the point of engagement with the NRC. He then noted how the NRC’s license review process for applications takes about 60 days and explained that this process determines whether the received application is complete. He noted how the NRC staff then reviews the application and establishes a schedule for review based on the issues that arise in the license review process.
• Rep. Bucshon mentioned how he had proposed the Advanced Reactor Fee Reduction Act, which seeks to reduce the cost of the application process for advanced nuclear energy technologies. He asked Mr. Dorman to provide an estimate of the amount of work that will be charged in fees for the NRC’s application process.
  • Mr. Dorman stated that the fees and time associated with the NRC’s application process will vary based on the innovations and complexities in the advanced nuclear energy technology’s design. He estimated that this process can involve up to tens of thousands of staff hours to complete.
• Rep. Bucshon commented that the application process is very costly. He asked Mr. Dorman to indicate the portion of the NRC’s initial fees that go toward mission direct costs and the portion of the NRC’s initial fees that go toward indirect or administrative costs.
  • Mr. Dorman estimated that half of the NRC’s initial fees go toward mission direct costs and that the other half of the NRC’s initial fees go toward indirect or administrative costs.
• Rep. Bucshon asked Mr. Dorman to indicate whether eliminating some of the costs associated with pre-licensing activities would encourage more applications and designs from smaller companies.
  • Mr. Dorman stated that eliminating some of the costs associated with pre-licensing activities could encourage more applications and designs from smaller companies. He commented however that this topic is outside of his area of expertise. He stated that the predominant cost for applicants is the development of their nuclear energy technology designs and the underlying research needed to support these designs. He commented however that applicants would likely find a reduction in the cost of the NRC’s review process appealing.
• Rep. Bucshon then asked the witnesses to identify three actions that Congress could take to expedite the NRC’s application review process and ensure the U.S.’s global nuclear energy technology leadership.
  • Mr. Dorman remarked that access to financing often determines whether a nuclear energy technology can reach the market. He also stated that the NRC is focused on regulatory reform issues and welcomed the Subcommittee’s views on this topic.
• Rep. Bucshon stated that a lengthier application review process drives up the cost of the process. He also asserted that the U.S.’s top priority in reviewing nuclear energy applications should be safety.
  • Dr. Goff expressed agreement with Rep. Bucshon’s assertion that the U.S.’s top priority in reviewing nuclear energy applications should be safety. He also expressed agreement with Mr. Dorman’s remark that financing plays a critical role in determining whether nuclear energy projects can proceed.
• Rep. Bucshon interjected to predict that the U.S. will have SMRs within the next five or ten years and stated that the U.S. must ensure that the deployment process for these SMRs is not too protracted. He emphasized how SMRs are meant to have standardized designs and stated that the U.S. must streamline the approval process for these SMRs.

Rep. Tony Cárdenas (D-CA):

• Rep. Cárdenas mentioned how NRC Chairman Christopher Hanson had told the Subcommittee that spent fuel storage and ultimate disposal remain ongoing policy challenges. He stated that the U.S. must address the legacy of toxic waste associated with nuclear energy. He commented that the U.S.’s greatest nuclear energy policy priority should be to protect public health and safety. He asserted that the U.S. must ensure that its current and future nuclear fleets are licensed and operated safely. He discussed how data indicates that the U.S.’s production of nuclear power is safe and attributed this safety to existing processes and regulations. He mentioned how several of the legislative proposals under consideration at the hearing would reduce mandatory hearing and public notice requirements for nuclear energy project reviews and would change the environmental review process. He asked Mr. Dorman to explain the U.S.’s current public notice and hearing processes.
  • Mr. Dorman noted how the NRC will issue a notice indicating an opportunity to comment and a public hearing in the Federal Register for license applications deemed complete. He also mentioned how the NRC will conduct a scoping meeting to obtain community feedback on a proposed project and stated that this feedback informs the NRC’s environmental assessment of the application. He further noted how the NRC’s draft EIS is noticed for comment and indicated that there is a comment resolution when the NRC staff develops its final EIS.
• Rep. Cárdenas asked Mr. Dorman to explain the rationale behind the NRC’s current public notice and hearing processes and to address the importance of these processes.
  • Mr. Dorman noted how the NRC’s current public notice and hearing processes are largely governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and NEPA. He stated that the NRC seeks to engage with the communities that will be impacted by the NRC’s licensing decisions in order to build stakeholder confidence in its work.
• Rep. Cárdenas remarked that Americans have a right to know about policy decisions that will impact them and their communities. He commented that this right involves processes for providing input on policy decisions, which he acknowledged can slow down the deployment of nuclear facility projects. He stated however that these processes are necessary for ensuring the public safety of nuclear facilities. He then asked Mr. Domran to discuss the current environmental review process for nuclear energy projects and to address the importance of this process.
  • Mr. Dorman noted how applicants seeking NRC licenses must perform site characterizations, detail their expected actions, and provide an explanation of alternatives. He also noted how these applicants must provide an assessment of severe accident management alternatives and must identify mitigation methods for any potential accidents.
• Rep. Cárdenas also mentioned that various levels of government are involved in reviewing proposed nuclear energy projects. He asked Mr. Dorman to indicate whether it would be possible for there to exist parallel tracks for project reviews across different levels of government without compromising the safety of and public participation in the review process.
  • Mr. Dorman expressed support for providing parallel tracks for nuclear energy project reviews across different levels of government. He also stated that the U.S. should have a thorough understanding of the stakeholder communities that could be impacted by nuclear energy projects. He commented that this understanding of stakeholder communities would enable regulators to more quickly identify and address potential concerns surrounding a proposed nuclear energy project.

Subcommittee Vice Chair John Curtis (R-UT):

• Vice Chair Curtis discussed how the nuclear energy project from the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) has faced significant challenges receiving approval. He highlighted how the UAMPS nuclear energy project would provide power for many small cities with limited resources throughout his state of Utah. He expressed interest in reducing the U.S.’s current barriers to the deployment of nuclear energy projects. He mentioned his legislative proposal, the Advanced Nuclear Reactor Prize Act, which would help innovators that successfully license and deploy advanced nuclear reactors. He noted how first-mover advanced nuclear reactors need to expend significant resources to obtain regulatory approval. He indicated that his legislative proposal would authorize the U.S. Secretary of Energy to make targeted awards to cover regulatory costs of first technologies that are licensed and made operational in certain categories. He commented that this legislative proposal’s reward will help first movers to submit quality applications that will enable the public to benefit from safe and reliable nuclear energy technologies. He asked the witnesses to comment on this legislative proposal.
  • Mr. Dorman noted that the reward contained in the proposed Advanced Nuclear Reactor Prize Act would be provided following the completion of a nuclear energy project’s regulatory review. He stated that a federal incentive for quality nuclear energy project applications (such as the one included in the proposed Advanced Nuclear Reactor Prize Act) would help the NRC to execute its mission.
  • Dr. Goff stated that financing support for the licensing of first move technologies would be beneficial. He noted how the U.S. is currently providing some financing support for certain first mover technologies. He mentioned how the U.S. had covered some of the cost-sharing for the design certification of the UAMPS project. He also highlighted how the U.S. is providing similar support for Natrium’s advanced reactor project currently under development in Wyoming. He further mentioned how the U.S. had provided cost-sharing support for the AP 1000 reactor at Plant Vogtle in Georgia. He remarked that public-private partnerships to absorb some design certification costs provide an important incentive for deploying innovative reactors.
• Vice Chair Curtis mentioned how he had previously served as chairman of the Utah Municipal Power Agency (UMPA), which he described as a “sister agency” to UAMPS. He reiterated that UAMPS has faced significant challenges in its work to deploy its nuclear energy project and commented that UAMPS would not be able to pursue its nuclear energy project absent federal support. He then expressed interest in working to deploy nuclear energy projects at brownfield sites. He stated that such deployments would accomplish many goals beyond the provision of clean and reliable power. He lastly expressed interest in pursuing bipartisan regulatory reforms to support additional deployments of nuclear energy technologies.

Rep. Lizzie Fletcher (D-TX):

• Rep. Fletcher remarked that nuclear energy plays an essential role in generating reliable and carbon-free baseload power (especially for her state of Texas). She also expressed interest in the development of SMRs and commented that SMRs can support improvements in cost, efficiency, and energy grid versatility. She asked Mr. Dorman to discuss how the NRC is working to ensure that its proposed Part 53 rule will meet NEIMA’s requirements. She highlighted how there are concerns that the NRC’s proposed Part 53 rule does not comport with Congressional intent and would not be workable. She asked Mr. Dorman to specifically address how the proposed Part 53 rule’s licensing framework will be both risk-informed and performance-based.
  • Mr. Dorman testified that the NRC staff had engaged in an extensive process of iterative language development for its proposed Part 53 rule over two years. He testified that this process had involved “significant” stakeholder engagement. He stated that there were several areas where stakeholder input differed from the NRC staff’s conclusions. He noted how the NRC staff had presented its rationale for its recommendations and stakeholder concerns to the Commission. He testified that the NRC staff is now awaiting direction from the Commission on how to proceed on the rule. He highlighted how the NRC is two years ahead of NEIMA’s prescribed schedule for developing a Part 53 rule and commented that the NRC staff thus has some flexibility to build upon the ultimate direction that it receives from the Commission.
• Rep. Fletcher then asked Mr. Dorman to discuss how the NRC is working to ensure that its licensing frameworks work for all nuclear reactors (and not just traditional light water nuclear reactors).
  • Mr. Dorman noted how the Part 53 rule under development seeks to provide a licensing framework that would be technology inclusive. He indicated that the existing Part 50 and Part 52 rules were designed for traditional large light water reactors. He testified that the NRC anticipates two applications for non-light water reactors in the next year under the Part 50 and Part 52 rules. He stated that the NRC is currently working with these potential applicants in the pre-application process to evaluate the applicability of the Part 50 and Part 52 rules to their proposed nuclear energy projects.

Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-AZ):

• Rep. Lesko noted how the NRC often sends out additional inspectors to nuclear power plants. She mentioned how nuclear energy stakeholders have told her that these additional inspectors will often perform inspections that use outdated methods and that are duplicative in nature. She noted that these stakeholders have suggested that any potential benefits that arise from these inspections additional outweigh the additional costs associated with the inspections. She indicated that these concerns had led her to develop a legislative proposal that would require the NRC to produce three reports that would make recommendations for improving regulatory oversight. She indicated that the first report would detail lessons learned from technologies used during the COVID-19 pandemic and consider whether these technologies could be applied on a permanent basis. She indicated that the second report would evaluate specific elements of oversight and inspections that could be modified using technology, improved planning, and a continually updated risk-informed assessment. She indicated that the third report would review office and facility space requirements. She asked Mr. Dorman to indicate whether he had heard about the aforementioned inspection concerns.
  • Mr. Dorman stated that he had not heard the concerns that the NRC’s additional inspectors are imposing unnecessary burdens on nuclear energy stakeholders. He discussed how the NRC has resident inspectors who work full-time at power plant sites to ensure their safety. He indicated that these resident inspectors are primarily focused on operations and maintenance issues in response to incidents that occur at the power plant sites. He stated that NRC staff at the NRC’s regional offices are deployed to power sites as part of the NRC’s baseline inspection program. He explained that these staff perform more focused inspections in areas like engineering, security, and emergency preparedness. He stated that these staff are more specialized and engage in different types of inspections than the resident inspectors. He remarked that the NRC is always receptive to potential improvements in its inspection program. He explained that the NRC’s current inspection process establishes a baseline inspection program combined with objective performance indicators. He commented that this process seeks to provide a minimum level of oversight to ensure the safety of nuclear energy. He noted how there exists a structured process if there are degradations in performance and indicated that this process will trigger additional inspections for facilities with poor performance. He then expressed the NRC’s willingness to work with the Subcommittee on the topics raised in Rep. Lesko’s legislative proposal. He mentioned how technology enhancements that had supported the NRC’s work during the COVID-19 pandemic and stated that the NRC could likely apply some of these enhancements moving forward. He also discussed how the NRC is working to better equip its inspectors with technologies so that the inspectors can become more efficient.
• Rep. Lesko then discussed how the NRC’s PI&R program is part of the reactor oversight process and explained that this program follows up on how nuclear reactors identify and resolve issues. She mentioned how one of the PI&R program’s many inspection activities involves a large team inspection, which is conducted every two years. She noted that NRC staff had originally recommended conducting these large team inspections every three years and that this recommendation had been withdrawn. She asked Mr. Dorman to discuss the PI&R program and to address why its three-year inspection recommendation had been withdrawn.
  • Mr. Dorman noted how the NRC staff’s originally proposed recommendation that the PI&R program’s inspections be conducted every three years had not been fully evaluated by the NRC’s regional offices (who implement the program). He testified that the NRC staff had thus withdrew this recommendation to further review the PI&R program. He indicated that the NRC staff’s eventual review had concluded that there would be no net benefit to changing the PI&R program’s inspection frequency from two years to three years.
• Rep. Lesko acknowledged that her question period time had expired and indicated that she would submit additional questions for the hearing’s record.

Rep. Doris Matsui (D-CA):

• Rep. Matsui remarked that nuclear energy has the potential to provide reliable and carbon-free baseload power. She stated however that the Subcommittee must address the issue of the U.S.’s existing nuclear waste and develop a plan for disposing the U.S.’s spent nuclear fuel. She mentioned how the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station in her Congressional District had been shut down over 30 years ago and indicated that spent nuclear fuel remains from this facility. She commended the work of the U.S. Department of Energy to pursue a consent-based siting approach for disposing spent nuclear fuel. She mentioned how she had led efforts to support annual funding for the U.S. Department of Energy’s spent nuclear fuel programs. She also mentioned how she had proposed the STORE Nuclear Fuel Act, which would authorize an interim spent nuclear fuel storage program at the U.S. Department of Energy. She applauded the U.S. Department of Energy’s recent funding announcement to advance the conversation surrounding consent-based siting for spent nuclear fuel. She asked Dr. Goff to discuss how the U.S. Department of Energy’s recent grants will support the eventual siting of a spent nuclear fuel storage facility.
  • Dr. Goff thanked Rep. Matsui for her support for the U.S. Department of Energy’s spent nuclear fuel storage activities. He discussed how the U.S. Department of Energy is taking actions to develop a consent-based siting system for a potential federal spent nuclear fuel interim storage facility. He stated that the U.S. Department of Energy is considering a three-phase process for the development of this facility. He indicated that the first phase would focus on planning and capacity building. He commented that the U.S. Department of Energy’s recent funding announcement seeks to support this effort. He indicated that the second phase will focus on the screening and assessment of potential spent nuclear fuel storage sites. He indicated that the third phase will focus on negotiation and implementation of spent nuclear fuel storage arrangements. He then mentioned how the U.S. Department of Energy’s recent funding announcement had provided 13 grants to different awardees. He noted how these awardees will support the U.S. Department of Energy in building spent nuclear fuel storage capacity across different communities and stakeholders. He explained awardees will educate and support communities and stakeholders in working to site spent nuclear fuel storage facilities. He further stated that this engagement will provide insights for the U.S. Department of Energy regarding how to proceed on their spent nuclear waste storage activities.
• Rep. Matsui then noted how the U.S. Department of Energy’s April 2023 report on the consent-based siting process had indicated that the Department is pursuing a comprehensive integrated strategy for spent nuclear fuel. She highlighted how this report had asserted that the siting of interim spent nuclear fuel storage can inform the siting of permanent spent nuclear fuel disposal. She asked Dr. Goff to provide the Subcommittee with an update on the status of the U.S. Department of Energy’s development of a comprehensive strategy for siting long-term spent nuclear fuel disposal.
  • Dr. Goff remarked that the U.S. Department of Energy recognizes the need to have the U.S. move beyond interim spent nuclear fuel storage. He stated that this move will entail three phases: an integrated storage process, a transportation process, and a geological disposal process. He testified that the U.S. Department is engaging in research and development (R&D) activities to support progress on spent nuclear fuel transportation and geological disposal processes. He commented that these R&D activities will support any eventual spent nuclear waste activities and repositories. He indicated that the Department is assessing multiple types of potential geological depository options and is working to license rail cars that can transport spent nuclear fuel.
• Rep. Matsui then discussed how several countries have successfully navigated the consent-based spent nuclear fuel siting process for long-term geological storage. She highlighted how Finland now hosts the world’s first permanent site for high-level nuclear waste. She added that France and Switzerland have also proposed sites for long-term spent nuclear fuel storage. She asked Dr. Goff to discuss how the U.S. Department of Energy is incorporating lessons from other countries into its work to address long-term spent nuclear fuel disposal.
  • Dr. Goff testified that the U.S. Department of Energy is collaborating with other countries on spent nuclear fuel disposal issues. He stated that the Department is working to identify lessons learned from other countries on ways to site nuclear waste repositories. He indicated that these efforts involve bilateral cooperation (including with Finland and Canada) and multilateral cooperation (including with the Nuclear Energy Alliance). He stated that the Department ultimately wants to position the U.S. to share its lessons learned on spent nuclear fuel disposal with other countries.

Rep. Troy Balderson (R-OH):

• Rep. Balderson discussed how the U.S. nuclear energy industry is looking to use brownfield sites (such as retired coal-fired power plant sites) for facilities because these sites offer existing infrastructure and workforces. He asked Mr. Dorman to indicate whether the NRC has received applications for new nuclear plants to be located at these types of sites.
  • Mr. Dorman testified that the NRC has not received any applications for new nuclear power plants to be located at brownfield sites to date. He stated however that the NRC is anticipating an application for a new nuclear power plant at a brownfield site within the next year.
• Rep. Balderson asked Mr. Dorman to discuss how the NRC would leverage existing data on brownfield sites to expedite any environmental reviews.
  • Mr. Dorman remarked that the NRC’s use of existing data on brownfield sites would depend on the currency of the data and the methods used to obtain the data. He stated that the NRC would use any data from the historic characterization provided by an applicant to gain efficiencies in its review.
• Rep. Balderson then mentioned how the NRC had decided not to pursue rulemaking efforts related to the commercial reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. He indicated that the NRC had cited a lack of interest from the U.S. nuclear industry in its justification for not pursuing the rulemaking. He noted however that there have been several private sector entities that have announced plans to pursue commercial reprocessing at various scales since the NRC’s 2021 decision. He highlighted how some of these private sector entities have received “substantial” funding from U.S. Department of Energy programs for R&D activities. He asked Mr. Dorman to discuss how the NRC is preparing to review the applications from these private sector entities that seek to reprocess spent nuclear fuel.
  • Mr. Dorman indicated that Oklo is planning to apply for a spent nuclear fuel reprocessing facility and testified that the NRC has commenced the pre-application engagements with Oklo. He also mentioned how the NRC has had three letters of intent over the previous 15 years for spent nuclear fuel processing facility applications that had never ultimately materialized. He testified however that the NRC had performed “considerable” work at the time to prepare for these applications. He stated that the NRC is reviewing this work as it prepares for the potential Oklo application.
• Rep. Balderson then mentioned how NRC Commissioner Annie Caputo had recently highlighted the need for enhanced performance indicators so that the NRC and the public can track the status and the duration of licensing reviews. He asked Mr. Dorman to discuss how the NRC measures its staff performance and to describe the NRC’s performance indicators.
  • Mr. Dorman noted how the NRC establishes a review schedule for completed applications based on the issues raised in the applications. He also noted how the NRC determines a level of staff effort associated with their review. He stated that the NRC communicates these items to applicants and tracks these items internally. He noted how NRC Commissioner Annie Caputo has raised concerns that the NRC is not making these items publicly available. He stated that the NRC staff is reporting this information “macroscopically” in its reports to Congress.

Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX):

• Rep. Pfluger expressed concerns with the Biden administration’s energy policies and contended that the U.S. should prioritize nuclear energy within its energy policy. He raised concerns over the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) influence in South America and Africa. He asked Mr. Dorman to address the extent to which the U.S. lags behind China in exporting nuclear energy technologies.
  • Mr. Dorman stated that while he lacks a quality measure for evaluating the U.S.’s exports of nuclear energy technologies vis-a-vis China’s exports of nuclear energy technologies, he commented that China is actively working to expand its global influence. He mentioned how the U.S. has recently reached agreements with Poland to support Poland’s deployment of nuclear energy technologies. He testified that the NRC is observing a “high degree” of interest from its global regulatory counterparts in the deployment of U.S. nuclear energy technologies. He stated that the NRC is working with these counterparts to support their licensing of these technologies.
• Rep. Pfluger then mentioned how Congress had recently passed legislation that makes reforms to the NEPA process. He asked Mr. Dorman to discuss how the NRC plans to implement these reforms to reduce the timeline for EISs and analyses.
  • Mr. Dorman testified that the NRC is currently working to understand Congress’s recently enacted NEPA reforms. He also mentioned how the NRC has several similar ongoing initiatives meant to reduce the magnitude of its produced documentation related to the NEPA process. He commented that these initiatives seek to reduce the time and costs associated with the NRC’s NEPA decisions. He stated that the development of standardized nuclear reactors would likely make the NEPA process more efficient.
• Rep. Pfluger then asked the witnesses to indicate how much electricity the U.S. produces annually from nuclear power.
  • Mr. Dorman indicated that the U.S. produces about 20 percent of its electricity from nuclear power.
• Rep. Pfluger asked Dr. Goff to project the U.S.’s potential demand for electricity if the Biden administration were to mandate that all vehicles be electric vehicles (EVs). He also asked Dr. Goff to address how a potential increase in demand for electricity from EV will impact the U.S.’s nuclear power generation needs.
  • Dr. Goff remarked that the U.S. would need to generate more of its electricity from nuclear power sources if the U.S. were to increase its use of EVs. He mentioned how the U.S. Department of Energy had released a report that had found that the U.S. will need 200 gigawatts of new nuclear energy capacity between now and 2050. He indicated that this amount would require the U.S. to triple its buildout of its current nuclear energy capacity. He added that this buildout projection is based on the assumption that the U.S.’s current nuclear fleet continues to operate. He remarked that the U.S. will need to significantly expand its buildout of nuclear energy sources, renewable energy sources, and carbon sequestration capacity in order to meet its energy and climate change goals. He commented that nuclear energy will play a key role in the U.S.’s efforts to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions.
• Rep. Pfluger expressed agreement with the assertion that nuclear energy will need to play a key role in the U.S.’s future energy mix. He also emphasized that renewable energy sources do not provide baseload power. He expressed concerns that U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm did not know the U.S.’s current annual electricity consumption. He lastly asked Dr. Goff to indicate whether the U.S. could source all of its uranium and other nuclear materials domestically.
  • Dr. Goff noted that the U.S. is currently not engaged in significant uranium mining activities. He indicated that there do exist uranium resources within the U.S., as well as within trusted ally countries (such as Canada and Australia). He stated that the U.S. could obtain uranium both domestically and from trusted allies.

Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-ND):

• Rep. Armstrong commented that the NRC’s review times and costs for nuclear energy projects should have decreased over time given its expertise, processes, and subject matter expertise. He noted however that the NRC’s review times and costs have instead increased over time. He asked Mr. Dorman to discuss the actions that the NRC is taking to improve efficiencies during the review process.
  • Mr. Dorman remarked that the NRC is considering ways to better use risk insights in its subsequent license renewals of nuclear energy facilities. He stated that the NRC is looking to apply risk insights at the outset of their review processes to ensure that the NRC is focusing on the right items. He also noted how the NRC is providing cost and time estimates at the outset of its reviews and holding itself accountable to these estimates throughout their review processes.
• Rep. Armstrong asked Mr. Dorman to indicate whether the NRC is capable of managing new workload in the advanced nuclear reactor space under its current framework.
  • Mr. Dorman remarked that the NRC should be able to manage the workload it has over the next couple of years. He stated however that the NRC will need to adjust its resources if its workload were to significantly increase in response to an increase in nuclear energy demonstration projects. He also remarked that the advent of standard designs for nuclear energy facilities would enable the NRC to improve the efficiency of its review process.
• Rep. Armstrong asked Mr. Dorman to indicate whether the NRC’s efforts to streamline its licensing review process includes work to streamline its environmental reviews.
  • Mr. Dorman answered affirmatively.
• Rep. Armstrong also noted how Mr. Dorman had previously stated the U.S. public has gained more access to information regarding the NRC’s review process over time. He specifically mentioned how Mr. Dorman had highlighted the U.S. public’s ability to participate in contested NRC hearings. He asked Mr. Dorman to further explain how the NRC’s public engagement process works. He also asked Mr. Dorman to indicate why the public should have confidence in the NRC’s existing review process structure, even though it lacks a NRC Office of Public Participation.
  • Mr. Dorman noted how the public had needed to use a microfiche system at a public library to track the NRC’s actions 30 years ago. He stated that the NRC’s documents are now all available online and contain search engine capabilities. He also discussed how the NRC’s license review processes involve a notice and comment period where communities can provide their inputs on the NRC’s proposed actions. He further mentioned how the NRC directly engages stakeholders regarding the NRC’s proposed policies.
• Rep. Armstrong then acknowledged that while the NRC must hold safety paramount in its review of nuclear energy project applications, he asserted that the NRC can streamline its review of uncontested hearings. He expressed appreciation for the NRC’s work to streamline its review processes and stated that the U.S. must expedite these reviews. He warned that the U.S. is reaching a “crisis point” regarding its energy grid resilience and reliability and stated that the U.S. must increase its energy generation capabilities. He commented that nuclear energy will play a key role in increasing these energy generation capabilities.

Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA):

• Rep. Carter mentioned how his state of Georgia currently has two nuclear reactors under construction and expressed support for these construction efforts. He raised concerns however that Russia and China together account for nearly 70 percent of the nuclear reactors that are either currently under construction or being planned. He highlighted how Russia is currently building nuclear power plants in Turkey, Egypt, and Hungary and how China is pursuing nuclear energy projects in Pakistan, Argentina, and Saudi Arabia. He noted how China has made nuclear energy a major part of its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). He stated that Russian and Chinese pursuit of nuclear energy projects underscore the need for the U.S. to focus more on nuclear energy development and deployment. He added that nuclear energy will be beneficial because it provides reliable baseload power. He mentioned how he had proposed the Global Nuclear Energy Assessment and Cooperation Act, which seeks to promote nuclear energy throughout the world. He noted how this legislation would prohibit the U.S. from importing nuclear fuel assemblies from hostile foreign nations (such as Russia and China). He also indicated that this legislation would establish the U.S. International Nuclear Reactor Export and Innovation Branch at the NRC. He explained that this Branch would focus the U.S.’s international nuclear energy efforts, including training and sharing U.S. nuclear energy expertise with allied countries. He also noted how the U.S. and its allies (including Canada and Australia) have nuclear resources and asserted that the U.S. must work with these allies to make use of these resources. He asked Dr. Goff to provide his concerns regarding Russian and Chinese dominance in the global nuclear energy space.
  • Dr. Goff remarked that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine demonstrates that Russia is not a reliable energy partner for the U.S. He stated that the U.S. and its allies should work to end their reliance on Russia and China for their energy needs. He contended that the U.S. should expand its global support for nuclear energy projects and mentioned how the U.S. is successfully supporting such projects in central Europe. He stated that the U.S. should work to expand its exports of its nuclear energy technologies so that it can influence global standards for nuclear energy safety, security, and nonproliferation.
• Rep. Carter remarked that China has been very transparent regarding its intentions to dominate the global nuclear energy space. He asked Mr. Dorman to indicate whether the U.S. must be a leader in setting global nuclear energy standards and in sharing best nuclear energy practices with its allies.
  • Mr. Dorman answered affirmatively. He discussed how the NRC has long worked with its global counterparts to ensure that these counterparts have the capacity to assume new regulatory responsibilities.
• Rep. Carter recommended that the witnesses review the Global Nuclear Energy Assessment and Cooperation Act and highlighted how the legislation in bipartisan.

Panel II Opening Statements:

Mr. Ted Nordhaus (The Breakthrough Institute):

• He remarked that the U.S. now faces very different environmental and energy security challenges from the challenges it had faced when its environmental laws had been enacted during the 1970s.
  • He commented that this situation is especially present within the nuclear energy space and described the U.S.’s current regulatory system for nuclear energy “profoundly outdated.”
• He stated that nuclear energy has proven to be a very safe and reliable energy technology over its 70-year history of commercial operation.
  • He commented that nuclear energy accidents are “exceedingly” rare, that the public’s exposure to nuclear radiation is “vanishingly small,” and that nuclear energy’s public health consequences are non-existent.
• He criticized the NRC’s regulatory approach toward nuclear energy and stated that the NRC is treating nuclear energy as if nuclear energy represents an exceptional threat to public health.
• He remarked that the NRC appears unprepared to efficiently license a new generation of small advanced nuclear reactors, despite having a clear mandate from Congress to license these technologies.
  • He commented that these small advanced nuclear reactors tend to be smaller, more efficient, and safer than existing light water nuclear reactors (which he described as extremely safe).
• He stated that the U.S. will not develop an innovative and advanced nuclear energy sector capable of meeting its energy security and climate change objectives if the U.S. fails to reform the NRC.
  • He asserted that the development of a rational and efficient regulatory framework for advanced nuclear reactors grounded in up-to-date public health data and science is a precondition for addressing any additional challenges within the U.S. nuclear energy sector.
• He called on the Subcommittee to clarify the NRC’s mission in both the Atomic Energy Act and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974.
  • He noted how these laws had recognized the importance of nuclear energy to the U.S.’s general welfare, common defense, and security.
• He lamented how the NRC has narrowly interpreted its mission, which has limited its regulatory activities to consideration of the potential public health impacts of nuclear energy.
• He recommended that Congress amend Section 201 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 to make clear that the NRC’s legal mandate is consistent with the overall objective of the law.
  • He also stated that Congress should amend this mandate to clearly include the goals of reducing the overall public health burden of the U.S.’s electrical system and its carbon intensity.
• He then remarked that Congress should ground the NRC’s public health standards in epidemiologically observable metrics and harmonize these metrics with the EPA’s air toxic standards.
  • He commented that the NRC has long enforced radiological health standards that are so low as to be entirely theoretical.
  • He also asserted that these standards are far stricter than the standards enforced by the EPA for pollutants associated with similar energy production and industrial activities.
• He stated that the U.S.’s failure to harmonize environmental health standards across “highly substitutable” energy sources has resulted in significant excess mortality and illness over recent decades.
• He also called on Congress to clarify its intent with regard to NEIMA implementation.
  • He mentioned how a recent bipartisan and bicameral letter makes clear that Congress had intended for NEIMA to establish an efficient, technologically inclusive, and risk-informed framework for licensing advanced nuclear reactors.
• He indicated that his written testimony includes additional recommendations for Congress.

Ms. Maria Korsnick (Nuclear Energy Institute):

• She thanked the Subcommittee for continuing to recognize the “critical need” for nuclear energy for the U.S.’s energy security and decarbonization goals.
• She stated that Congress had passed “historical” legislation that will preserve the U.S.’s existing nuclear generation capabilities and accelerate future nuclear energy deployment.
  • She urged Congress to protect tax credits and other provisions that will support U.S. leadership in nuclear energy technology.
• She remarked that federal support for nuclear energy is enabling states, investors, and public utility companies to pursue new nuclear energy projects.
  • She testified that the utility company members of her organization, the Nuclear Energy Institute, expect to add enough new nuclear energy capacity to double current output by the 2050s.
• She noted how the U.S. Department of Energy predicts that U.S. nuclear energy capacity has the potential to triple by 2050.
• She remarked that the U.S. must modernize the regulatory processes for nuclear energy to decarbonize its economy and meet its climate change and energy goals.
  • She asserted that the U.S. can modernize these regulatory processes without sacrificing safety.
• She warned that the NRC’s failure to modernize its regulatory processes will result in excessive costs and a lack of predictability, which will hinder nuclear energy deployment efforts.
  • She testified that the Nuclear Energy Institute’s reviews of the NRC’s data have found that the NRC’s reviews are taking longer to complete and are requiring more resources.
• She noted how the U.S. Department of Energy has projected that the U.S. will need to begin to ramp up advanced nuclear energy technology deployments within the next decade, which means that the NRC will be asked to process a “significant” number of permit applications.
  • She asserted that the U.S. must therefore act swiftly to reform the NRC’s review processes for nuclear energy projects.
• She also remarked that the U.S. needs a competitive domestic nuclear fuel supply.
• She discussed how Russia provides roughly half of the world’s nuclear fuel enrichment capacity and is the world’s only HALEU supplier.
  • She indicated that most advanced nuclear reactor designs require HALEU to power their operations.
• She expressed the U.S. nuclear energy industry’s commitment to eliminating its use of uranium and related conversion and enrichment services from Russia.
• She called federal support “essential” to establishing a secure U.S. nuclear fuel supply so that the U.S. can move away from Russian nuclear fuel imports as soon as possible.
  • She commented that accelerating investments aimed at promoting competitive nuclear fuel enrichment and conversion in the U.S. will support both the U.S.’s near-term and long-term national security interests.
• She lastly remarked that the U.S. must deploy new nuclear energy technologies domestically in order to support U.S. nuclear energy technology exports.
• She discussed how foreign governments recognize that making nuclear energy a central component of their energy systems will enable them to decarbonize their electric grids and strengthen their independence.
  • She highlighted how countries in Asia, South America, central Europe, and Africa are actively pursuing nuclear energy projects.
• She warned that the U.S.’s failure to be competitive in the global nuclear energy market will lead foreign countries to obtain nuclear energy technologies from Russian and Chinese state-owned enterprises.
  • She commented that these potential partnerships would enable Russia and China to build long-term relationships with countries throughout the world.
• She noted that foreign countries are already reaching nuclear energy deals with China and Russia, despite the U.S. having superior nuclear energy technologies.
• She contended that the U.S. must assign value to nuclear energy exports, act to open foreign markets to its domestic nuclear energy industry, and provide support to U.S. nuclear energy companies so that these companies can compete globally.

Ms. Jackie Toth (Good Energy Collective):

• She thanked Congressional Democrats for their work to support nuclear energy, which she noted is the U.S.’s largest source of carbon-free electricity.
• She recounted how Congress had passed NEIMA in 2018 with broad bipartisan support and explained that this legislation had directed the NRC to develop licensing frameworks and evaluation strategies to enable predictable, efficient, and timely approvals for advanced nuclear reactors.
  • She commented that these regulatory activities reflect a dual imperative to provide communities with reliable emission-free power and to address climate change.
• She remarked that Congress should provide the NRC with direction and resources to facilitate the adoption of advanced nuclear energy technologies while preserving the public’s ability to learn about and participate in the NRC’s work.
  • She commented that several of the legislative proposals under consideration at the hearing would advance these goals.
• She stated that the NRC Office of Public Engagement and Participation Act of 2023 would ensure that the NRC can share information with the public about its activities and provide technical assistance.
  • She highlighted how FERC had established its own Office of Public Participation, which provides stakeholders with a “one stop shop” for receiving support and navigating matters before FERC.
• She remarked that establishing an Office of Public Engagement and Participation at the NRC will streamline engagement opportunities, address public hesitations regarding nuclear energy, and support licensing efficiencies.
  • She elaborated that this Office would support licensing efficiencies through proactively engaging communities in the siting and licensing process and supplementing the nuclear energy industry’s own engagement efforts.
• She then discussed how the NRC “demonstrably” struggles with employee satisfaction and retention and stated that the Strengthening the NRC Workforce Act of 2023 would help the NRC to address these issues.
  • She commented that this legislation would ensure that the NRC can attract and reward skilled employees.
• She further expressed support for policies that would provide the U.S.’s international allies with nuclear energy and fuels and develop strong safety regimes.
  • She commented that the Global Nuclear Energy Assessment and Cooperation Act and the Strengthening American Nuclear Competitiveness Act will support these objectives.
• She expressed reservations however with legislative proposals that would alter the mission of the NRC (such as the NRC Mission Alignment Act).
  • She warned that these proposals could undermine public confidence in the NRC’s work as the NRC undertakes a “historic scaling” of certification reviews and licensing activities.
  • She asserted that the strength of the NRC’s leadership and the availability of resources for NRC staff will have a greater impact on the NRC’s activities than a change in the NRC’s mission.
• She further expressed reservations over legislative proposals that would reduce the NRC’s mandatory hearing and public notice requirements regardless of the novelty of reactor designs and legislative proposals that would streamline the NRC’s environmental reviews without providing additional resources for public engagement and outreach.
  • She cautioned that these proposals may weaken the NRC’s responsiveness to the public.

The Hon. Jeffrey S. Merrifield (Advanced Nuclear Working Group, U.S. Nuclear Industry Council):

• He remarked that nuclear power can play an important role in securing the clean, reliable, and resilient energy needed to power the U.S.’s electric grid and decarbonize critical industrial capabilities.
• He stated that while the NRC is staffed by talented, bright, well-meaning, and dedicated civil servants, he asserted that the NRC has “lost sight of its role.”
  • He expressed hope that the NRC can become a more efficient, effective, risk-informed, timely, and technically adept regulator.
• He noted how the Atomic Energy Act states that atomic energy should be deployed to promote world peace, improve the general welfare, increase the standard of living, and strengthen free competition and private enterprise.
  • He commented that these statements remain relevant 70 years following their passage.
• He discussed how climate change constitutes a significant threat to the U.S.’s common defense and security and emphasized that nuclear energy is the only major, low-carbon, and proven energy system that can reliably dispatch energy on 24/7 basis.
  • He asserted that enabling nuclear energy’s safe usage is therefore an obligation of the NRC under the Atomic Energy Act and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974.
• He remarked that the NRC is failing to fully recognize the Atomic Energy Act’s positive encouragement of nuclear energy.
  • He described the NRC’s current approach to nuclear energy as “overly conservative” and asserted that the NRC does not consistently apply “commonsense principles” in regulating the technologies that it oversees.
• He stated that the current impasse surrounding the creation of a new regulatory framework for advanced nuclear reactors under the NRC’s proposed Part 53 rule demonstrates the NRC’s failure to properly encourage nuclear energy.
• He noted how many NRC licensees have told him that the NRC claims that it is limited in what it can say to applicants seeking clarification of NRC rules and guidances.
  • He indicated that the NRC has justified these limited communications on the basis that it cannot promote nuclear energy or act as a consultant due to its independent safety mission.
• He asserted that the NRC’s refusal to provide guidance to applicants constitutes an incorrect reading of the NRC’s mission and stated that the NRC can and should do more to enable the deployment of advanced nuclear energy technologies.
  • He commented that the NRC could support this deployment while maintaining its ability to independently assess the safety of nuclear energy technologies.
• He contended that the NRC should not use its role as an independent safety regulator as an excuse to not respond to questions and engage with licensed entities and the public.
• He then remarked that Congress must provide the NRC with sufficient resources so that the NRC can attract capable and experienced staff.
  • He also stated that the NRC should be provided with flexibility to pay above the standard government pay structure.
• He further called on Congress to update the role of ACRS to focus on reviewing unique and difficult nuclear energy technologies.
  • He expressed support for the ACRS language included in the Nuclear Advisory Committee Reform Act.
• He indicated that his organization, the U.S. Nuclear Industry Council, is supportive of most of the legislative proposals under consideration at the hearing.

Congressional Question Period:

Subcommittee Chairman Jeff Duncan (R-SC):

• Chairman Duncan expressed interest in aligning the NRC’s activities with the Atomic Energy Act’s policy goals. He asked the witnesses to discuss the value of ensuring that the NRC’s mission is more aligned with the mission goals of the Atomic Energy Act.
  • Mr. Nordhaus remarked that both the Atomic Energy Act and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 clearly establish that the NRC has a responsibility to account for the benefits of nuclear energy (in addition to ensuring public safety). He asserted that efforts to limit the NRC’s public safety focus to just operations at the plant level are propagating public health risks. He stated that the EPA’s regulations for similar facilities that combust fossil fuels are an “order of magnitude” less strict than the NRC’s regulations. He commented that this variance in regulations causes increased public health risk and increased mortality associated with the electrical system’s operations. He further called on the NRC to consider the overall consequences related to public health and the carbon intensity of the electrical grid when it makes licensing and regulatory determinations.
  • Ms. Korsnick noted how the Atomic Energy Act states that the U.S. should provide adequate public health and safety protections for its nuclear energy industry and ensure that nuclear energy makes the maximum contribution to the general welfare. She asserted that the NRC needs to embrace this mission.
  • Ms. Toth stated that the Atomic Energy Act and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 do provide for the consideration of the public welfare as part of the NRC’s activities. She contended however that the NRC’s mission is as much about optics as it is about setting direction. She stated that the NRC’s leadership can set the Commission’s direction. She asserted that any effort to alter the NRC’s mission be weighed against the potential for litigation risk. She warned that adding general welfare to the NRC’s mission could result in litigation surrounding whether the NRC’s actions had met the general welfare benchmark. She also discussed the NRC’s current work to support the U.S.’s international partners in establishing safety regimes. She cautioned that chaining the NRC’s mission could create concerns amongst these partners that the U.S.’s high standards for nuclear energy safety and regulation are being altered.
  • Mr. Merrifield remarked that the Atomic Energy Act’s foundation has remained unchanged since its enactment in 1954. He indicated that this foundation is a determination that the U.S. wants nuclear power to be deployed domestically for beneficial purposes. He explained that the NRC evaluates potential nuclear energy technologies and must license technologies determined to be safe. He also commented that this dynamic has remained unchanged since he had served as an NRC Commissioner during the late 1990s. He contended that the NRC must be reminded of the Atomic Energy Act’s foundation because many of the NRC’s recent actions (including their proposed Part 53 rule) are consistent with the foundation.
• Chairman Duncan indicated that he will submit some additional questions for the hearing’s record.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Diana DeGette (D-CO):

• Ranking Member DeGette remarked that the NRC’s current workforce challenges pose safety concerns and are limiting the NRC’s ability to process applications. She asked Ms. Toth to address how the NRC’s workforce challenges will impact the U.S. nuclear energy industry.
  • Ms. Toth discussed how the U.S. government has a shortage of nuclear engineers and stated that the Strengthening the NRC Workforce Act of 2023 could help to address the NRC’s staff shortage. She commented that the NRC will need to hire top talent as its current workforce continues to retire and competition for workers across the U.S. nuclear energy sector grows.
• Ranking Member DeGette then asked the witnesses to provide recommendations for bolstering the U.S. nuclear energy industry’s workforce. She commented that bolstering this workforce will help the U.S. to meet anticipated growth in demand for nuclear energy and ensure the highest levels of safety.
  • Mr. Nordhaus remarked that workforce challenges are present throughout the U.S. economy (and not just in the nuclear energy sector). He suggested that the U.S. provide “significant incentives” to bolster the U.S. nuclear energy industry’s workforce.
  • Ms. Korsnick remarked that the U.S. could redeploy existing workers from fossil fuel energy sectors into the nuclear energy sector. She mentioned how a recent analysis had found that 75 percent of coal plant workers could work at nuclear energy facilities. She also stated that this redeployment of fossil fuel energy workers could benefit many towns that are dependent on fossil fuel energy facilities that are expected to close. She then remarked that the U.S. nuclear energy sector can create partnerships with labor unions on apprentice programs to train workers. She stated that the U.S. nuclear energy sector’s workforce needs extend beyond engineers and commented that labor unions could help to supply these needs. She added that many of these nuclear energy jobs only require two-year degrees or high school degrees.
• Ranking Member DeGette expressed agreement with Ms. Korsnick’s response.
  • Ms. Merrifield expressed appreciation for the NRC Workforce Act of 2023’s general intent. He stated however that the NRC’s hiring authorities should be modeled off the hiring authorities of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rather than the hiring authorities of FERC. He also noted how the NRC Workforce Act of 2023 would solely vest direct hiring authority in the NRC Chairman and asserted that the entire NRC should possess this authority. He further noted how the legislation would apply this authority for only five years. He suggested that the length of this authority be extended given the current competition for qualified workers.
• Ranking Member DeGette interjected to indicate that her question period time is limited. She then asked Ms. Toth to elaborate on her concerns regarding the Efficient Nuclear Licensing Hearings Act. She asked Ms. Toth to address whether the NRC’s hearings serve as a critical tool for ensuring public health and safety.
  • Ms. Toth called it important for the U.S. to maintain the NRC’s current level of oversight and hearing process as the NRC moves forward on licensing new reactor designs.

Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX):

• Rep. Burgess expressed interest in efforts to provide nuclear energy career opportunities to people with four-year degrees, two-year degrees, and high school degrees. He commented that the U.S. needs to move away from requiring that jobs have credentials that cause workers to assume large amounts of student debt. He expressed particular interest in developing career opportunities in the nuclear energy sector where workers can receive on-the-job training. He further expressed interest in nuclear energy industry programs that would provide loans and grants for worker training.
  • Ms. Korsnick expressed agreement with Rep. Burgess’s comments and stated that the U.S. nuclear energy industry is eager to support career opportunities. She recounted how she partnered with local community colleges to provide nuclear energy career opportunities at her previous employers. She stated that there exists a “wide spectrum” of nuclear energy industry careers that involve varying levels of education. She noted how the nuclear energy industry requires electricians, plumbers, and pipefitters and highlighted how labor unions are helping to train workers to fill these positions.
• Rep. Burgess applauded the nuclear energy industry’s efforts to support its own workforce development. He then discussed how the NRC is deriving an increasing portion of its budget from fees and commented that there appears to be a growing disparity between fee-for-service collections and overhead. He noted how the NRC’s most recent fee rule indicates that operating nuclear power plants will each be required to pay about $5.5 million in annual fees. He indicated that this amounts to an increase of about 22 percent since fiscal year (FY) 2017. He noted however that there are less operating nuclear power plants today relative to FY 2017. He asked Ms. Korsnick to indicate whether this trend is a cause for concern.
  • Ms. Korsnick called this trend concerning. She expressed interest in improving the NRC’s efficiency and raised concerns over how the fee burdens on individual nuclear power plants are increasing. She called on U.S. policymakers to address these growing fee burdens on nuclear power plants. She asserted that the U.S. should not increase the NRC’s staff levels if it continues to operate inefficiently. She stated that the U.S. should instead focus on improving the NRC’s efficiency.
  • Mr. Merrifield expressed agreement with Ms. Korsnick’s response and stated that Congress must work to ensure that the NRC is operating efficiently.
• Rep. Burgess remarked that the U.S.’s operating nuclear reactors act as the main cash source for the NRC and stated that the NRC should be licensing more reactors.

Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH):

• Rep. Johnson discussed his legislative proposal, the Strengthening American Nuclear Competitiveness Act, which would direct the NRC to submit a report on licensing requirements for non-electric applications and advanced manufacturing. He asked Mr. Merrifield to explain why the NRC should prepare to license non-electric applications and advanced manufacturing.
  • Mr. Merrifield remarked that there will occur a “significant wave” of non-utilities that pursue advanced nuclear reactor technologies to decarbonize various manufacturing processes. He indicated that these processes can include steelmaking, aluminum manufacturing, and chemical manufacturing. He mentioned how existing companies (including Nucor and Dow) are currently evaluating advanced reactor technologies for non-electric applications and advanced manufacturing. He stated that the NRC will thus need to evaluate the licensing processes for non-electric applications and advanced manufacturing. He also expressed support for the Strengthening American Nuclear Competitiveness Act’s provision that would remove some of the current prohibitions on foreign ownership of U.S. nuclear energy facilities.
• Rep. Johnson discussed how the Strengthening American Nuclear Competitiveness Act would also review the U.S.’s current export capabilities, improve export processes, and encourage coordination with allies to increase the deployment of new commercial nuclear energy technologies. He asked Ms. Korsnick and Mr. Merrifield to discuss the importance of having the U.S. work with its allies on deploying new commercial nuclear energy technologies. He also asked Ms. Korsnick and Mr. Merrifield to address the need for the U.S. to export its own civilian nuclear energy technologies in light of the long-term international nuclear energy deals being pursued by Russia and China.
  • Ms. Korsnick called it critical for the U.S.’s national security to support foreign countries in securing their energy supplies. She stated that Russia’s recent efforts to restrict Europe’s energy highlights the need for countries to obtain energy security. She also warned that Russia might use its nuclear energy partnerships with foreign countries to exert pressure on these countries. She noted how nuclear power reactor projects with Russian backing have recently commenced in Egypt and Pakistan, which makes the prospect of Russian influence through energy restrictions very real. She contended that the U.S. must therefore work with its allies on deploying new commercial nuclear energy technologies to counter Russia’s global energy influence.
• Rep. Johnson emphasized how Russia and China tend to engage in long-term partnerships with foreign countries on nuclear energy projects that can last in excess of 100 years. He elaborated that these projects involve nuclear power plant construction, operation, maintenance, and upgrades.
  • Mr. Merrifield called it vital for the U.S. to provide countries with alternatives to Russian and Chinese-backed nuclear energy projects. He stated that many of the advanced nuclear energy technologies under discussion at the hearing provide the U.S. with an opportunity to regain global leadership in the nuclear energy space. He also remarked that Canada and the UK can also support the international deployment of nuclear energy technologies and noted how nuclear power plants cannot be built entirely using American parts.
• Rep. Johnson then noted how the Strengthening American Nuclear Competitiveness Act would extend the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act’s liability protections to 2065. He asked Ms. Korsnick to discuss the importance of the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act to the U.S. nuclear energy industry. He also asked Ms. Korsnick to address why the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act should be extended, especially considering the expected development of advanced nuclear reactors and SMRs.
  • Ms. Korsnick remarked that the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act provides an indemnification framework for insurers that enables nuclear energy projects to manage their risks. She asserted that the absence of this framework would stifle the U.S. nuclear energy industry.
• Note: Rep. Johnson’s question period time expired here.

Note: The Subcommittee took an approximately 20-minute recess at this point for votes.

Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-AZ):

• Rep. Lesko asked Ms. Korsnick to explain the difference between onsite NRC inspectors versus offsite NRC inspectors. She also asked Ms. Korsnick to indicate whether the use of offsite NRC inspectors provide a benefit that outweighs their costs.
  • Ms. Korsnick discussed how onsite NRC inspectors (also known as resident inspectors) are inspectors that are always located at a nuclear power plant and indicated that these inspectors have access to a plant on a 24/7 basis. She noted that the offsite NRC inspectors will come to a nuclear power plant for additional scheduled inspections. She explained that these offsite NRC inspectors will bring additional resources to the plant. She indicated that PI&R program inspections will involve these offsite NRC inspectors. She remarked that offsite NRC inspectors provide value because they tend to have expertise that is not present with onsite NRC inspectors. She noted however that the NRC had proven capable of conducting its nuclear power plant inspections with fewer inspectors onsite during the COVID-19 pandemic. She explained that the NRC had used technology and other ways of obtaining information to perform inspections without having to send inspectors to power plants. She expressed interest in applying the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic to conduct more efficient inspections of nuclear power plants moving forward.
• Rep. Lesko asked Ms. Korsnick to indicate whether her legislative proposal that would direct the NRC to consider permanently adopting practices used during the COVID-19 pandemic would be beneficial.
  • Ms. Korsnick answered affirmatively.
• Rep. Lesko asked Ms. Korsnick to provide additional recommendations for improving the NRC’s oversight of the U.S.’s operating nuclear reactor fleet.
  • Ms. Korsnick remarked that there exist opportunities for improving the NRC’s oversight of the U.S.’s operating nuclear reactor fleet. She mentioned how the Nuclear Energy Institute has submitted suggestions to the Committee on this topic and expressed her organization’s willingness to work with Rep. Lesko on this topic. She stated that the U.S. must work to improve the efficiency of its oversight efforts. She specifically called on the NRC to take a risk-informed approach to oversight, which would entail having the NRC spend less time reviewing activities that pose low safety risks.
• Rep. Lesko then asked Ms. Korsnick to indicate whether nuclear power plants ever consider the possibility of EMP attacks and whether nuclear power plants maintain plans to respond to these types of attacks.
  • Ms. Korsnick answered affirmatively. She testified that the Nuclear Energy Institute had worked with the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) to test the potential impacts of EMPs on nuclear power plant components.
• Rep. Lesko asked Ms. Korsnick to indicate whether nuclear power plants can protect themselves against EMPs.
  • Ms. Korsnick noted that nuclear power plants can make some hardware modifications to make essential equipment more resilient to EMP attacks.
• Rep. Lesko asked Ms. Korsnick to indicate whether nuclear power plants are adopting measures to protect themselves against EMP attacks.
  • Ms. Korsnick answered affirmatively. She stated however that she did not know the extent to which these protective measures are being adopted. She noted how EMP vulnerabilities tend to exist on the transmission and distribution side. She indicated that the nuclear power plants themselves have been evaluated to be “relatively resilient.”

Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY):

• Rep. Tonko applauded the Subcommittee’s bipartisan work to support the remediation and redevelopment of the U.S.’s brownfields. He stated that the EPA’s Brownfields Program has been “tremendously successful” in reducing pollution, creating jobs, and getting vacant properties to generate tax revenues. He expressed interest in the proposed Nuclear for Brownfields Site Preparation Act. He discussed how former coal power plants and other brownfield sites often possess characteristics that can support their redevelopment for nuclear energy generation purposes. He elaborated that these brownfield sites are often located near existing transmission infrastructure, have access to water and rail infrastructure, and have pre-existing security infrastructure. He stated that the use of these brownfield sites for advanced nuclear energy projects and other clean energy projects can enable communities to bring back high-quality jobs to their regions. He asked Ms. Toth to discuss how new nuclear energy projects can create jobs to support economic revitalization in former energy communities.
  • Ms. Toth expressed support for the proposed Nuclear for Brownfields Site Preparation Act. She stated that the U.S. should pursue policies that will enable nuclear energy to support communities facing the retirements of their coal power plants. She stated that there exist many opportunities to reuse existing energy infrastructure to support new nuclear energy projects. She also discussed how transitioning existing energy infrastructure to nuclear energy infrastructure can provide many community benefits, including good-paying jobs and tax revenues. She further highlighted how CHIPS for America Act had included the Fission for the Future Act, which had enabled the U.S. Department of Energy to support efforts to transition shuttered coal power plants into nuclear power projects.
• Rep. Tonko also asked Ms. Korsnick to discuss the opportunities to reuse former power plant sites for new nuclear energy projects.
  • Ms. Korsnick remarked that there exists a “wonderful opportunity” for the U.S. to reuse former power plant sites for new nuclear energy projects. She mentioned how one study had found that 75 percent of coal power plant jobs could be repurposed to nuclear power plant jobs. She commented that this figure is likely larger than the study had found. She recounted her experience working at a nuclear power plant and noted how this nuclear power plant would use fossil fuel workers during refueling outages. She stated that nuclear power plants have many of the same demands for skilled employees as other types of power plants. She expressed optimism regarding the prospects for using workers from former power plant sites at new nuclear energy project sites. She also noted how the closure of a fossil fuel power plant can be economically devastating for its surrounding communities. She commented that the repurposing of these power plants to become nuclear energy facilities can enable these communities to survive these fossil fuel power plant closures.
• Rep. Tonko expressed support for efforts to redevelop former fossil fuel energy sites for productive and cleaner uses. He commented that the proposed Nuclear for Brownfields Site Preparation Act attempts to accomplish this objective. He noted however that this legislative proposal uses the CERCLA’s definition of the term “brownfield site.” He indicated that this definition excludes numerous types of facilities, including facilities that had received permits under the RCRA, the CWA, and the SDWA. He expressed concerns that many former coal power plant sites might therefore not meet the definition of a brownfield site under the proposed Nuclear for Brownfields Site Preparation Act and that the NRC might not include these sites in their evaluations. He noted that CERCLA had excluded these types of facilities so that polluters could not access the EPA’s Brownfield Program’s limited funding to carry out remediation efforts required under their permits. He commented that while this exclusion is sensible for the EPA’s Brownfield Program, he questioned whether this exclusion should be applied to activities under the proposed Nuclear for Brownfields Site Preparation Act. He expressed interest in receiving technical assistance from the NRC and the EPA to ensure that the legislative proposal under consideration would not exclude potential beneficiaries of the proposal.

Rep. Bob Latta (R-OH):

• Rep. Latta discussed how many new nuclear reactor technologies require access to HALEU in order to fuel their operations. He noted how Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has made the only commercial source of HALEU inaccessible and has harmed the LEU market (which is used to fuel the U.S.’s existing nuclear fleet). He highlighted how his legislative proposal, the Nuclear Fuel Security Act, aims to reduce the U.S.’s reliance on Russia for nuclear fuels. He asked Mr. Merrifield to discuss the current state of the U.S.’s nuclear fuel security.
  • Mr. Merrifield noted that the U.S. is dependent on Russian imports for at least 20 percent of its nuclear fuel supply. He also highlighted how the U.S. is currently incapable of domestically producing HALEU. He noted however that the U.S. Department of Energy is working to develop a domestic HALEU production capability and highlighted how Centrus Energy and TerraPower are working to domestically produce HALEU. He expressed the U.S. Nuclear Industry Council’s support for the Nuclear Fuel Security Act. He also highlighted how the Nuclear Fuel Security Act would establish a Revolving Fund for the revenues received by the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury from the sale and transfer of nuclear fuel feed material. He expressed support for this provision.
• Rep. Latta then asked Mr. Merrifield to discuss the role that the NRC could play in quickly establishing a robust domestic nuclear fuel supply chain.
  • Mr. Merrifield remarked that the NRC needs to address the methods it uses to review and approve new nuclear fuel facilities. He stated that the U.S. will need to build new centrifuge facilities to compensate for the loss of foreign nuclear fuel production capabilities. He suggested that Congress provide this area with additional attention. He then recommended that U.S. policymakers consider the role that Canada can play in supplying the U.S.’s nuclear fuel needs. He noted how Canada serves as a major source of uranium and lacks enrichment capabilities. He indicated that Canada plans to deploy LEU reactors from GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy and advanced nuclear reactors that use HALEU. He remarked that the U.S. should therefore pursue enhanced cooperation with Canada on nuclear fuel issues.
• Rep. Latta then discussed the recent news that TerraPower would be entering into a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Centrus Energy on domestic HALEU production. He stated that this news shows that there is private sector interest in the domestic nuclear energy industry and that the U.S. Department of Energy must swiftly implement the Energy Act of 2020’s programs. He asked Ms.  Korsnick to discuss the importance of having the U.S. Department of Energy fully implement the HALEU Availability Program.
  • Ms. Korsnick called it critical for the U.S. Department of Energy to engage on the HALEU Availability Program because the U.S. HALEU market is not yet established. She stated that the U.S. government (through the U.S. Department of Energy) should work to incubate this market. She expressed dissatisfaction with the U.S. Department of Energy’s recent RFP for the HALEU Availability Program. She indicated that the Nuclear Energy Institute had voiced this dissatisfaction in its response to the RFP.

Rep. Kim Schrier (D-WA):

• Rep. Schrier noted how approximately 200,000 job years of employment are created for every gigawatt of nuclear energy generation capacity that is constructed. She remarked that the U.S. will need skilled workers to construct, operate, maintain, and guard nuclear energy facilities. She stated that the U.S. will need to develop and support both public and private sector workforces to support the nuclear energy sector’s labor needs. She expressed interest in how workers in the coal industry can transition to employment in the nuclear energy industry. She commented that the ability of coal industry workers to move into nuclear energy industry jobs should inform NRC decisions on where to site nuclear power plants. She asked Ms. Korsnick to provide examples of successful private sector efforts to address workforce development. She also asked Ms. Korsnick to identify useful lessons from these efforts that can inform federal nuclear policies.
  • Ms. Korsnick noted how a recent U.S. Department of Energy report had estimated that the U.S. will require 375,000 additional nuclear energy industry workers. She emphasized that not all of these additional workers will be engineers and indicated that the U.S. nuclear energy sector will also need plumbers, pipefitters, electricians, and I&C technicians. She further commented that not all of these jobs will require four-year college degrees and indicated that some of these jobs will only require two-year college degrees or high school degrees. She remarked that the U.S. should work to prepare this workforce at the kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) level (rather than solely focus at the secondary education level). She applauded the American Nuclear Society for developing K-12 nuclear energy educational programs with the U.S. Department of Energy. She also discussed how the U.S. nuclear energy industry has partnered with community colleges on workforce development issues. She remarked that clear federal interest in nuclear energy deployment will further spur the U.S. nuclear energy industry to invest in workforce development. She stated that these workforce development efforts will involve partnerships with universities, high schools, and labor unions.
  • Mr. Merrifield expressed agreement with Ms. Korsnick’s response. He mentioned how he serves as chairman of E4 Carolinas, which is an energy association covering North Carolina and South Carolina. He stated that this association is working to support the development of nuclear-grade welders and noted how the U.S. already experiences challenges filling these welder positions. He noted how many tradespeople in the U.S. nuclear energy industry are at retirement age and remarked that the U.S. must ensure that it has an adequate supply of tradespeople moving forward.

Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY):

• Rep. Guthrie discussed how the commonwealth of Kentucky is an energy-producing state and noted how many of Kentucky’s coal power plants have shut down. He expressed interest in working to convert brownfield sites (such as former coal power plant sites) into nuclear power sites. He asked the witnesses to discuss the prospects of constructing nuclear energy projects at brownfield sites and to address whether it will be easier to deploy nuclear energy projects at brownfield sites.
  • Mr. Nordhaus remarked that there is “huge potential” to deploy nuclear energy projects at brownfield sites. He stated that the U.S. will need to assess its existing rules and regulations regarding exclusion zones and emergency planning and determine how these rules and regulations apply to nuclear energy projects at brownfield sites. He stated that existing exclusion zone rules might be ill-suited for these smaller advanced nuclear power plant designs and commented that regulatory reforms may be warranted. He contended that these reforms will need to be made if the U.S. seeks to quickly convert brownfield sites into nuclear energy project sites.
  • Ms. Korsnick expressed support for efforts to convert brownfield sites into nuclear energy project sites and remarked that Congress encourage the NRC to make this process efficient. She stated that the conversion of brownfield sites into nuclear energy project sites will enable fossil fuel workers to remain employed and noted how many communities are built around fossil fuel plants. She commented that these communities should not face collapse because a coal power plant needs to transition to another form of energy. She asserted that nuclear energy can enable these communities to survive coal power plant closures. She mentioned how a study had found that 75 percent of the workers at coal power plants can transition to jobs at nuclear power plants. She contended that this estimate is too low and the percentage of coal power plant workers that can transition to nuclear power plant careers is likely higher. She mentioned how she had observed first-hand the ability to convert coal power plant workers into nuclear power plant workers during her previous experience working for a nuclear power plant.
  • Ms. Toth discussed how Good Energy Collective has worked to quantify the community-level benefits of having coal energy communities transition to nuclear energy projects. She testified that the Good Energy Collective will be conducting engagements with prospective host communities facing coal power plant retirements about the prospects of transitioning toward nuclear energy projects. She anticipated that communities that are familiar with hosting large energy infrastructure (like a coal power plant) might be more interested in hosting new nuclear energy projects. She stated that the U.S. should facilitate these efforts to transition from fossil fuel power plants to nuclear power plants.
  • Mr. Merrifield remarked that coal power facilities make “excellent” sites for nuclear power plants. He highlighted how much of the infrastructure at coal power facilities can be reused for nuclear power plants. He stated that other types of retiring fossil fuel power plants (such as combined-cycle gas units) can be converted into nuclear power plants. He then discussed how the NRC requires prospective nuclear energy projects to perform an analysis of a need for power as part of the EIS process. He asserted that this requirement would be redundant if the project involved the conversion of an existing coal power plant into a nuclear power plant. He further remarked that state public utility commissions tend to require nuclear energy projects to perform a need for power analysis and noted that many applicants will perform this analysis on their own. He recommended that Congress remove the requirement that the NRC perform a need for power analysis on prospective nuclear energy projects. He called this analysis “completely unnecessary.”

Rep. Marc Veasey (D-TX):

• Rep. Veasey expressed interest in making nuclear energy a key component of the U.S.’s clean energy strategy. He mentioned how Abilene Christian University in his state of Texas has developed a nuclear energy experimental testing laboratory in conjunction with the University of Texas and Texas A&M University. He noted how this testing laboratory is experimenting with molten salts as a coolant for nuclear reactors. He remarked that the development of safe, reliable, affordable, and cleaner nuclear energy technologies will be “very essential” to the U.S.’s energy security and global competitiveness (especially with regard to Russia and China). He stated that the U.S. will need to quickly license and provide targeted federal funding for these innovative nuclear energy technologies. He highlighted how the CHIPS and Science Act had established a program to support new university research nuclear reactors and how the recent National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) had provided fuel service access for these types of reactors. He noted how Mr. Merrifield is advising Abilene Christian University on its research nuclear reactor project. He asked Mr. Merrifield to discuss the importance of ensuring a steady funding stream for eligible new research reactor projects.
  • Mr. Merrifield remarked that Abilene Christian University’s research nuclear reactor project will support the development and deployment of a molten salt reactor for university research purposes. He noted that this research nuclear reactor will be the first new research nuclear reactor built in the U.S. in several decades. He stated that the U.S. could export its research nuclear reactor designs to enable other countries to develop their own nuclear energy programs. He then commented that while the CHIPS and Science Act and the recent NDAA include language to encourage the construction of new research nuclear reactors, he indicated that current appropriations language restricts the U.S.’s ability to construct these reactors. He expressed appreciation for Rep. Veasey’s efforts to support the construction of research nuclear reactors.
• Rep. Veasey asked Mr. Merrifield to indicate whether it would be beneficial for Americans to learn about the potential for nuclear energy projects to complement traditional fossil fuel energy sources and clean energy sources.
  • Mr. Merrifield answered affirmatively. He then discussed how the U.S. currently lacks a university-based molten salt reactor and highlighted how the Abilene Christian University’s research nuclear reactor project would provide such a reactor. He further noted how many energy stakeholders are currently interested in decarbonizing the various parts of the oil production process through the use of microreactors and other nuclear energy technologies. He stated that Texas is well-positioned to be a leader in these efforts.

Full Committee Chairman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA):

• Chairman McMorris Rodgers raised concerns over the NRC’s proposed Part 53 rule and mentioned how she had joined a Congressional letter to the NRC that had raised these concerns. She asked Ms. Korsnick, Mr. Merrifield, and Mr. Nordhaus to address how a results-oriented culture could be instilled at the NRC.
  • Mr. Korsnick remarked that NRC leadership must prioritize a result-oriented culture for such a culture to permeate through the NRC. She stated that the NRC’s development of their proposed Part 53 rule has been a very frustrating experience for the U.S. nuclear energy industry. She noted that while the NRC holds many meetings with nuclear energy industry stakeholders, she accused the NRC of failing to listen to the stakeholder feedback provided in these meetings.
  • Ms. Merrifield expressed agreement with Ms. Korsnick’s response. He also stated that the NRC had failed to sufficiently engage stakeholders as it developed their proposed Part 53 rule, despite holding many meetings with nuclear energy industry stakeholders. He asserted that the NRC’s proposed Part 53 rule is not useful and that the NRC could significantly improve upon their proposal. He stated that the NRC should be able to develop a streamlined and efficient licensing process for advanced nuclear reactors. He recounted how he had experienced robust Congressional oversight during his tenure as an NRC Commissioner as the NRC had developed a Part 52 rule. He indicated that this Congressional feedback had led the NRC to restart its Part 52 rulemaking process. He reiterated his assertion that the NRC’s proposed Part 53 rule is not workable, unhelpful, and does not adhere to Congressional intent.
  • Mr. Nordhaus expressed agreement with the prior responses from Ms. Korsnick and Mr. Merrifield. He thanked Congress for voicing its concerns with the NRC’s proposed Part 53 rule. He also asserted that the NRC leadership must be clear in calling for the NRC staff to rewrite the proposed Part 53 rule. He testified that he had submitted extensive public comments to the NRC as it had worked to develop the proposed Part 53 rule and stated that the NRC did not appear to incorporate any of his comments into the proposed rule. He added that his experience in the comment process was similar to the experiences of other stakeholders. He remarked that Congress must clearly direct the NRC to develop a “substantially modernized and different” framework for licensing advanced nuclear reactors.
• Chairman McMorris Rodgers then asked Mr. Merrifield to indicate whether the NRC staff should continue to not act as consultants on NRC rules and guidance in their meetings with license applicants.
  • Mr. Merrifield remarked that the NRC staff should actively engage in conversations with license applicants. He commented that these engagements would enable NRC staff to better understand license applicant perspectives and license applicants to better understand NRC policies. He described the NRC’s engagement with stakeholders during the Part 53 rulemaking process as mere “listening sessions” where the NRC did not actually take the concerns of the applicants into consideration. He expressed concerns that the NRC staff feels satisfied with their proposed Part 53 rule and noted how both Congress and stakeholders have raised serious concerns with this proposal. He also raised concerns that the NRC lacks sufficient technical capabilities to review and assess potential policies.
• Chairman McMorris Rodgers expressed interest in having Congress work to address the NRC’s Part 53 rulemaking in a bipartisan manner.

Rep. Tony Cárdenas (D-CA):

• Rep. Cárdenas noted that while the NRC considers public opinion in their regulatory decisions, he asserted that the NRC’s proceedings are often inaccessible and difficult to understand. He remarked that the U.S. should create better and more accessible opportunities for public participation in order to build trust with potentially impacted communities. He also stated that greater public participation opportunities will result in better NRC decision outcomes. He expressed support for the NRC Office of Public Engagement and Participation Act of 2023. He asked Ms. Toth to discuss how the creation of an NRC Office of Public Engagement and Participation would help communities to better navigate proceedings before the NRC.
  • Ms. Toth mentioned how the NRC had undertaken a systematic assessment between 2021 and 2022 regarding how it addresses environmental justice issues across all of its programs and activities. She highlighted how this review had noted that the NRC’s 1995 Environmental Justice Strategy calls on the Commission to inspire stakeholder confidence through more comprehensive public outreach, engage the public in a more transparent manner, and provide information upfront. She indicated that the NRC’s recent review had found that the Commission’s stakeholder outreach is “very infrequent” and often only occurs when there is a pending activity within a community. She also noted that this review had found that individual NRC project managers often must proactively conduct effective local and community engagement and outreach. She commented that this dynamic results in variability in these community engagement and outreach efforts. She remarked that an NRC Office of Public Engagement and Participation could play an important role in both making NRC proceedings accessible to the public and training NRC project managers in effective strategies for public engagement.
• Rep. Cárdenas asked Ms. Toth to indicate whether an NRC Office of Public Engagement and Participation could help both project sponsors and potentially impacted communities.
  • Ms. Toth answered affirmatively. She remarked that an NRC Office of Public Engagement and Participation would create more capabilities for the public to engage with the NRC. She also noted how an NRC Office of Public Engagement and Participation could engage project developers and communities about proposed nuclear energy projects. She stated that this engagement could proactively address community concerns before the concerns lead to delays for nuclear energy project deployments. She commented that these avoided project delays will ultimately benefit industry stakeholders.
• Rep. Cárdenas remarked that governments should listen to local communities when considering whether to license energy projects and not solely rely upon the viewpoints of corporate stakeholders to make these licensing decisions. He asked Ms. Toth to discuss how the NRC Office of Public Engagement and Participation Act of 2023 would build upon the NRC’s Environmental Justice Review Team’s recommendations.
  • Ms. Toth discussed how the NRC’s Environmental Justice Review Team had held numerous public and private community meetings to learn about public views toward the NRC’s public engagement process. She noted how this Team had found that communities had called for the NRC to provide greater translation services and longer notice before public meetings. She stated that an NRC Office of Public Engagement and Participation would be well-suited to obtain these types of insights, which the NRC could then implement to improve its processes.

Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI):

• Rep. Walberg asked Mr. Merrifield to address why the proposed Nuclear Advisory Committee Reform Act’s reforms are needed. He also asked Mr. Merrifield to indicate whether the Nuclear Advisory Committee Reform Act would result in better outcomes because it would direct the ACRS to focus on new and novel projects.
  • Mr. Merrifield mentioned how he had worked with the Nuclear Innovation Alliance on a study regarding the ACRS. He noted how this study had identified areas where the ACRS should focus so that the NRC can make more informed, efficient, and effective decisions. He stated that the recommendations in the proposed Nuclear Advisory Committee Reform Act are consistent with the Nuclear Innovation Alliance study’s recommendations. He also expressed interest in working with the Subcommittee on identifying additional improvements to this legislative proposal. He remarked that the NRC requires additional flexibility regarding how it can deploy the ACRS so that the ACRS will focus on the most technically difficult issues. He noted how the ACRS is currently required to review relatively mundane license areas. He commented that the ACRS’s review does not provide value in these areas.
• Rep. Walberg then discussed how there are legislative proposals under consideration at the hearing that seek to improve the NRC’s hiring capabilities. He indicated that one of these legislative proposals is the Strengthening the NRC Workforce Act of 2023. He remarked however that Congress must provide confidence to nuclear energy industry stakeholders that they will be working with a competent regulator. He asked Mr. Merrifield to opine on the Strengthening the NRC Workforce Act of 2023 and the need for the NRC to have qualified staff and leadership. He also asked Mr. Merrifield to discuss how the NRC could incorporate best practices from private industry to attract the right staff.
  • Mr. Merrifield remarked that the NRC currently faces staff challenges and noted how much of the NRC’s workforce is retirement eligible. He commented that these staff challenges have caused the NRC to lose some of their technical capabilities. He stated that Congress should ensure that the NRC has sufficient authorities to maintain a qualified workforce. He noted how several federal financial regulators, including the SEC the U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), have been provided with greater flexibilities to hire workers at all levels (i.e., entry-level workers through senior management). He also stated that the NRC should hire workers from diverse career backgrounds (including work experience in the private sector and in other government agencies). He then expressed concerns that the Strengthening the NRC Workforce Act of 2023 would vest hiring authorities solely in the NRC Chairman and asserted that these authorities should instead be vested in the Commission as a whole. He also raised concerns about the legislation’s limitations on the authority’s timing and stated that these authorities should be provided to the NRC for a longer period of time. He further recommended that the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) should engage in dialogue about other potential hiring tools that would enhance the NRC’s ability to attract a talented and capable workforce.

Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL):

• Rep. Palmer remarked that the U.S. needs to reduce its reliance on foreign sources for nuclear fuel (including China and Russia) and stated that advanced nuclear energy technologies can help the U.S. to reduce this reliance. He asked Mr. Merrifield to comment on the NRC’s ability to expeditiously permit SMRs.
  • Mr. Merrifield first remarked that the NRC’s proposed Part 53 rule will be neither helpful nor useful. He stated however that the two-step process included under Part 50 and the one-step process under Part 52 can support the deployment of SMRs. He remarked that the NRC should develop a licensing framework that enables them to quickly approve licenses for nuclear energy projects that use previously-approved nuclear energy facility designs. He asserted that the NRC should only focus on site-specific factors when reviewing nuclear energy projects that are based on previously-approved designs.
• Rep. Palmer remarked that a key advantage of SMRs is their use of fabricated parts, which makes SMRs easier to deploy to any location as compared to traditional nuclear reactors. He also stated that SMRs can more easily be installed into existing electricity grids as compared to renewable energy facilities and traditional nuclear reactors. He asked Mr. Merrifield to confirm these advantages.
  • Mr. Merrifield confirmed Rep. Palmer’s statements. He recounted his previous work experience in the combined-cycle gas industry and noted how standardized designs had enabled the U.S. to quickly deploy combined-cycle gas infrastructure. He remarked that the U.S. should strive for standardized nuclear reactor designs so that the U.S. can quickly and efficiently deploy these reactors.
• Rep. Palmer also highlighted how advanced nuclear reactors will use significantly less land space relative to renewable energy sources and traditional nuclear reactors. He then stated that advanced nuclear technologies are very similar to current nuclear submarine technologies and noted how current nuclear submarine technologies are very safe. He contended that the deployment of advanced nuclear reactors would constitute the best approach for reducing emissions. He further highlighted how advanced nuclear reactors can recover about 96 percent of the material from spent nuclear fuel rods, which would reduce the U.S.’s dependence on foreign nuclear fuel supplies.
  • Mr. Merrifield noted how the U.S. regularly parks two aircraft carriers in San Diego and indicated that these aircraft carriers each contain nuclear reactors on board. He commented that these nuclear reactors on board the aircraft carriers do not cause public concern because of the safety of these reactors. He then discussed how advanced nuclear reactors can make use of material that is currently viewed as nuclear waste. He mentioned how there are at least four companies that are evaluating potential uses for spent nuclear fuel rods and called the prospect of recycling this spent nuclear fuel exciting.

Rep. Troy Balderson (R-OH):

• Rep. Balderson first asked Mr. Merrifield to respond to the previous comments made during the hearing regarding public participation in the NRC’s processes.
  • Mr. Merrifield remarked that the NRC should improve how it engages the public in two-way communications and provide communities that may host nuclear energy facilities with more information. He raised concerns however over the proposals to create an NRC Office of Public Engagement and Participation. He noted how this proposed Office will have a mandate of submitting contentions and hearing requests, which will challenge the NRC staff’s licensing process. He stated that these challenges will be funded with taxpayer money and expressed concerns that NRC staff may use this process to legally challenge its own decisions. He commented that the end result of these challenges could be further NRC licensing delays. He expressed opposition to the NRC Office of Public Engagement and Participation Act of 2023.
• Rep. Balderson then remarked that the nuclear energy industry requires a predictable licensing process to secure financial support from investors to commercialize nuclear energy technologies. He elaborated that regulatory predictable enables financiers to accurately estimate nuclear energy project timelines and costs. He stated that legislative proposals, such as the Nuclear Licensing Efficiency Act, seek to provide this regulatory predictability. He asked Mr. Merrifield to comment on the approach taken by these legislative proposals.
  • Mr. Merrifield described the proposed Nuclear Licensing Efficiency Act as beneficial and expressed the U.S. Nuclear Industry Council’s support the legislative proposal’s expedited review timelines. He also expressed the U.S. Nuclear Industry Council’s interest in working with the Subcommittee to enhance this legislative proposal.
• Rep. Balderson asked Mr. Merrifield, Ms. Korsnick, and Mr. Nordhaus to provide recommendations for strengthening the legislative proposals under consideration at the hearing to support new nuclear energy technologies.
  • Mr. Merrifield remarked that the NRC’s fee-based licensing process is the result of the Congressional budget reconciliation process. He noted that the U.S.’s current nuclear reactor fleet had not been subject to the current fee-based licensing process and had instead been subject to modest licensing fees. He suggested that the U.S. adopt guidelines that include a cost-share requirement for advanced nuclear reactor developers. He elaborated that these guidelines could require that licensees only cover 20 percent of regulatory costs (while the federal government would cover the rest of these costs) and provide waivers for fee requirements after nuclear reactors are constructed. He also remarked that the NRC should be expected to adhere to its provided timeline after it accepts an application. He suggested that the NRC should have to cover the additional costs associated with reviews if it exceeds its provided timeline.
  • Ms. Korsnick recommended that the NRC adopt additional metrics regarding their review processes. She commented that these additional metrics would provide insights into the NRC’s ability to review nuclear energy projects in a timely manner and enable Congress to better assess the NRC’s efficiency.
  • Mr. Nordhaus remarked that adding NRC staff without having an accountable, streamlined, and performance-based licensing process will not result in additional efficiencies. He stated that the NRC’s staffing issues must be explicitly linked to expectations of expeditious review.

Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX):

• Rep. Pfluger remarked that the U.S. needs a permanent repository for its spent nuclear fuel. He expressed opposition to efforts to construct an interim spent nuclear fuel storage facility in Andrews, Texas and asserted that the U.S. should instead work to open the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. He asked Ms. Korsnick to identify the actions that Congress and/or the NRC must take to open the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.
  • Ms. Korsnick discussed how the U.S. nuclear energy industry and NRC ratepayers have established a fund to support the development of a long-term spent nuclear fuel repository. She indicated that this fund currently has over $40 billion. She remarked that the U.S. ultimately requires a long-term geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel. She highlighted how other countries (including Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, France, Canada, and the UK) are pursuing long-term repositories for spent nuclear fuel. She expressed confidence in the U.S.’s ability to develop a long-term storage solution for spent nuclear fuel and commented that the challenge is more political than technical in nature. She also stated that the development of a long-term solution for spent nuclear fuel will result in more support for interim spent nuclear fuel storage facilities because it would foster confidence that the storage will actually be short-term.
• Rep. Pfluger then expressed agreement with Mr. Nordhaus’s previous comments on the need to modernize the NRC’s environmental reviews and the NEPA process. He asked Mr. Nordhaus to discuss other policies outside of environmental reviews that will enable the U.S. to compete in the global nuclear energy space. He expressed particular concerns regarding the U.S.’s competitiveness within this space vis-a-vis China.
  • Mr. Nordhaus remarked that Congress must direct the NRC to process license applications quickly under the requirements of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 through its oversight role. He also suggested that the NRC could remove new reactors as an automatic trigger for performing EISs. He commented that EISs should only need to be performed if there is a significant environmental impact associated with a nuclear energy project. He stated that a small factory-manufactured nuclear reactor should not automatically be subject to the EIS process and commented that this process had been designed for larger reactors.
• Rep. Pfluger asked Mr. Nordhaus to project the consequences of the NRC’s failure to comply with the Fiscal Responsibility of 2023’s NEPA reforms.
  • Mr. Nordhaus remarked that the NRC’s failure to comply with the Fiscal Responsibility of 2023’s NEPA reforms will result in a maintenance of the status quo. He characterized the status quo as involving nuclear energy projects having to undergo unnecessary EIS processes.

Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA):

• Rep. Carter noted how the U.S. Department of Energy’s Strategy to Restore American Nuclear Energy Leadership has found that the U.S. is missing out on a nuclear reactor market that is valued between $500 billion and $750 billion annually over the next ten years. He contended that the U.S. should pursue nuclear energy from an economic perspective (in addition to nuclear energy’s clean and reliable energy benefits). He highlighted how China is significantly subsidizing nuclear power plants in foreign countries and expressed concerns that these Chinese nuclear power plants will make countries beholden to China. He stated however that the U.S. has had some successes in terms of exporting its nuclear energy technologies abroad. He mentioned how Romania had canceled its plans to work with China on a nuclear energy project and had instead opted to work with a U.S. company on this project. He also highlighted how Westinghouse Electric Corporation (which is a U.S. company) is building nuclear energy projects in Poland and the Czech Republic. He remarked that the U.S. possesses adequate nuclear energy technologies and must now deploy them abroad. He asked Ms. Korsnick and Mr. Merrifield to indicate whether the U.S. has already ceded global leadership in the global nuclear energy market to adversaries (such as China and Russia).
  • Ms. Korsnick remarked that the U.S.’s nuclear energy innovation pipeline is full and set to release many innovative nuclear energy technology designs. She asserted that the U.S. has not ceded global leadership in the global nuclear energy market. She stated that bad behavior from China and Russia is making other countries wary to partner with China and Russia on nuclear energy projects. She contended that the U.S.’s global leadership in the nuclear energy market should be viewed as a strategic imperative.
  • Mr. Merrifield applauded the EXIM Bank’s work with U.S. nuclear energy companies to support the deployment of U.S. nuclear energy technologies. He asserted that U.S. nuclear energy technologies are globally competitive and that the U.S. must work to export these technologies. He also mentioned how the DFC has been provided with authorities to further promote U.S. nuclear energy technology exports, including some ability to offer equity financing. He recommended that the U.S. increase the DFC’s ability to offer equity financing for nuclear energy projects. He further criticized the World Bank for not providing funding for nuclear energy projects in developing countries. He attributed the World Bank’s prohibition on this funding to opposition from Germany, Austria, and Ireland. He stated that the U.S. should work to lift this prohibition as the World Bank’s largest funder.
• Rep. Carter remarked that Germany’s nuclear energy policies are impeding innovation and criticized Germany’s decision to move away from nuclear energy sources in favor of intermittent renewable energy sources. He noted that Germany’s reliance on these intermittent energy sources has forced Germany to use coal power. He then asked the witnesses to address how the U.S. could better position itself to partner with developing countries on nuclear energy projects.
  • Mr. Merrifield remarked that many developing countries are concerned about partnering with China and Russia on nuclear energy projects and that these developing countries would prefer to have U.S. nuclear energy technologies. He stated that the U.S. must support these developing countries in choosing U.S. nuclear energy technologies.

Rep. Rick Allen (R-GA):

• Rep. Allen discussed how global demand for energy is continuing to grow and highlighted how recent energy challenges in Germany had caused many people to lose access to heating service. He called it critical that the U.S. advance nuclear energy legislation for both energy and national security. He discussed how his Congressional District contains Plant Vogtle, which will have the first two nuclear power plants to come online in the U.S. in 30 years. He noted that the Plant Vogtle project had faced numerous regulatory challenges in constructing their new units. He stated however that Plant Vogtle’s licensing and building processes have provided lessons that will enable quicker nuclear energy project deployments moving forward. He expressed concerns that the costs and risks associated with constructing new nuclear energy projects can deter companies from pursuing new nuclear energy projects. He mentioned how he had worked to develop the proposed Nuclear Licensing Efficiency Act to help address these challenges. He asked Mr. Nordhaus, Mr. Merrifield, and Ms. Korsnick to opine on the proposed Nuclear Licensing Efficiency Act and to provide recommendations for deploying nuclear energy projects in the U.S.
  • Mr. Merrifield discussed how Congress has taken several actions in recent years to incentivize the deployment of advanced nuclear energy technologies. He indicated that these actions have included licensing reforms and the provision of funding. He stated that the U.S. has learned lessons about nuclear energy project deployments from Plant Vogtle and noted how Poland, the Czech Republic, Ukraine, and other Eastern European countries are potential markets for U.S. nuclear energy technology. He suggested that the EXIM Bank, the DFC, and other federal government agencies can support the international deployment of U.S. nuclear energy technologies.
  • Ms. Korsnick remarked that the U.S. must first deploy nuclear energy technologies domestically before it can export the technologies abroad. She commended the efforts to construct new nuclear energy units at Plant Vogtle and the willingness of companies to endure regulatory headwinds throughout Plant Vogtle’s licensing and construction process. She stated that other countries want to first see the U.S. deploy its own nuclear energy technologies before they pursue nuclear energy projects involving U.S. technologies.
  • Mr. Nordhaus remarked that a key advantage of smaller nuclear reactors is that they are better suited for private financing and require fewer government backstops and guarantees. He commented that these smaller nuclear reactors are significantly cheaper than traditional nuclear reactors, which make them less risky to pursue.