Nuclear Permitting Reform: Legislation to Advance Efficient Licensing

well good morning i will bring the subcommittee on energy to order and the chair recognize himself for five minutes for an opening statement today's hearing will consider legislative proposals to improve the nuclear regulatory commission's licensing process among other reforms which will help maintain momentum for us nuclear development. A robust and growing American nuclear industry is vital for our economy, energy and national security. We need firm, reliable energy and a lot more of it. We also need a robust nuclear sector for our national security. We must increase nuclear commerce with our allies and provide a more cost-effective industrial base. This committee has already taken significant steps that will optimize the regulatory system and related policies to assist nuclear deployment and the economic and security benefits for the nation. Our bipartisan work over the last two years led to the advance act. This law directed the nr c to align its mission for enabling benefits of nuclear technology and to focus on energy reducing cost and increasing predictability, in the permitting process. Our work also laid the foundation for a revitalized domestic nuclear fuel sector. the nuclear fuel security act which many of us on this day has helped develop and sponsor provided federal support and market incentives to grow our nuclear fuel industry and eliminate a russia's strategic chokehold over global fuel supplies as these important laws have been implemented it has become clear that additional updates may be helpful to achieve these goals the bills that are consideration this morning provide additional reform so the permitting process can be more efficient while safety is protected and transparency for the public is assured. We will consider the bipartisan hr fifty five forty nine the efficient nuclear licensing hearing act sponsored by my colleagues from virginia's ninth washington's eighth and texas's thirty third congressional districts this would save time and resources by eliminating the outdated requirements that nrc hold a final public hearing on a license even if no one requests that hearing. hr thirty nine seventy eight the nuclear refuel act which i lived with my colleague from california's fiftieth district would clarify certain recycling facilities may be licensed under the same regulatory framework as other fuel cycle facilities. recently several of us visited a fuel recycling facility in northern france to have a better sense of the potential for this technology in the united states This legislation will result in efficient permitting changes to extract additional energy out of used fuel. H R ninety eighty four, the Department of Energy and Nuclear Transparency Act, introduced last week by the ranking member of the Energy Subcommittee, will require DOE to announce and post licensing decisions for facilities it permits, similar to what NRC already does. We will also review several discussion drafts that should attract bipartisan support. We will consider the Nuclear Advisory Committee Reform Act, which directs this important advisory committee to focus on issues that are new and safety significant to reduce unnecessary time on routine licensing by the NRC. This is in keeping with the bipartisan goals of the Advance Act to be risk informed and efficient when reviewing licenses. The American Enrichment Development Act brings the licensing process for enriched facilities in line with the permitting process for other fuel cycle facilities. It is a critical step to assure efficiency licensing as we work to build out critical fuel supply infrastructure. Finally, the NRC staff pay alignment act would update the atomic energy act to align the pay authority applicable to certain career SDS employees with the pay authorities commerce provided in the advance act. Maintaining experience and competent leadership at the NRC is essential for assuring it carries out its mission. Our witnesses this morning, all of whom have provided their expert views to the uh committee in the past, provide helpful perspective to these legislative proposals. We welcome back Maria Korzenek, a former chief nuclear officer and plant operator who heads the Nuclear Energy Institute, Jeff Merrifield, a former NRC commissioner, who is speaking on behalf of the US Nuclear Infrastructure Council. Also, Katie Huff, a professor at the University of Illinois, who was an assistant secretary of nuclear energy at DOE. In the last administration, and Jeremy Harrell, who heads the Clear Path Action, a leading energy policy advocacy organization that has helped inform inform bipartisan forums. I'll look forward to today's testimony, and with that I yield back

Well, thank you, Chairman Latta, and good morning. Thank you to the witnesses for being here. Uh, this committee has a strong history of bipartisan work to modernize the way we ways we license new nuclear reactors, carefully balancing safety, transparency and efficiency. Unfortunately, the Trump administration's reckless and heavy-handed approach has taken us backwards. resulting in a federal enterprise that is less trustworthy and less capable of fulfilling the progress that Congress envisioned when we passed the bipartisan advance act in twenty twenty four. The president illegally fired NRC Chairman Chris Hansen last June. Other NRC commissioners have appeared before our committee and warned that they could be fired at any time by the president if they refused to rubber stamp a nuclear reactor. Republicans have been silent as Doge affiliated interlopers with no experience in nuclear safety have forced out career safety experts. The NRC has lost nearly five hundred professional staff since the president took office. We also can't forget that NRC licensing is just one piece of the federal government's role in promoting the deployment of advanced nuclear energy. DOE's Office of Clean Energy uh demonstrations has deployed two point eight billion dollars, from the bipartisan infrastructure law for advanced nuclear projects. However, the government accountability office says that DOE is no longer capable of effectively managing those funds due to the staffing cuts. The loans program office, which was providing low-cost financing for nuclear reaction reactor construction, lost more than half of its employees uh due to voluntary resignation as well. Plus, even if a nuclear energy project can get license, financed and built, it still faces challenges connecting to the grid. And the Department of Energy keeps making moves that waste taxpayer money and heap higher costs on our neighbors back home like forcing old coal plants to remain open, even when plant operators are moving towards closure. Economically, that could replace coal with more reliable energy. The presen- uh, the US Energy Information Administration advises what energy will come on-line this year. Eighty-six gigawatts of generation made up of fifty-one percent solar, twenty-eight percent batteries, fourteen percent wind, and seven percent gas. These are the energy resources that are poised to help America address higher cost and provide more reliable power. We need all of those resources now. In addition to nuclear power, uh, Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of economic pain out in the world. Uh, and I think this committee should schedule a hearing on how the president's war in Iran is taking the cost of gasoline to sky-high levels, and the fact that the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve is approaching its lowest levels in decades, with inventories expect expected to fall to roughly three hundred million barrels the lowest since the nineteen eighties. Notwithstanding all that, uh some of the bills before this committee today can move us in the right direction. I appreciate the chairman including my bill, the Department of Energy Nuclear Transparency Act. Over the past year the department has developed new authorization processes for research demonstration reactors, separate from the typical NRC licensing processes. The NRC has proposed giving DOE-approved reactors an accelerated licensing pathway. However, Secretary Wright has provided little information on how DOE will preserve safety and transparency in this new fast-track process. My bill ensures that Congress has appropriate oversight of these new processes, helping us ensure that we are using the most transparent safety safeguards, and boosting public confidence in the industry. This is something that we can all agree on. I have concerns with some of the bills that could limit important safeguards, as well as any attempts by the administration to turn the NRC into a rubber stamp. I hope that our colleagues will work with us to address these issues. We also need to make progress on building a twenty-first century grid, particularly to permit and build new transmission lines. We can't afford to be complacent and our neighbors back home are facing soul-crushing energy cro cost increases and this committee holds the keys to helping them uh and providing relief, more reliable, affordable power that they deserve. Uh thank you Mister Chairman and I yield back.

Thank you. The gentleman yields back and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, the chairman of the full committee, for five minutes for an opening statement.

Thanks, Mister Chairman, thanks for having this hearing and thanks for our witnesses for being here. This past Friday, the Energy Information uh Administration reported that China's nuclear capacity nearly doubled over ten years, uh adding thirty gigawatts of power since twenty sixteen. While impressive, as recently as thirty years ago, the United States built United States built eighty gigawatts of nuclear power in fourteen years, doubled the pace of China's. That pace has not yet been Given our urgent energy, security and power needs, we should work to return to that pace. Six new reactors a year or more. As with other federal permitting processes, the nuclear licensing process itself should not be the major impediment to building worthy projects. It should not unnecessarily delay the benefits of the projects for the public. Today, the subcommittee will examine legislation that adds to the bipartisan permitting reforms of the Advance Act we passed two years ago. Those reforms aim to improve nuclear permitting so the public can safely enjoy the benefits of nuclear faster and sooner. The goal is to make sure NRC licensing is efficient, predictable, and timely, and that its overall culture is aligned to maximize the benefits of nuclear for society, for our energy, our security, and our health. On all accounts, we're on the right track. The NRC is updating its regulations environmental reviews to cut months and even years off its licensing processes. It it is working to focus on the most safety significant matters and to discard procedures and requirements that take time and resources, but do not have meaningful impact on safety. In the Trump administration, its advance accelerate the advance act reforms It's helped accelerate the Vance Act reforms, updating NRC regulations across the board with central focus on what is necessary for NRC to efficiently perform its core safety mission. The bills before us today clarify pay authority, provide transparency, and eliminate unnecessary Atomic E- Energy Act requirements to ensure licensing runs more smoothly. The result is a single-step process for operating permits, the ability to rely on updated environmental reviews, and the ability to move fast on well-understood technologies. Let me welcome the witnesses and all who have brought their experience and expertise on these topics to this panel, uh, and in the past, and I look forward to the discussion and I will yield back.

Well, thank you very much. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, the ranking member of the full committee, for five minutes for an opening statement.

Thank you, Chairman Latta. This is our third hearing this year on nuclear energy, and I must again start by noting the Trump administration's troubling attacks on the safety of our nation's nuclear reactors. The president claims to support nuclear energy, but his administration's actions, whether carried out by the Department of Energy or his doge minions at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, seem designed to make nuclear energy less safe. There's no path forward for the nuclear industry in this nation unless there's public confidence in its safety. And the industry and its regulators have worked hard to invest in that public confidence over the years. But President Trump has completely jeopardized these decades of work in just eighteen months Any nuclear legislation that we consider must acknowledge that reality. And that's why I'm pleased that Ranking Member Castor's bill, the Department of Energy Nuclear Transparency Act, is among the bills we're discussing today. This is a critically important bill considering the administration's concerning actions on nuclear energy. Last year, President Trump issued an executive order directing DOE to authorize three test reactors and get them operational this year by the nation's two hundred and fiftieth birthday in response DOE created the so-called reactor pilot program, which they began marketing as a as a first pass or if you will or a fast pass to any nrc license and let me be clear DOE has no authority to issue a fast pass to an nrc license but that's not stopping them from trying to. And then last week DOE announced that the first reactor from the program had achieved a self-sustaining nuclear reaction. And that announcement was effectively the first public signal from the department on the progress of the program. A nuclear reactor licensed by the NRC would have had a license made available to the public for anyone to read, or should have. And while DOE has authorized safety analysis for these reactors, they're not available anywhere for public inspection. so do we also fail to publicly announce when secretary right gave final approval to authorize this first test reactor and while these actions do not mean that there is anything wrong with this individual reactor that achieved an important milestone last week we simply have no idea about the rigor or quality of work that went into evaluating its safety we would not we would find this acceptable with a commercial i should say we shouldn't we wouldn't find this at all acceptable with a commercial nuclear reactor so why Or should we find it acceptable for a test reactor either? And ranking member Castresville would create critical transparency safeguards to ensure the safety analysis, final approvals and the rules of the road for these reactors are made public. The NRC has been a model for transparency since Chairman uh Chairman Nee took the reins, but we must ensure that DOE follows in the NRC's footsteps, and that is a common sense idea that I would hope we could all agree on. Now earlier this year I said that it would be difficult for us to move forward on nuclear legislation, while public confidence in our nation's nuclear fleet has been called into question. An advancing ranking member, Caster's, bill helps address many of my concerns. While some of the bills before us today are well-intentioned attempts to ensure that the NRC's licensing process works smoothly for all kinds of advanced nuclear technologies, I do have concerns with one draft bill in particular that I hope our Republicans will work with us on. That's the Nuclear Advisory Committee Reform Act. It sharply limits the role of the advisory committee on reactor safeties, or ACRs, uh which provides a valuable independent technical perspective to the NRC and NRC licenses throughout the licensing process. So I'm open to ways to make the work of the ACRS's more efficient, encourage them to focus on the highest priority reviews. But I'm I'm comfortable, essentially I'm uncomfortable with the approach currently taken by that draft bill, which would prevent the acrs from providing feedback on a license application unless explicitly requested by the nrc even if the advisory committee itself felt that its review would be important so i'm uncomfortable with that approach given the fact that the trump administration has already targeted the acrs attempting to reduce its size and limit its function so i hope we can find a bipartisan path forward on the proposed suite of bills before us today uh mr. chairman i mean obviously um our major concern is safety uh safety of nuclear reactors and i i i just gonna repeat again that if we don't have that confidence in the safety then moving forward with many of these reactors is gonna be a problem so with that i yield back the balance of my time mr. chairman

well thank you very much the gentleman yields back the balance of his time and before proceeding uh to our witnesses i'd like just a point of personal privilege like to welcome uh members of parliament from the united kingdom who are here with the british american parliamentary exchange this week. Uh, they're here for the next couple of days to discuss shared economic, security, foreign policy, uh, priorities, including nuclear energy. And just by coincidence, that's what we're talking today. So, we welcome you. Thanks so much for joining us today. This concludes member opening statements. The chair re- reminds members that pursuant to committee rules, all members' opening statements were made part of the record. Again, we wanna thank our witnesses for appearing before the committee today to testify. each witness will have the opportunity to give an opening statement, followed by a round of questions from our members. Our witnesses today include Ms. Maria Korzenek, the President and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute, Mister Jeremy Harrell, CEO of ClearPath Action, the Honorable Catherine Huff, the Associate Professor and Director, Advanced Reactor Fuel uh Fuel Cycles Laboratory at the University of Illinois, and the Honorable Jeffrey Merrifield, Chair of the Board of united states nuclear industry industry console so thank you again we appreciate you all being here before we get started just couple of quick uh housekeeping you make sure the the mike's pulled up close to you and you'll notice the you have four minutes uh when it's green it turns yellow with uh when you're down to about one minute and red so we appreciate you watching those lights uh you are recognized for five minutes for noting statement again thanks for being with us today

Great. Thank you, uh, Chairman Guthrie, Ranking Member Pallone, Subcommittee Chairman Latta, and Ranking Member Castor, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. The nuclear industry is appreciative of the committee's continued leadership. When I appeared before the subcommittee in January, I described a nuclear industry entering a period of renewed growth and national importance. And since then, momentum has increased, Congress and the administration have taken important steps to modernize regulation, strengthen domestic nuclear capabilities, and support deployment at home and abroad. Utilities, developers, manufacturers, labor, and investors are responding with new partnerships, capital commitments, investments, and increased generation. These developments reflect growing recognition of nuclear's essential role in providing reliable, affordable electricity. Our existing fleet of ninety-four reactors provides nearly one fifth of America's electricity and more than forty percent of its clean generation. They are the most energy-secure assets on the grid and economic anchors in communities across our country. Advanced reactor projects are moving from demonstration to construction. Utilities are pursuing license renewals, power uprates, plant restarts, and new builds. Growing numbers of technology and industrial companies are looking to nuclear for that reliable, always-on power. The challenge before us now is no longer whether nuclear energy can play a larger role. It's how we move from promising first projects to repeatable deployment. To accomplish that, your continued leadership is needed in six areas. First, regulatory modernization. The industry's commitment to safety is unwavering and non-negotiable. Modernization focuses regulatory attention on safety significant issues while improving predictability and efficiency. The foundation laid by Congress through NEMA and the Advance Act, paired with the executive actions, is delivering measurable results. Continued focus is necessary to ensure those reforms are fully implemented and endure. The efficient Nuclear Licensing Hearings Act and the Nuclear Advisory Committee Reform Act can help further this. Second, addressing early mover risk. The principal barrier to large-scale deployment today is not technology. It's managing the cost and schedule risk associated with early projects. Targeted federal risk sharing can help unlock private investment and establish a pipeline for deployment at scale. We know that building at scale drives costs down when early lessons inform future projects. The Department of Energy Nuclear Transparency Act would help ensure lessons learned. Third, strengthening the domestic nuclear fuel cycle. Congress has made important investments in the nuclear fuel cycle. Timely implementation is critical to reduce reliance on adversarial suppliers. The American Enrichment Deployment Act can help accelerate domestic enrichment capacity and strengthen U S nuclear fuel security. Fourth, workforce and supply chain readiness. Deploying nuclear energy at scale will require skilled workers. expanding manufacturing, qualified suppliers, and predictable project pipelines. Continued collaboration among all stakeholders will be key to ensuring projects can be delivered on time and at reasonable cost. Likewise, the NRC needs to ensure adequate staffing with the technical expertise and regulatory experience necessary to sustain modernization. The NRC Staff Pay Alignment Act can help further this objective. Fifth, establishing a durable used fuel management strategy. Used fuel is being managed safely and securely today. Your leadership is needed to establish a durable path forward. The Refuel Act reflects an important effort to facilitate development of recycling technologies that can be part of an integrated solution. And sixth, strengthening U. S. competitiveness and global leadership. Backed by state financing and government support, Russia continues to aggressively export nuclear technology, while China is on track to surpass the US in nuclear generating capacity by twenty thirty. To remain competitive, the US must successfully deploy new nuclear projects at home, demonstrating the viability of these to international customers. We must act now to offer allies and partners a credible alternative to state-owned competitors and ensure the next generation of nuclear energy is

Well, thank you very much for your opening statement, Mr. Harrell. Mr. Harrell, You are a

Thank you, Chairman Latta, Chairman Guthrie, Ranking Member Caster, Ranking Member Pilon, and members of the committee. And thank you for the opportunity to testify before the committee today. My name is Jeremy Harrell, and I'm the Chief Executive Officer of Clear Path Action. Seven years ago, the US was shutting down nuclear reactors. Today, we are restarting and building them. This committee deserves real credit for that. Years of bipartisan congressional work, such as NEMA and the Advance Act, accompanied by action from the White House, the Department of Energy, the DOW, and the NRC, are putting policy into action and stealing to the ground. Right now, Kairos is building reactors in Tennessee. Just last week, Antares was the first reactor to go critical under the reactor pilot program at Idaho National Lab. Last month, our team was in Idaho in anticipation of the first test at the dome facility at the Nuclear Reactor Innovation Center. a facility that finished a full year ahead of schedule. Earlier this year, TerraPower received its construction permit and broke ground on its reactor in Wyoming. In under twelve months, Xenergy completed its environmental review in Texas. Enrichment investments totaling billions of dollars are moving forward in Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, and New Mexico. And there were three major reactor restarts underway in Michigan Iowa and Pennsylvania. adding over two gigawatts of reliable clean power. These projects show that America's nuclear sector is not just talking about deployment, new nuclear is happening. Today I will cover four themes. One, the importance of a predictable, efficient regulator. Two, the growing portfolio of nuclear projects advancing towards deployment. Three, how legislation before this committee supports continued growth. And four, the role a strong domestic nuclear industry plays in enhancing US competitiveness on the global stage. For capital-intensive projects like nuclear, regulatory uncertainty is an investment risk. When developers and investors cannot rely on clear timelines and stable expectations, projects stall or never get off the ground. The NRC must be ready to capitalize on this unique moment. That's why the legislation before this committee matters. These are practical, targeted proposals that complement everything you all have already accomplished. Each bill addresses a specific opportunity to further modernize the process without compromising safety. The Efficient Nuclear Licensing Hearings Act removes the requirement to hold an uncontested mandatory hearing. These hearings unnecessarily require upwards of fifteen hundred hours of NRC staff preparation cost applicants up to millions of dollars, and delay approvals by an average of six months. The Refuel Act clarifies the regulatory pathway for reprocessing technologies which are more proliferation-resistant. This supports U. S. fuel security and has the potential to reduce taxpayer liabilities on spent fuel. The DOE Nuclear Transparency Act seeks to provide transparency into the Department of Energy's authorization process for certain test reactors. The Nuclear Advisory Committee Reform Act refocuses the ACRS on novel safety significant issues directly related to reactor design, rather than mandating its review of every licensing proceeding. This focuses these technical experts on what matters most. The American Enrichment Deployment Act allows new enrichment facilities to begin construction, while simultaneously pursuing their NRC license, potentially saving twelve to eighteen months. Nearly three billion dollars in task orders have already been issued to establish three domestic commercial scale enrichment facilities, this bill helps them get built faster. The NRC Staff Pay Alignment Act ensures the commission can compete for top talent as the market for nuclear expertise becomes increasingly competitive. These are the right next steps, and they work best when pursued in a bipartisan way. Bipartisan policy is durable policy, and durable policy is what gives companies and investors what is needed to commit and drive forward our nation's nuclear future with confidence. I'd like to make one final point. This is a strategic moment. The nations that build and export the next generation of nuclear technology will shape global energy markets and geopolitical influence for decades. China and Russia are working aggressively to dominate those markets. Every reactor we build, every license we issue, in every domestic fuel facility we bring online strengthens america's hand in that competition thank you again for your leadership and for the opportunity to testify today I look forward to the discussion

well thank you very much for your opening statement and doctor huff you are recognized for five minutes for your opening statement

thank you uh chairman guthrie chairman lata ranking member Pilon and ranking member caster I appear before you today in my personal capacity. I am delighted to be with the distinguished members of this committee, and my testimony does not represent the official uh policy opinion of the University of Illinois system. My perspective combines the technical research that I do in advanced nuclear reactors and their fuel cycles with some experience as the Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy in DOE. Uh, in that role I worked very closely with Congress, industry, the national laboratories, and the public, as well as international partners, to advance reactor demonstrations, to move along the important work of this and other committees, and to implement efforts to accelerate the availability of high assay, low enriched uranium, or halo. The US is experiencing a promising moment for innovation in nuclear energy, advanced reactors are being demonstrated, existing reactors are pursuing license renewals and uprights, and all of this growing electricity demand is increasing interest in reliable carbon-free generation. Uh, bipartisan investments in fuel production, manufacturing capacity, and workforce development are helping to establish the foundations for this future growth and the legislation before this committee does recognize that nuclear energy must play an important role in our climate future, our energy security, and our economic prosperity. Together, I think these bills raise a common question about how the United States can ensure that our institutions can support nuclear energy deployment while preserving public confidence. The long-term success of nuclear energy will depend on not only technical, technological innovation, but also that public confidence, maintaining effective are is incredibly important. I believe the policies under discussion today are strongest when they do precisely that, when they strengthen regulatory effectiveness and transparency simultaneously. The Nuclear Refuel Act aims to provide regulatory clarity for nuclear fuel cycle technologies and facilities. There is merit in clarifying licensing pathways for innovative approaches that seek to recover additional value from fuel and improve the sustainability of this technology. The American Enrichment Deployment Act would support development of additional domestic enrichment capacity capacity, particularly for Haloo. Expanding domestic fuel cycle cap- capabilities is really important for energy security and advanced reactor deployment, but at-risk construction activities should remain genuinely at the applicant's risk. I think it is really important that these applicants' investments not create pressure on regulators to make a particular decision with regard to their application. The NRC staff pay alignment act addresses a really growing workforce challenge that I see daily as a professor when my students go off for jobs, they have multiple opportunities, even interns. And this needs to be reflected in a flexibility within the NRC to provide appropriate compensation at the highest levels for that technical expertise. But, workforce development cannot begin at hiring. It must also sustain the pipeline that requires kind of continued support for universities, fellowships, scholarships, community colleges, and workforce training programs that prepare the next generation of nuclear professionals, so that I would I would recommend that in concert with this, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission reflect on their pause of such grants last year. Committee on reactor safeguard seeks to modernize one of the nation's most important sources of independent reactor safety expertise. These efforts uh intend to focus resources on the most safety significant matters, but Congress should seek to preserve that committee's independence, particularly at a time when technical breadth over the last many decades in the commission of five commissioners itself has uh declined somewhat. Um Ultimately, draft legislation concerning Department of Energy transparency also is really important. I hold the Department of Energy in the highest regard, and we worked diligently during my time there to ensure that the public was brought fully on board with the actions that we were taking. I think that helped to set the groundwork for the enthusiasm around nuclear energy, and I would love to see more of that today. Um, as Congress considers these legislative packages, I am encouraged to see it intention on institutions making durable deployment possible. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to your questions.

And thank you very much for your opening statement. And uh, Mister Merrifield, you are recognized for five minutes for your opening statement.

Uh, Chairman Latta, Ranking Member Caster, uh, Chairman Guthrie, and Ranking Member Pallone, and members of the subcommittee, um, it's an honor to testify before you today on the role that nuclear power can play in securing the clean, reliable and resilient energy that we need to power our nation's electric grid, decarbonize critical industrial capabilities, and power our nation's increasing data demands. Um, I'm here today in my role as the Chairman of the US Nuclear Industry Council, although I am also a Partner Emeritus in the Nuclear Energy Practice Group of Pillsbury Law Firm. Um, I anticipate that my comments on behalf of USNIC represent the views of many of our members but may not necessarily reflect the unanimous view of our association. Almost three years ago, I testified before this subcommittee on a variety of nuclear legislation pending at that time. In that testimony, I stated that while I was a big supporter of the NRC, I was a commissioner there for nine years after all, and its mission, I believe the agency had lost its way and was not meeting the mission as outlined in the Atomic Energy Act. In my view, at that time the agency had become overly conservative and did not consistently apply common sense principles, in regulating the technologies it was overseeing. Further, I felt that the agency and its senior managers, as well as the commission that led it, were not sufficiently risk informed, effective, timely, and did not possess the technical competence needed to serve its vital mission. Mr. Chairman, rather than provide a fulsome repeat of those remarks, I ask that they be included in the record of today's proceeding. That said, my views about the NRC are quite different today. While I believe that there is additional work to be done for the nr c to again deserve its recognition as the quote gold standard of nuclear regulators unquote it has come a long way from where it stood three years ago this committee and congress deserve credit and thanks for engendering this change the passage of the advanced act of twenty twenty four which required the agency to change its m mission to enable the safe deployment of advanced nuclear technologies has resulted in a positive sea change in the way the agency behaves and regulate. As a partner in the world's oldest and largest nuclear law practice, I can attest firsthand that the management and staff of the agency have demonstrated a new determination to be more efficient, risk-informed, and results-oriented in the pursuit of its traditional safety mission. Executive orders that President Trump issued about a year ago have also resulted in some beneficial outcomes. particularly executive order fourteen thousand three hundred, that tasked the agency with reviewing and reinventing its regulatory framework. Had this committee asked me to testify a year ago, I would have expressed reservations about the scope and pace of the reforms that were envisioned by the orders. While not all of the NRC's proposed and final rules in response to the EOs have been published, um I can say with confidence the members of USNIC have been impressed by the degree to which these regulatory changes should enable the prompt and safe deployment of promising advanced nuclear technologies without sacrificing safety principles. Three years ago, I was very critical of the agency's efforts to create a new regulatory framework for advanced reactors under part fifty-three, as prescribed under the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act. This effort, which had dragged on for seven years, had resulted in a proposed rule that would have been neither used nor useful to the advanced nuclear community. In stark contrast, the final part fifty-three rule of the commission issue which became effective on April of this year, addressed virtually all of the concerns raised by the members of USNIC in the nuclear industry and I believe it can be a useful framework for future advanced reactor technologies. In my prior testimony, I was also critical of the technical prowess and efficiency of the commission. My view today is quite different. I believe the current five members of the commission are working in a more cohesive, collegial, and technically informed manner than has been the case for almost twenty years. And I believe their spirit of collaboration to achieve a prompt revision of the agency's regulations is vastly different than was, even a few short years ago. I also want to recognize both former Chairman David Wright and current ch- current Chairman Ho Nee for their effective leadership through a time of immense change and adaptation at the agency. I firmly believe the commission works best when the chairman of the commission is part of their party affiliation at the door, and render their safe decisions in efficient and risk-informed manner. And I do believe that's happening today at the NRC. I do have one note of caution. There are some in Washington who would urge that the NRC should evolve toward being a more chairman-focused agency similar to the way in which the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission operates. I believe this would be an ill-advised mistake. Over the decades since its founding in nineteen seventy-five, the NRC has been a pillar of stability during a time when other federal agencies have swung quite li widely from left to right and vice versa. For the nuclear industry to thrive and grow, it needs a commission structure that is collegial, efficient, risk-informed, and predictable, standards that absent further tinkering, it is well positioned to achieve. In preparation for my testimony, I have reviewed all six pieces of legislation that are being considered today, and support their general intent. In my printed remarks I made a few suggestions for integration of the subject.

And I'm so sorry if you could just wrap up real quick there.

I look forward to working with you um on this effort.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Well, I appreciate that. Thanks so much. And thank you to all of our witnesses. And this we we will now move into the question and answer portion of our hearing. I will begin the questioning and recognize myself for five minutes. Ms. Korzenik, uh last Congress we enacted legislation that aimed to decouple US reliance on Russian enriched uranium for our commercial fuel industry. and to increase domestic fuel production capacity. Is the market responding to congressional action to bolster the domestic fuel industry?

Thank you. Yes, I would say we are seeing progress. Um, you used the word market, and I would say there hasn't been much added to the market just yet, but we are seeing construction. Uh, I would note that not only are we seeing government investment, but we're seeing also private sector. uh investment so it's good signs.

Well thank you. Would uh more streamlined licensing assist the build out of our domestic nuclear fuel industry?

Absolutely uh in fact one of the bills that's under consideration uh talks about having the ability to have some at-risk construction for enrichment facilities that's an example uh of something that uh I think would be helpful as we're trying quickly to bring things on as you know um we are uh off of russian supply by january first twenty twenty eight

well one last question for you you know uh several of us on the committee have been looking at the the recycling question of the spent nuclear rods so the back-end of the fuel cycle how would the nuclear refuel act benefit that expanded diverse nuclear fuel supply into the future

so the refuel act um i think does a very important thing and it looks at reprocessing facilities and doesn't call them production facilities, but instead has them licensed under part seventy, a different part than what currently would be used to license. That new part is more appropriate, and a more appropriate framework for recycling facilities, because it's targeted at fuel facilities, which is the right framework for recycling, because recycling produces fuel for other reactors. And so I think it's a nice step forward. to help uh appropriately uh license recycling.

Well thank you. Uh, Mister Merrifield, w- uh when you testified before the committee uh three years ago, you recommended focusing the advisory committee on reactor safeguards on new, novel and safety significant licensing matters. Does the review does the ACRS review matters today that are the best use of time and resources?

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Yeah, my testimony um three years ago was a result of a study I had done with the New Code Innovation Alliance, really looking at the details of ACRS and how it operates. Um we we do believe we believe and continue to believe that focusing the ACRS on those more um novel issues, newer reactors, not re-looking at at a lot of things um uh would be more efficient way of of uh proceeding and would certainly enable uh a more prompt resolution of licensing for advanced reactors.

Well, thank you. Mister Harrell, how would you describe the NRC's public engagement process today? And does it make the mandatory hearing an unnecessary burden?

Uh, thank you, Congressman, and thanks for your leadership on these issues. There are an immense amount of opportunities for public engagement, and let me underscore that that is critical to us getting from uh, the President's goal of deploying four hundred uh gigawatts of nuclear by twenty the the public has to be bought in. But public meetings happen during the pre-application period. Uh, notifications happen when the application is received. Uh, there are public meetings during the review, including the environmental review. There's notices of hearing opportunities, and documentation is posted on the NRC's web site uh to really uh try to foster and engage more public input in the entire process. In the end, getting rid of the uncontested mandatory hearing uh does not eliminate any, opportunity to public engagement um in the end there's a lot of that throughout the the beginning of the process and so in our mind this is a common sense reform that comes into place and if there's a contested licensing proceeding then absolutely we should have that back-end uh process but this gets rid of uh an unnecessary step in the process

well you just following along with that uh you know by removing the mandatory hearing uh how much time you know this is kind of a conjecture how much time money and overall resources to the nrsc and the licensees save and apply to other licensee activity.

Yeah, at least one uh advanced reactor developer the experience was uh over half a million dollars uh in fees just for this singular hearing and a delay that was at least six months on average we're saying somewhere between that four to seven months um and upwards of a million dollars not to mention a lot of significant staff time uh to prep for that where we need to be allocating staff uh to be focused on more novel and uh and

well thank you very much i know the clock got started little bit late when i started so i'm gonna yield back to balance my time and recognize the ranking members of the general lady from florida for her five minutes for questions

thank you mister chairman thanks again to our witnesses for being here today uh doctor huff when you served at the office of nuclear energy uh you were responsible for the department of energy's promotion of nuclear energy uh your testimony today says

Thank you, ranking member. Um, I really enjoyed this part of the job, it involved a lot of public engagement via videos and social media posts about all of our accomplishments, decisions that were being made, new programs that were being considered, uh testimony like this with Congress, and in fact one of the very first instances of testimony that I gave before Congress, I committed to ensuring that all competed grants within my office, or all grant discretionary grants within my office would be competed openly, rather than through sole source grants, and we stood by that, and I think that is critical also because I believe that taxpayers and Congress and industry and the public all sort of need to have confidence that those projects are moving along, that they're getting updates, and that they'll be computed.

So, under the current administration, they've really taken a step back from that transparency. What concerns you the most?

Yeah, I think the thing that concerns me the most is that external public commenters are asked to comment on orders that are not in fully fully brought together we have a situation where you know do e n e orders were released in draft form to the industry but not to the public and this caused real media concern that led to folks being asked outside of do e what's going on inside do e and the answers have to become speculative at that point which causes confusion misinformation and that misinformation is the enemy of nuclear energy

And how about the professional staff reductions in firings?

I'm sorry.

Uh, how about the professional staff reductions and firings at the at the NRC?

Even at the staffing levels that we saw when I was in the Office of Nuclear Energy, there was a great need for more program direction funding to boost up the staff that we had to continue doing the incredible amount of growing effort that we were committing.

So, um, Miss Korsnick, last year the president issued an executive order to reduce the expert personnel and functions of the advisory committee on reactor safe reactor safeguards to the minimum necessary. Now that uh committee is one of the most important sources of independent expertise in reactor safety, safety review, they've been part of the safety review of virtually every uh generation of commercial reactor technology. The nuclear advisory committee form act that we're considering today would constrain that acrs it would forbid the committee from taking any action including review of a license application without the nrc s explicit request it just seems like at a time where we're pressing forward on technology and innovation uh we need public confidence in the nrc eh which has already been shaken Uh, so do you think it's helpful to have less technological review by outside experts on this committee as we move forward?

Thank you for your question. Um, I think the goal uh of the legislation is around efficiency. I agree with you uh that um it's important that we have confidence um in in the NRC. I do feel that bringing efficiency uh to the ACRS process is helpful and can be done with safety in mind. Um, and so I believe the the terms of they can look at new and novel uh issues at the direction by the commission, I do think that that can be done well with a high bar for safety.

I think that it's kind of a call across the industry for their input on this, because we do want to move quickly on technological innovation, but if if you undermine public confidence and you don't have the independent expertise in oversight uh i think that will be problematic in future years uh doctor huff one of the reactors supported by doe's advanced reactor demonstration program is built by a company called terra power just they just started construction in april it's being built on the site of a retired coal plant in wyoming why are old coal plants the ideal location for advanced nuclear projects

thank you congresswoman i think it starts with A lot of the same skills used in the secondary side of a thermal coal plant are also used in the secondary side of a nuclear power plant. Boiler makers, you know, turbine generation, turbine generator, maintenance operators, welders, electricians, et cetera. Those workers and the communities around them deserve to have an opportunity to take part in this new technology, to be paid as well as many of those workers are paid in nuclear, which is extremely well compared to coal in many cases. um, ultimately to former coal sites also have something that they need to do.

Yeah, and I'm s- I'm sorry to interrupt, the general ladies' time has expired and yields back, and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, the Vice Chairman of the subcommittee for five minutes for questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mister Harrell, I'm gonna come to you first. Thank you for your testimony. Uh, to my knowledge, an overwhelming majority of our country's nuclear plants were built prior to nineteen ninety. Just for the record, I was also born prior to nineteen ninety, OK?

Yep.

For some time these plants were threatened with licensing renewal uncertainty to continue operating. We're all painfully aware. Your testimony highlights some recent regulatory clarity providing long-term policy commitments regarding plant licensing. However, with the growing energy demand of the future, how would the Nuclear Advisory Committee Reform Act allow the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC, to enhance plant licensing practices, therefore meeting our growing energy demand? your thoughts.

Yep. Uh, thank you, uh, Congressman, and thank you for your leadership both at this committee and at the science committee. That really has been an important piece of catalyzing this, uh, nuclear innovation and on and the bipartisan policy that's got across the finish line. I mean, the crux of this issue is we en- need a nimble, predictable, and efficient regulator that enables innovation and deployment without sacrificing safety. And I think that bill navigates the, this bill navigates that careful line. Uh, we need to eliminate some of the duplicative steps in this process and ensure that independent experts who are in place uh ultimately are dealing with the novel and unique issues that are coming before the commission not that it's a uh a requirement on every step and so i think making it discretionary at the request of the the commission um narrowing these experts focus on some of these novel areas and ensuring that there is turnover uh over at it and ensuring there's new talent i mean there's an immense amount of innovation that's happened over the last decade um two terms on these i think is enough

Well, I appreciate that, and Doctor Huff, I'm gonna give you kudos for being over the American Nuclear Society meetings that we have over at the Capitol Hill Club for my colleagues that don't know we hold those Michelle Harstein does a good job of holding those uh about once a month when we have the time. Miss Korsnick, I'm gonna come to you. You state that the primary challenge facing large scale develop deployment is not technology development, rather issues such as cost, schedule risk, supply chains and workforce challenges. Would today's legislation provide some regulatory predictability, if there is such a thing, that at least mitigates permitting schedule risk?

Thank you. Uh, absolutely. I I think the bills that uh we have in front of us are a good step forward. uh to help bring that regulatory predictability and again i i wanna share uh a strong industry needs a strong regulator so we're we're very supportive uh of of having uh a strong and very capable uh regulator and and i think uh the bills before us uh do a good job uh at managing that and yet bringing efficiency uh into the equation.

so suffice it to say we would like to see a day when the goal of reforms is is to make sure licensing of worthy projects is not the main hold-up. Would you agree?

It's a beautiful vision.

Okay, all right. It's, yeah, I love it when a plan comes together. So, and Mister Merrifield, how about you? Would you agree with that?

I I do, and I wanna go back to the ACRS for a moment, um, that institution was created at a time when there were, you know, the very earliest days of the industry, and there was a need for a a review of each and every design. Um, that is not the case today.

Mm-hmm.

I think ACRS is an important institution, I think it should remain, I think it should be available for the commission to to have that second opinion. Um but frankly if you look at um every other industry in the in the country, oil and gas, uh other forms of of generation, um all of them have digitalized controls. The NR the reactors that the NRC regulates are only getting around to doing some of that, and ACRS and some of the members who were involved in that review are part of the reason why that's the case. I think the, I think sometimes ACRs can actually hinder the ability of technologies to move forward and I think the commission needs more ability to have a hand over reviewing it.

Yeah, that makes sense. Mister Harrell, you agree?

I absolutely agree. Um, we need an efficient, nimble, diligent, uh, regulator to move forward and, and enable this innovation and deployment.

Okay. Mister Merrifield, I'm coming back to you, your testimony highlights the needs to address their technical expertise. Do you believe the NRCC Staff Pay Alignment Act will meaningfully improve the NRCC's ability to retain top technical talent, kind of like Doctor Huff here?

Yes.

Boy, that's easy. Yeah. So So, let's see, what can I do with sixteen seconds left, Mister Chairman?

I'm I'm I'm eagerly supporting that piece of legislation,

So, have you heard the joke about, well, I won't go there.

so we're met.

So, listen,

Yes.

great to be with all of you back.

the gentleman if he goes back in balance with his time the chair now recognizes the gentleman from new jersey the ranking member of the full committee for five minutes for questions

thank you chairman latta since president trump took office democrats have been sounding the alarm on his proposals to dismantle our nuclear safety regulator over fifty years ago congress decided that the people in charge of promoting the nuclear industry and the folks in charge of making sure that that industry was safe should be two different groups of people and i never thought we'd have to fight to keep it that way but here we are so doctor huff uh at the end of your testimony you mentioned how deliberately separating out the parts of government responsible for promoting nuclear energy from the parts responsible for regulating it has increased public confidence in nuclear energy but can you talk more about that and how moves to undo that separation could endanger the public perception of nuclear energy

thank you very much thank you member In nineteen seventy four and nineteen seventy five, when Congress separated the Department of Energy from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to create it, they did so so that the Department of Energy could oversee research development and innovation and promotion um of nuclear energy. The NRC became responsible for separately regulating and overseeing the nuclear industry and it matters, because history shows what safety oversight can be lost when an entity regulating an technical environment like this can lose independence. At Chernobyl, Soviet leadership had captured its regulator and prioritized national pride over security. A known flaw in reactor control rods went unchecked, safety protocols went unheeded, and the worst nuclear power accident in history resulted. At Fukushima, regulation was entrusted to the same government bureaucracy responsible for its promotion. Operators failed to deploy countermeasures, demanded by known seismic risks, recently brought to that body and failed to plan appropriately for ac- ac- evacuation. They also failed to avoid the worst, the second worst nuclear power accident in history. These I do not raise to frighten anyone about nuclear power. The intent is to concern this bro- this body with the importance of the independence of these two concerns. The public sees these items and recognizes this role. and uh it's important that we respect that independence.

Well I appreciate that, thank you. Uh I'm also concerned, another question for you, I'm also concerned about efforts to alter the authorities of the advisory committee on reactor safeguard or ACRS, which as you know is an independent technical body that advises the NRC, and one proposal in the nuclear advisory committee reform act uh would prevent the ACRS from weighing in even if it felt this expertise was necessary. So my question dot cof at the time when political considerations are clearly playing more of a role at the nr c can you discuss the importance of having an independent body comprised of technical experts to evaluate emerging issues and new technologies and how we how should we ensure that the acrs can maintain its independence

thank you ricking member the um there was a fantastic study in twenty twenty about the history of the backgrounds of the commissioners in the nr c and i said earlier that the that background has gone less technical over time it's uh tended to prefer people with the policy background or legal background over the last many decades whereas the average before twenty twenty was around seventy four percent technical background. Now that we're moving into this space where the current commission which is actually quite robust in terms of technical background right now is about sixty percent people with a technical background the ACRS serves to provide a technical opinion to that commission body. And the commission, if not imbued with technical backgrounds, may not know when it is critical to ask for that technical opinion. And so I do think that there's an important merited argument to ask in terms of whether or not the ACRS should in circumstances when they deem it necessary be able to investigate those things and make recommendations on their own. I recognize that these hearings can get extremely long and difficult, and I am very supportive of ways in which we could maybe limit the amount of staff time dedicated to them.

Alright. We only have forty-five uh seconds, but I I did wanna touch on Ranking Member Castro's bill uh because I believe transparency is critical to maintaining public support for nuclear energy. So in thirty seconds, is transparency from regulators critical to upholding public confidence in nuclear energy?

Absolutely. Sunshine is the best disinfectant and opening up the process gives the public a great deal of confidence in the Department of Energy.

And if uh, I don't know, Miss Korsnick, do you agree?

Absolutely. Uh, I would say there was one provision in that bill that uh, they wanted the transparency within twenty-four hours, I believe was in the bill. I think that's a little restrictive, but the intent of the bill I think is uh, well played.

Alright, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You're back.

Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Tucky, the chair of the full committee, for five minutes for questions.

Thank you and thanks for our witnesses for being here. And starting with Ms. Korsnik, um,

Thank you.

according to today's testimony and recent hearings, the NRC is working toward efficient, predictable and timely permitting, and it is truly shifting its culture to better enable the safe expansion of nuclear power. So, two questions. Uh, can you elaborate on why streamlined licensing and risk informed reviews are key to ensuring safety? And can all of this be achieved while increasing the pace of licensing?

Well, thank you. Um, well, I think the NRC actually has demonstrated uh that it can all be done and increase the pace because they've actually done that uh we're seeing subsequent license renewals uh now uh in much reduced time uh m- many months uh more efficient than it has been.

But in the same time of the being efficient and ensuring the safety. That's together.

Absolutely. Yeah.

I wanna tie that together.

Yeah, absolutely. No, the bar for safety hasn't changed. Um and uh obviously um there it's it's being um you know resulted in uh much reduced timelines. I I wanna say w- it was almost just one year for a second li subsequent license renewal approval recently. Um and in the past uh it has been you know double that. Uh and so um the reality is um the most important thing especially for risk informing is that risk informing is telling you the thing you're working on how important is it to safety. And so the risk informing actually is a way to focus your time and attention on the most important uh issues. And so uh in general we are trying to move towards a risk informing regulatory uh approach and it's and it's showing uh that we're paying attention to the right safety things.

OK, thank you. Um, so, Mister Merrifield, you were NR NRS, NRC Commissioner for almost a decade, I understand. And then overall, would the bills today, overall, would the bills today ensure sufficient

Yeah, I I believe they would. I mean, the two that have gotten the the the greatest discussion today are obviously the ACRS piece. Um, again, the ACRS um i- is accountable to the commission. The commission is accountable to Congress. And I think the the the commission itself needs to have greater ability to manage that. but it can be done in a way that does not arouse public confidence. On the on the issue um of uh you know the other legislation, I think um having a mandatory hearing process is something that frankly I've been calling for the elimination of um, uh really since I was a commissioner. There are layers and layers of additional opportunities for public uh input that were not available when that was put into legislation back in the nineteen fifties. Um it really resulted from an attempt to try to put uh a reactor into Queens, New York, uh uh with without any public comment at all. Um that is not the case now. The the NRC is a very transparent agency, uh it is meeting its safety mission, it's doing it more effectively thanks to the Advance Act, and I think those can go hand in hand.

Okay, thank you. Um so then Mister Harrell, uh would you talk about how the reforms today, so we talked about we're ensuring safety. So would you, so that's understood, cuz we just had my first two questions for that. So would you talk about how the reforms today and those enacted last Congress enable innovation and deployment?

Yep. This is a test for our country. Ultimately, we've had ten years of policy momentum, uh, jerv- driven by this committee, uh, in a bipartisan way by multiple, uh, administrations to modernize the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and prepare us to complete c- compete globally. Um, the Advance Act and NEEMA were the signature items that this committee dragged forward. We're starting to see these things come to fruition now. These bills before the committee today, and I'll use this analogy on congressional baseball game week, um are singles and doubles to keep that momentum going. There's some targeted areas where it absolutely makes sense to to make some reforms that will improve the process. And that positions our country ultimately to lead here, because we are in a global race. Uh, energy security is national security, and so us leading not only by building here, by investing in ours, fuel supply chain, um and ultimately offering US products globally is essential to our long-term national security and energy security priorities.

Okay, and so would you so you sort of answered my next question, but just in just more in the context of national security, why are these important? I know we need to be the leader, we're competing against China. You elaborate a little further?

Oh, okay.

Yeah, absolutely. Um, I think particularly on the fuel side, these are some natural next that we have to do. I mean, Congress has made a very conscious decision uh ultimately to reduce reliance on Russian fuel products. We have put billions of dollars of taxpayer resources behind new enrichment projects. Why wouldn't we do some reasonable steps to ensure that we get project delivery on that time frame? I mean, that twenty twenty eight time frame is coming here fairly quickly. And in the end, nothing in these bills prohibit us uh from uh uh or or uh shortcut the process in which a facility ultimately has to get a license. to then begin the fuel process. But let's absolutely get things uh started on an early basis, cuz we're racing against the clock. China certainly uh i- isn't worried about uh unnecessary barriers, and so we need to modernize our process.

Thank you. I assume our time has expired and I'll yield back.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman yields back. Now the chair recognizes Mister Peters of California for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Clean base load nuclear energy is and will continue to be a critical part of our energy generation mix, especially as demand continues to rise. uh plans for more nuclear power plants across the country which everyone is planning for is a good idea, who has virtually unanimous support uh here in Congress. The bills we're considering today would go a long way to making those plans reality. The one thing that's missing is a solution to the question of nuclear waste, specifically the long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel. And the first thing that my constituents think of when they hear nuclear energy is songs, or the San Onofre nuclear generating station. Uh this decommissioned nuclear power plant is just outside my district in San Diego, right on the the uh Pacific coast line. And right now we're on schedule to fully decommission the plant by twenty twenty eight. However, after the plant is demolished, the spent nuclear fuel will remain on site in dry storage, and a lot of people in San Diego and in Southern California uh remain nervous about it. The spent nuclear fuel had songs as when it was within a hundred feet of the Pacific Ocean. It sits near dense population centers, an active military base, and multiple fault lines. The GAO has rated the flood hazard at this site as high and the wildfire potential is very high. And my constituents know we need a long-term fix for spent nuclear fuel storage and decades of inaction have led us to where we are today. My nuclear refuel act with Chairman Latta, which is being considered today, is a crucial part of that solution. Making it easier to recycle and reuse spent fuel, keeps them in reactors and away from communities, and it also helps us build a reliable supply chain of fuel which is good for national security. I was encouraged to see the Department of Energy's recent requests for information, gauging interest nationwide on what states would be willing to accept spent fuel for nuclear life cycle innovation campuses uh and will closely monitor the follow through but Congress has to do its part to ensure recycling in permitting form is part of the solution but that's not all we've gotta keep talking about how to safely store the waste away from populated areas and certainly away from the ocean. Ms. Korsnick, I appreciated the comments in your testimony about waste, specifically about how we should have a national strategy for fuel storage, transportation and recycling. Can you talk about how nuclear fuel recycling specifically can be part of that solution?

Yes, thank you. Um, some of the innovation that you've heard talked about uh in this testimony, uh there will be uh new types of reactors, the reactors we have today are light water or thermal reactors and uh there's uh ones that are being constructed now that are fast reactors. And uh in the recycling that you're talking about, um it's an opportunity to use some of that recycled fuel uh and actually directly feed some of these fast reactors. It's a bit of a win-win. Uh you're able to then fuel those reactors without using the today's uh uranium supply, and it's actually using uh some of the used fuel. And so um it's a a a nice way to close the fuel cycle, so to speak. Mm-hmm. You can also use recycled um uh processes uh to feed our thermal reactors that we have today um but it's a little bit of a um maybe more direct uh process to feed fast reactors so as we're having all this innovation and we're making changes and we're bringing fast reactors uh into um you know the uh uh reality i think it's an opportunity for us to evaluate closing the fuel cycle through recycling.

right i appreciate your organization paying attention then as we go forward and doctor huff what do you think congress should do to to ensure that we uh make progress, particularly across presidential administrations and congressional majorities, on the long-term storage of nuclear waste.

Thank you, Congressman. Um, I believe that continued attention on the communities that might host such facilities is pivotal. The consent-based siting program, now called the collaborative-based siting program in this administration, is critical to that and includes providing resources and engagement to the physical locations and the people around them. uh so that they can be prepared to assess whether and if and when they want to host such facilities.

Yeah, we've embarked on what some people call a consent-based process. Um I'm I'm gonna support that because that's what everyone everyone's agreed on. I'm skeptical that a consent-based process is gonna find consent and at at the same place where geological conditions are right. Um but I hope that it works and if it doesn't work, I think we're gonna have to make the hard choices here. We've tried to avoid in Congress and um because this this kind of material just can't sit uh next to the ocean, next to the military base, next to population centers. Um and I know that my uh my area is not the only place facing this kind of challenge. So thank you all for being here and Mister Chairman I yield back.

The gentleman yields back. The chairman now recognizes the gentleman from Alabama for five minutes.

Thanks, Chairman. Um Mister Harold. Getting the NRC to to a place where they can effectively and safely move nuclear technology innovation in the commercial sector is imperative. Uh, nuclear generation is both an payable and reliable option for meeting the power demands that we're gonna have for building the critical infrastructure for processing and refining critical minerals and rare earth elements. Uh, and so that we compete in the arms race for artificial intelligence and quantum computing. In your testimony, you mentioned Ontario's achieving critic uh reactor criticality and the first private company to do that. How does this impact, how do you think it impacts the timeline for deploying SMRs?

Yeah, I think it's a, thank you Congressman for your for your leadership and and for the question. Uh, I think it's uh one single piece of a a broader pathway of how we demonstrate new technologies moving forward, how we show that in this country that we can build nuclear again, that we can build it efficiently. And then the data that we get from any of these these tests are instrumental in our licensing processes and how we deal with uh construction of facilities, and how you orient. So that kind of learning by doing is essential in uh kind of uh building our muscle memory, which we're gonna have to get much more efficient on to to meet some of the goals and ultimately meet the rising demand that that you've uh flagged as a a national economic imperative.

Um, Ms. Corsic, uh in reading your testimony last night I I you hit on some some key points and the the challenge of large scale uh deployment uh because most of these companies don't wanna be the first uh uh and and particularly problematic in terms of private investment it's an um if if we um if if we're going to invest in in SMRs we're gonna need to build more than one at a time we're we need commitment to this and I really what I've really been pushing in committee is locating SMRs on abandoned coal-fired power plant sites, take advantage of the existing transmission lines and and site these critical infrastructure that I mentioned earlier. What do you how do you think that could help us in terms of of um eliminating that first of kind cost that that that you've mentioned in your testimony?

Yeah, thank you for the question. Um broadly I think citing uh nuclear plants on existing uh coal facilities is a great idea. Um Doctor Huff mentioned uh earlier and and I know uh we had an analysis done on um supply chain of the people uh how much could supply a nuclear plant versus the workers that were at a coal plant it was seventy five percent uh of the workers at a coal plant would be uh easily I would say moved uh to a nuclear plant having worked in a nuclear plant before I would tell you it's probably higher than that. Um, because as uh Doctor Huff mentioned there's a lot of similarity. And so, first of all I think placing it there, you have a ready workforce, and uh quite frankly we've seen the effects of shutting down some of these plants in local communities, it's quite devastating. And so you have the workforce that's ready and you have a a community that will thrive as a result uh of the nuclear plant uh being there. In addition uh to your point you have access to transmission, because that same plant was also in need of a transmission. And so it's a it's a ready-made uh success story,

And it's

I would say.

it's expandable because you don't have to locate a a a number of of SMRs there to uh to meet the design capacity of the transmission line, you can add that later

That's right.

a- as you uh increase the power demand. One of the other things that I'm really focused on is recycling spent fuel. Rance is doing that, I think their government subsidizes it. Uh you mentioned some of the technical But one of the things that I want to focus on is the fact that uh since nineteen eighty we've collected about forty four billion dollars from energy customers uh were spending about um one point five million a day for storage. Doesn't it make wouldn't it make more sense to invest those funds in um recycling, uh developing that technology uh and and building advanced reactors? Uh I rarely compliment France, but

i think the challenge that we have uh honestly uh to kind of uh put a big picture around this recycling right that's what bryan is doing uh makes a lot of sense uh technically i think we have to understand its cost profile and that's the work that we need to do right now

mmm

is to invest to learn to figure out um if if it's cost effective uh to do and um at the same token we have to currently share and store the waste that we have safely which it is being done

Mister Chairman, my time has expired, but I I really wish this was one of those times when we had more time to to discuss this with this distinguished panel. Might yield back.

Gentleman yields back, " Why don't you get her cell phone?" I'm just messing with you. The gentleman now recognizes the chair from New Jersey, Mr. Hernandez, I mean, yeah, for five minutes.

Thank you, Chairman. Today's hearing is especially important as we see an increasing utilization of nuclear power to meet growing energy demands. New Jersey is considering nuclear as a piece of the puzzle when it comes to reducing our constituents' energy bills and recently passed a new law that lifts long-standing barriers to increasing nuclear power in the state. And no matter where you stand on nuclear, we must be committed that safety remains the core pillar of this discussion, so just yes or no for all of the witnesses, is an adequately staffed nuclear regulatory commission essential to ensuring safety when it comes to nuclear, just yes or no?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Um, and Doctor Huff, can you briefly touch on the role NRC staff play when it comes to ensuring safety of nuclear reactors?

Yeah, absolutely, the NRC staff review the applications, engage the companies even before they submit their applications. The NRC staff are often tasked with being prepared to receive those applications and then engaging pre-application materials. All of that results in a lot of analysis and reports by those staff that go up to the commission for decision.

I appreciate it. The staff you were just uh discussing in terms of the roles that they play, they're largely professional staff, so they're public servants with subject matter expertise that are not beholden to any political party or industry interest when it comes to carrying out their job duties. Is that accurate?

Yes.

However, since President Trump took office, over four hundred professional staffers at NRC have left the agency. Teams that handle safety have experienced the most significant staff reductions. So I wanna go over how we got here. Shortly after President Trump took office, Trump and Elon Musk stood up the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, or DOJ, to gut our federal agencies. At NRC, expert staff left the agency by choice or were forced out, and the agency has been struggling to rehire staff ever since a ProPublica article details doge's involvement at nr c. and cite several instances where career staff at nr c. were concerned about changes being made at the regulator here are couple of examples. steve cohen who was leading the doge charge at nr c. said the goal was to make the agency into a quote rubber stamp. for the trump administration and dismiss safety concerns raised by nr c. staff. several new officials at the agency have little to no experience with nuclear energy policy or law. nrc career lawyers working on key cases have left trump signed a series of executive orders that directed rsc to reduce staff speed up approvals and rewrite safety rules and in april the democratic commissioners testified before this committee that they were concerned about being fired for not approving a nuclear reactor that the trump administration wants and we've already seen president trump do this when he fired commissioner hansen years before his term ended so again just yes or no do these actions help the nrc recruit and retain the professional staff needed to enable the agency to achieve its mission and ensure safety remains a top priority just yes or no well

yeah

yeah

i would add that you all have leaned in on on policy to give more authority and attract the right talent into the agency and absolutely we need to be adding new new talent um and i i think

but these things are unhelpful right

uh w- we need competent staff uh moving forward to ultimately process these applications absolutely.

These actions are not helpful.

Uh, I think they, I think they complicated the commission's role. I think some of that number of people who left were because of the extraordinary opportunities in private industry, hence the reason for being one.

Sure, four hundred's a lot, four hundred's a lot. Right? And so I think, yes, people are gonna leave agencies at any given time, four hundred is a mass excess,

It

and I think these things are not helpful when you're trying to have the professional staff that's needed. So I'm gonna I'm gonna move on because I wanna talk about independence. Doctor Huff, when you hear the statement that I mentioned earlier that they want to make the NRC a rubber stamp for the Trump administration what does that mean to you?

Yeah, that means to me that the technical analysis does not matter, that it is more about the sort of decision about which businesses succeed and which do not. This is unacceptable and I actually would applaud the commission for especially some of their testimony. pushing back on that attitude.

And that's exactly right. And when you hear that Democratic commissioners at NRC are worried about getting fired for not approving a reactor that President Trump wants, does that sound like independence to you?

No, it does not.

Yeah, and so like this is what's uh so terribly concerning, and with my last thirty seconds, I would like to go back to you, Doctor Hoffman, I'm gonna have to keep going. Um, this is what's problematic, cuz we wanna have a conversation about nuclear energy and the role it's gonna play to meet our increasing uh energy demands but we can't have a siloed conversation without acknowledging what the trump administration is doing and frankly undermining public confidence in the nrc which is what's so problematic we need to have both sides of the conversation so the american people know that we're taking these uh issues seriously and we want to ultimately deliver on our promise of safety and with that i yield back my one second

gentleman yields back chair now recognize gentleman from uh georgia for five minutes

Thank you, Chairman, and uh thank Chairman Allada for holding this important hearing, uh to discuss nuclear energy legislation. Um, obviously we've established that nuclear energy is uh critical for i- our energy security here in the United States, a- as it is affordable, reliable and clean with uh lots of base of well, p- hundred percent base load capacity. Uh, my district is home to Plant Vogel where units three and four uh were the first nuclear built in the united states in over uh three decades and with unit four three and four added uh plant vocal is largest largest nuclear power station in the country and i'm proud of the of everything the owners uh and and co-owners uh went through and persevered through this project and and finally show that american acts do big things uh anymore uh and we gonna talk more about this dive more into permitting uh and i'm gonna ask miss korsik korsenick and uh uh mr. merfield and mr. harl harrell uh about uh my bill the nuclear licensing efficiency act uh which was part of the advance act that was signed into law last congress revisions in this bill amended the atomic energy act to require nrc to provide efficient timely and predictable reviews for licensing and to periodically review and like re revise licensing metrics and schedules to provide the most efficient performance possible. My question is, can you share from your perspective how you are implementing these permitting reforms and how they are working in the practice at the agency? And Ms. Corset, could you comment on that, and then Mr. Harrell, and then Mr. Mirvis.

Absolutely, yeah, thank you. Um, think as I mentioned uh earlier, we've seen direct results from uh the words that you just mentioned uh to a more efficient regulator and um it's a combination of new things coming in so think of construction permits or uh licensing uh permits you know they've they've uh kairos power uh showed improvement i think x energy showed improvement i think x energies was nine months uh had a schedule still with the same high bar of safety so we're not talking about cutting corners we're simply talking about going through things and doing them in a more efficient manner. We've seen it on subsequent license renewals for the current fleet. We've seen it on uh licensing for uh the advanced reactors. So I would say across the board, real culture change at the regulator has occurred to be able to prioritize the important risk significant conversations and get things approved in a timely manner.

Miss Terrell? Uh, I would agree with, uh, Ms. Korsnick. Uh, I think we're we're seeing the tangible benefits of nearly a decade of your all strong work here driving forward, uh, modernization at the NRC and multiple administrations leaning into that issue. And it's gonna be really critical so that we can capitalize on the Vogel moment, right? Uh, like in the end, uh, Vogel is a massive success story, even with the cost overruns. I think the Georgia, uh, rate payer is gonna be very thankful for that long-term, uh, investment. And we've gotta find ways to build more of those reactors and leverage the lessons learned from from Georgia and, uh, and, uh, and find ways to build new, uh, advanced reactors as well. And so these nimble processes are really critical to scaling and, and meeting our goals to meet rising demand, grow American manufacturing, and ultimately reduce emissions.

Mr. Burroughs.

Let let me give you, let me t- give you two examples, real-world examples. One, frequently the NRC staff would would have a particular piece of information they would wa- wanted to get an answer. An applicant would pro- provide that information. And the inter-see would say, well, that's not what we wanted, go back and and give us something else. It was very much bring me a rock. That attitude has significantly changed. The agency is actually more forthcoming about what it expects in the information to be provided, I think is being constructive. That is a direct consequence of the advance act. The other one is the agency would frequently in the past have wave after wave of requests for additional information from a licensee. Um, that took up extraordinary periods of time where ping pong match between the agency and the applicant took place. Um, now the agency has has adopted more of an audit process where they'll actually sit down with the applicant walk through those questions address them on the spot, where more research needs to be done or more information needs to be provided by the applicant they can do that, saves an extraordinary amount of time.

So it's important what Congress does to assist you in doing this in an efficient uh uh manner.

Correct.

But um, co- Congress and and this committee have done an extraordinary job over the last ten years of providing waves of legislation that have allowed this industry to thrive and for the interstate to be a more efficient regulator yet at the same time meeting a safe mission.

Okay, and what we need to know is what we need to do to go forward to to to make this uh industry reliable for the future. With that, I'm out of time and I yield back. Thank you very much.

Gentleman yields back. The gentlelady from Virginia is now recognized for at least five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chair, and uh ranking member for Caster for holding this very important hearing today. Um, a safe and well-regulated nuclear energy sector is key to a true well all of the above energy strategy that lessens our crippling reliance on fossil fuels and supports true American energy independence. And I appreciate the relatively bipartisan nature of the bills that are before us today, uh but I do have concerns with some of them and believe that we have a meaningful opportunity to work in a bipartisan manner to bring more nuclear energy safely online and meet our growing energy demand. That being said, I continue to have concerns over the Trump administration's uh actions that are targeting the NRC and its independence. Uh, these actions inject an unnecessary level of uncertainty that could jeopardize projects that are currently in the works, um, and also put safety at risk, as we've heard. And just to point out a couple of very serious concerns, we've had DoGE affiliated staff with no experience in nuclear safety who have forced out career safety experts uh throughout the government and tried to illegally make the NRC into a rubber stamp. And we have two current commissioners that have warned that they fear they could be fired at any moment if they refuse to approve a nuclear reactor due to safety concerns. As someone with a nuclear power plant in my district, safety is top of of mind, and we need to be sure that we are maintaining the safety of these projects. Work is also underway in my district to establish one of the first commercial scale nuclear fusion power plants in the country. And this was made possible by the Advance Act, which contained provisions related to regulating fusion and ensuring that this cutting edge technology has a place in the future of American technology. So, Ms. Korsig, do you believe that the NRC is adequately balancing the need for regulation with facilitating the growth of this novel technology, which has a lot of potential to revolutionize energy production? And where do you think the NRC can improve its oversight and provide greater certainty

is your question specifically fusion or broader

i'm interested in fusion if we have time broader but i also have one more question i wanna ask

ok well if i'm just gonna say broadly for uh for the nrc i would say um uh the nrc has demonstrated amazing uh resilience and has highly dedicated staff and uh i have a high confidence uh the n r c is able to uh assess uh the safety of the designs that are coming at them uh whether these are advanced reactors or whether they're the light water technology uh of today um so i i remain highly confident in a strong regulator that we have at the n r c

uh turning to the refuel act i am generally interested in changes that ease the licensing burden on technologies that could help reduce the amount of spent fuel we have to deal with Um, but I do think that efforts to export those technologies overseas, uh to overseas nations, uh should still be subject to licensing. So, Doctor Huff, can you speak to the importance of ensuring that bad actors do not get a hold of reprocessing technologies especially from a non-proliferation standpoint?

Thank you, Congresswoman. It is pivotal that nations and, uh, bad actor terrorist groups do not get access to the capability to build. enrichment facilities or reprocessing facilities that would supply material for atomic weapons. Uh, we have a great deal of expertise and capability securing such facilities here in the United States and we have a robust export control policy that, if maintained, prevents this. International cooperation and engagement also relies on our technical leadership here in the United States. And so we have a strong voice at those tables around nuclear energy, nuclear, non-proliferation,

And in the remaining time, Doctor Huff, I wanna explore a little more about the impact the administration's actions are having on the entire NRC workforce pipeline, um, including grant opportunities for students, research fellowships and trade schools that are training the next generation uh of nuclear energy specialists how do we stem the bleeding and restore staff expertise at the nr c to ensure we're protecting the talent pipeline going forward

thank you so much for bringing this up congresswoman the bill before you takes a good shot at fixing this at the hiring stage but before that in the pipeline the university community has been concerned with a pause on the discretionary grants due to an executive order uh by this administration that nrc has had to take, including discretionary grants that support scholarships and fellowships and um faculty awards and community colleges and technical college awards to students um i- from fy twenty four dollars that were appropriated. Uh those were never awarded. The community has been engaging with the nrc on that process, but it's still not resolved.

OK, thank you. Thank you for the extra fourteen seconds. I yield back.

You're welcome. The gentlelady yields back. The gentleman will recognize uh from Ohio on it for five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, thank you all for being here today. Uh, my first question is directed to Mister Harrell. Uh, Mister Harrell, thank you for being here. Many advanced reactor companies are looking at using halo for their reactors. One company, Centris, operating in my home state of Ohio, is taking important steps to bring commercial halo capacity online to fuel America. advanced reactors. Mr. Terrell, how does the legislation we are discussing today, specifically the Nuclear Refuel Act and the American Enrichment Deploy Act, help fuel enrichment companies set up businesses in the United States? And a follow-up to that would be in what is the risk if we do not stand up to strong domestic fuel supply chain?

Yep. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. And uh, as a as an Ohioan myself, I've been to Piketon a couple times and excited about uh what's happening there. There is strong alignment across government on investing in the nuclear fuel supply chain uh in large part because of this committee's leadership. Um we put significant investments uh behind uh ramping up enrichment capabilities centrist one of the awardees that received resources there. Uh we've got the Russian import restriction in place that kind of sets a shot clock here and drives some urgency to investment. I mean in the end we wanna see the US have uh energy security, and nuclear fuel security is energy security. everything from taking the rocks out of the ground to enrichment capability to fuel fabrication we need to to invest in as much as possible here i think this legislation legislation makes a lot of sense particularly if we're gonna leverage those taxpayer dollars that upwards of almost three billion dollars that uh that you all gave doe to drive forward here we've got a tight timeline twenty twenty eight's coming here fast uh if we can get uh construction started faster but then still maintaining these enrichment facilities before they would have nuclear materials have to get a license I think it's a no regrets move.

All right, thank you. Um, also address the next question to you. Uh, in addition to the investments and enrichment, I'm excited about the future of advanced nuclear and small modular reactors. Can you discuss what you are seeing from the nuclear industry in terms of actual investment and deployment in these technologies as we move out of this hypothetical stages and into construction?

Yeah, the the light at the end of the tunnel is very bright. New nuclear is happening now. We have multiple reactors construction in this country we're seeing investments on the first followers of those reactors uh as well we're investing billions of dollars in in the enrichment uh side we're seeing companies uh drive more private sector investment and then i think what is a real critical driver and shouldn't be overlooked is we're seeing energy consumers say that they demand this product they want reliable uh base load clean energy and nuclear power and so you're seeing everyone from amazon google uh microsoft to heavy energy consumers like mining companies uh new core uh and and others dow and texas uh saying we need this product we need to build it now uh those customers demanding the product is really catalyzing this unique moment

alright thank you um miss Korsnick and mister merrifield would you like to add anything to that miss korsnick first yes

well yeah i would just say you know unprecedented um investment uh is is uh from the private sector as well and I think that's a a real uh example uh of how we're sort of in a new day uh for nuclear um and so, yeah, just reinforce the comments uh that he made.

Thank you.

Uh I I would say it's you know when you contrast where we were back in the in the two thousands when we thought we were gonna have a nuclear renaissance, we had one set of reactors and one set of customers. And what we're confronting with today with advanced reactors is something quite different we have really four sets uh, potential customers in reactors, large gigawatt sized reactors which we will build, um, SMRs typically in the three hundred megawatt size, light water reactors, we're seeing a lot of those ordered, um, advanced reactors, molten salt, high temperature gas, um, sodium cool, which can not only provide electricity but also can provide industrial heat. And that's why we're seeing the interest of of the oil industry, we're seeing the interest of the uh mining industry and others, uh, and then finally the micro-reactors. both for military and uh uh and for civilian uses, extraordinary panoply of technologies are coming forward. Not all of them are gonna work, not all of them are gonna be funded, but ten years from now we're gonna see a lot of reactors of a lot of different stripes.

Okay, thank you. Um, love that answer. Uh, Miss Korsnick and I know we're gonna run out of time here probably, but in your testimony you note Congress should focus on strengthening the domestic nuclear fuel cycle and ensure ti- develop timely development of mining, conversion enrichment and advanced fuel uh capa- capabilities. Can you discuss how the American Enrichment Deployment Act will help streamline the licensing and construction process under the Atomic Energy Act to our, expand our enrichment capacity in a safe and secure manner? And I will let you turn that in because my time is out. So, thank you very much.

Okay.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

The gentleman yields back. The General Laban, California is now recognized for at least five minutes.

Thank you very much, Mister Chairman, and um thank you for the witnesses for being here today. I'd like to continuing the continued line of questioning started by my colleague from California, regarding nuclear waste. Um, I also have a nuclear power plant that was actually shut down uh over thirty years ago. It's in Sacramento, California. But the spent fuel is still there because United S- the US government has failed to implement an effective nuclear waste program. And I'm really disappointed that we're hearing having this hearing today without considering legislation that would advance an effective federal nuclear waste program. Now, many of my colleagues on this committee believe that recycling will solve the waste problem for us. But it remains to be seen whether recycling or spent nuclear fuel will scale in the United States of and even if nuclear recycling does take off, it won't fully eliminate the waste problem. Now, I support the continuing development of nuclear recycling, but this can't be another excuse to kick the can down the road on a federal nuclear waste program. Now, Doctor Hoff, can you explain some of the economic and technological challenges to scaling nuclear recycling in the United States?

Thank you, Congressman. Congresswoman, you're right. Um, recycling does have real promise. It's not simple, I hope. that it will become a part of a comprehensive waste management plan. In the United States we have over ninety thousand metric tons of spent nuclear fuel, making two thousand more metric tons every year. The current most mature recycling facility in the world, at Le Hague in France, manages to run through a capacity of recycling about seventeen hundred metric tons of spent nuclear fuel a year. So if you're doing the math, that means that that facility, if it were deployed at that scale here, wouldn't quite make it through our annual amounts. So we are gonna have to think really big with any recycling capacity, and even those strategies result in spent nuclear fuel, which also must be managed. So it is no replacement for a spent nuclear fuel strategy, but it could really benefit such a thing.

OK, so we still need a comprehensive federal waste program, even under this scenario, right?

Yes, ma'am.

Is that correct? OK. Now, earlier this year the Department of Energy announced plans to support so-called nuclear life cycle innovation campuses, which should host recycling, fuel fabrication, and waste disposal activities. Doctor Huff, if these sites were doing recycling at scale, they'd have to store waste before processing, and they still have to deal with the leftover waste after recycling. At what point does that become an interim storage facility?

Thank you, Congresswoman. Uh, your insight is correct. It would be immediately an storage facility and in fact i think a good reasonable strategy that has merit would be to begin such a facility as an interim storage facility and build adjacent to it such recycling strategies this would immediately reduce the liability on the order of a billion dollars a year to the us federal government which we pay in the

uh-huh

nuclear waste um fund yeah um

right ok so under what circumstances and for what activities would the nuclear waste policy act need to be amended to construct any of these sites.

Yeah, at the moment there is a linkage between the licensing of a repository and an interim storage facility being constructed and so, there does need to be a look at the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.

OK. Um, the standard waste contract prioritizes oil-less fuel and fuel from shut down reactors. If these recycling sites are being supported by the federal government, Do you believe these guys should prioritize spent fuel from shutdown plants?

At the moment, I think they should certainly follow the law. I think it is the case that many recycling companies may prefer speed stock from more recently discharged fuel from the physics alone. Many of our more recent spent nuclear fuel discharges have higher initial enrichment and longer burn-up both of those tend to contribute to a higher total fissile equivalent inventory which makes it better fuel.

Better, so even this is not really a good solution here at all, in a sense for the spent nuclear fuel. So, we might have to figure that part of it out, but if we can somehow prioritize some of this old spent nuclear fuel, uh, it would be wonderful. So, anyway, I think my time is moving up, and so I yield back.

General Lady yields back. General Lady from Tennessee is recognized for at least five minutes.

Oh, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and

Thank you to um members for being here today, uh and thank you for your expertise in this area, this is very important. You know, uh the legislation we're considering today will build upon the success of the Advance Act, and it's gonna help meet our nation's uh growing energy needs. For example, the American Enrichment Deployment Act discussion draft's meant to help restart our domestic uranium uh enrichment capabilities. And there are several companies, including BWXT, which is, in my already working to restore uh this critical national capability. So, Mister Mayor Field and Miss Korsnick, uh how does enabling faster builds and licensing of enrichment facilities impact our energy security posture?

Well, um, we have a a a critical need for additional enrichment, particularly um as it relates as it relates to high assay, low enriched uranium, which is what many of these reactors will require. And so that legislation would um streamline the licensing process in a way and allow construction to begin earlier, which would facilitate closing that gap.

Right. Exactly. Miss Gorsny?

Yeah, I wou- I would agree uh with that. We're in the process through a lot of your good leadership in really focusing on enrichment on the front-end of the fuel cycle um it just all takes time. And so it's just nice if we have some of this flexibility that's outlined in the American Enrichment Deployment Act to allow construction um to a point uh before uh the licensing uh is received.

Yeah. You know, I I'd like to turn the discussion draft relating to uh the advisory committee on reactor safeguards. Uh and Miss Korzenegg, Mister Mayer-Field, you each have direct experience with this. Mister Mayer-Field, you've seen both sides uh as a licensing process and as an attorney and as an uh NRC commissioner, Miss Korzenegg. You're not only at the helm of the NEI, you uh served as Chief Nuclear Officer for the largest fleet of nuclear reactors in the nation, which is pretty, pretty stealthy. So, based on your experience, does NRC staff routinely evaluate highly technical safety and risk significant issues as part of the agency's licensing and regulatory responsibilities?

Oh, absolutely. Uh, the NRC staff is, um, technically very competent, very strong.

Yeah.

Um, and, uh, absolutely goes through many uh technical issues i the conversation that played out earlier on the uh on the acrs um again it's a needed body um and i i do think focusing it on new and novel issues can be accomplished with still keeping um their curiosity uh and engagement on uh new processes

yes

i think it can be done well

totally

yeah and i i don't think i don't think anybody on this side of the table or anyone uh in in the legislation as opposed to get rid of the ACRS.

Right.

And I found the ACRS to be very valuable in in many cases where the commission was struggling with a technical issue, we wanted to get that second opinion, we asked the ACRS to weigh in, and and they did provide a valuable role.

Yeah.

So I'm not I'm not, you know, criticizing the existence of the of the of the um of the body. I do think having done a study where we interviewed, you know, over thirty-five people who were former commissioners, other senior staff, that there are efficiencies that could be put into that program to make them

Yeah.

used and useful in a way um that allow the agency to maintain its safety mission, um and not not erode that that independence.

Yeah.

And I think I think the legislation as proposed would also achieve that goal.

Well, that's exactly what I'm leading into because you've got forty five hundred cumulative hours of reviewing and licensing permits that the NRC has done, and uh given that fact do you think Just as you said, the ACRS should focus its advice on matters that the commission and staff are not familiar with like technologies and designs that are novel and risk significant, and haven't been examined before, so I assume you say yes.

Yes.

Congresswoman, could I add, I mean,

Sure.

again, ACRS is a federal advisory committee. It is a federal advisory committee with additional teeth than the typical federal advisory committee because it brings technical experts, but we shouldn't misconstrued the a a CRS with the staff who are doing the diligent review.

Totally.

This advisory committee is about bringing talented individuals who have either academic or technical or industry experience in there, that they can advise the commission and ultimately contribute in these spaces, but like they are not a replacement for staff.

Exactly.

And so I think that's why uh I think we're all

Totally. And I I agree.

agreement on keeping the EC uh ACRS keeping it focused.

Stay in your lane. I have to deal with that in health care. Are you kidding me? Advisory committees take their own legs and start doing their own things. So I got you.

Yes, uh and that has occurred in the past.

I understand. Well, it it does, and I've got other questions, but I'll have to submit them for the record since I'm almost out of time, and I don't wanna go over my time, Chairman.

General, I use back, can I recognize the general from New York for five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Um, thank you for being here to the panel, and we shouldn't see the NRC as an obstacle to new nuclear development. It is a partner in building and preserving public trust. and promoting safety, which are, I believe, very critical to allowing the industry to grow. And the NRC's work cannot happen efficiently or effectively without sufficient qualified staff. Uh, Miss Korsnick, how important is it for nuclear project developers to be working with a regulator with experienced and technically knowledgeable staff?

Yeah, so it's critical, right? These developers are investing time, energy and effort to bring some new technologies uh to the market, I think it was mentioned earlier, a lot of conversation happens uh even before you officially enter the licensing process, there's a lot of pre-application conversation that happens, uh which it's absolutely uh critical uh that you have you know competent and knowledgeable uh staff at the NRC to engage with these developers.

Well I appreciate that because I see this as a function of uh human infrastructure that is there to work to strengthen the outcome and we need the nrc to be able to attract and retain staff especially in limited and highly specialized fields that require technical knowledge uh mister harrell your testimony mentioned several private sector companies that are developing new nuclear projects i think it is safe to assume that these companies will be competing with nrc for some of the same workforce uh i talked to all these uh younger students in college and you don't hear that many going into nuclear engineering or the nuclear energy field. Are you seeing a growing competition for this specialized and limited workforce?

We are. Uh, I think we're seeing states and uh academic institutions invest more in their programs and we're starting to take that uh that's starting to take off. But um, it's stiff competition, I mean frankly even uh our organization trying to bring in new uh new uh nuclear talent, it's tough. And so I think Congress was wise, both in the advance act and now with this bill before uh the committee, to give some unique hiring authorities and find new ways to compensate these folks to bring the right talent in that's necessary for this moment.

Thank you. And Doctor Huff, do you agree that, you know, how do we get talented people with technical know-how into public service?

Yeah, I think through example and additional engagement with the academic universe, the Congress and the staff at NRC, the staff at DOE can be great examples of what it looks like to have. such an excellent job as being a public servant in the career staff. And I think the more engagement those institutions like NRC and DOE have with the public, the more visible it would be to undergraduates and graduate students interested in those roles.

Thank you. And I noted in your testimony, your mentioning of NRC's university nuclear leadership program. These NRC grants have supported nuclear engineering education, including at our uh Rensselaer uh Polytechnic Institute, RPI, located in my district, and You know, I heard your exchange with Representatives uh Menendez and McClellan, but would you wanna add anything to as to how the NRC funding uh is essential to continue to help grow a workforce pipeline that can benefit the private sector, the commission, and the Department of Energy?

Thank you, Congressman. Yes, that university nuclear leadership program which has continued in DOE but was on pause in NRC due to the executive order on discretionary funds um that is pivotal. to the creation of new nuclear engineers. We support uh American citizens and American persons through those awards routinely, and it makes up a very large bulk of not only our graduate population, but also scholarships for undergraduates. And when your scholarship says this scholarship came from the NRC or came from DOE, you're much more likely to consider that place as your final career.

Well, thank you. I certainly support allowing NRC to be able to offer competitive pay to be able to recruit and retain the personnel they need to carry out their mission. The proposal before us today is a good start in that regard, but it must be said that NRC has lost nearly five hundred employees, as we've heard earlier today, since the beginning of the Trump administration, and competitive pay is only part of that story. And it's important for members across the aisle to recognize how big of a disaster Doge was. What were once seen as stable, fulfilling careers in public service now have this black mark against them because we have real recent evidence that these jobs can be upended with no notice and no respect to federal employees and that will inevitably make it more difficult to recruit that next generation of nr c and geo e office of nuclear energy staff so um doctor huff i'm guessing you may have stayed in touch with some former colleagues at the department of energy can you explain how the uncertainty and disrespect caused by actions of doge have damaged employee morale

I will say a number of them took the uh prerogative to leave DOE of their own volition, um shortly after the change of administration, and part of it certainly was morale, but my understanding is that DOE is doing very well and is especially excited about some of the like new initiatives, but that can't hold up some of the still empty positions, especially in leadership.

I appreciate that.

But the gentleman

So with that I thank you, Mr. Chair, and you're back.

The gentleman's time has expired, so the chair now recognizes the gentleman from the great state of Texas for five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. I I hear nothing but positive stuff about the NRC, uh about the way that they're doing business, about the way that they are evaluating things. I mean, Mister Merrifield, we hear hear a lot from the other side of the island that's like, oh, the sky is falling, but NRC seems to be doing pretty good right now.

Um, uh, there there actually has been an enabling of some of the folks who are more junior in the workforce. They've been elevated. They've shown an incredible enthusiasm about trying to re-energize the agency in alignment with congressionally authorized. advanced act. I I I I I think there's a lot of good things going on under there. I understand their concerns and I understand some of the the comments that were made early on about a rubber stamp I've seen no evidence at the interstice of rubber stamp.

No. Doesn't doesn't seem like that's true uh i- in any way, shape or form. Uh, I'll stick with you. I wanna talk about uh Abilene Christian's molten salt reactor. I've been working uh very closely along with other people uh both both sides of the aisle here on this committee. Very proud of what they're doing um and what additional things need to to achieve criticality criticality on the project.

Um Yeah, for the sake of openness, I am an advisor to Abilene Christian University, it is a terrific school, um Phil Schubert, the president has done an extraordinary job of of bringing forward a nuclear program in a in a university that never had one. Um they received um really assurances from during the fir- first Trump administration that it would be support for that program by the Department of Energy. Um based on that they went ahead and they built a facility that would house their reactor. um it is complete all but the reactor itself in the control room um the issue that they're having is availability of of molten salt that was provided by uh the department of energy they wanted to have provision of highly highly enriched uranium or high assay low enriched uranium uh to fuel that reactor that is underway there is a gap and the gap is that there is the need for roughly um fifty million dollars to provide the the the preparation of that material for use in the reactor. That has traditionally been a role of of uni- uh of the university uh program at DOE. Um, there's a lot of money that has been deployed for providing halo and fuel for others. Um, they are in a catch-twenty-two. They're told, well, we really wanna support you, but there's not enough money in the university program to do that. Um, there are other monies available. I I think it's a crying shame. I think a small university's made a huge commitment based on uh government assurances and frankly the government's letting them down

That's exactly what we're working on. This isn't public money. This is private money that was invested here at the request of the

That's correct.

Department of Energy seven or eight years ago they've done this and and gone through these steps so we're gonna keep working on that uh I'm gonna go to Mr.

Well every but I I think the important point is every other university research reactor out there receives fuel from the Department of Energy. Abolition creation should be no exception.

Uh that that's a great point. Thank you for that. Mr. Hill, good to see you. Um can you maybe discuss the importance of uh the advanced reactor demonstration program um in helping its uh first of a kind projects move across uh from you know the um concept to deployment phase um just generalities.

Yeah, absolutely.

Thank you Congressman, and thanks for your support for for programs like it that are are are critical to demonstrating uh an initial reactor design. Um so ARDP uh ultimately catalyzed during the first term of the Trump administration carried forward by the Biden administration,

Um, just of the reforms that are being discussed here today,

Mm.

what is the most important one? Uh, and after you answer I'll ask uh our other two witnesses the same thing, but what is the most important one?

Um, I would say, say maybe two things. Um, so one, we have to maximize the pe- federal taxpayer dollars they're already putting forward. This Congress has put upwards of three billion dollars behind enrichment, so I think the the American enrichment deployment act makes a ton of sense. We need to meet that Russia timeline. We have to stay at speed. It's a national security imperative. Um, and then two, I think the efficient he- efficient hearings bill to get rid of the mandatory um requirement um is a no-brainer. It takes a a spot out of the process that is not necessary if there's an uncontested hearing. That's exactly the type of thing where we can reduce regulatory boredom at zero sacrifice to to safety.

Uh, thank you. That's the name of the game. Ms. Korsnick?

Yeah, thank you, um, I would agree uh with his assessment on the American Enrichment uh Deployment Act. i think uh you know that's uh urgent and necessary to move forward um it's hard on the other ones everybody does a bit of tweaking you know uh here and there um uh uh i don't know that i have a a close second uh the hearing act that he picked is easy um even the nrc agrees uh that the mandatory hearings uh should be changed so uh it can't get easier than that

uh miss huff i ran out of time but uh if you agree with those or if you disagree

i agree and i think the refuel act is important too cause i love

And if you'd like to uh follow up on anything in writing on that, uh we'd be happy. With that, Mr. Chairman, thank you. You'll be up.

Chairman Yeltsin back, trying to recognize the general manager from Washington for at least five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you to all our witnesses, uh as we pursue expansion of nuclear power, Russia has forty five percent of the world's uranium enrichment capacity, and the US only has one enrichment plant. Um with the ban on Russian imports, uh, set to start in twenty twenty eight, it's extremely urgent, as many of you have mentioned, that we accelerate our domestic enrichment capacity to ensure energy security for us and our allies. Uh, I am encouraged that this committee is discussing these bills including the American Enrichment Deployment Act. Um, this bill intends to more efficiently license domestic enrichment facilities by bringing the licensing process, uh, for enrichment in line with the process for other fuels. uh which are allowed to start construction at their own risk, uh before the issuance of a license, just knowing that they will be shut down or delayed if they are not in compliance. And I brought this up with NRC Commissioner Weaver at a previous hearing and he was supportive of this reform in concept uh so now it's just a matter of getting this language exactly right to make sure that the outcome matches the intent um Commissioner uh Merrifield. Thank you for your testimony and the acknowledgement of a sort of a changing situation and and your uh perceptions. Wide spread deployment of advanced reactors is just around the corner. Uh what happens if we don't have a domestic uh sufficient domestic enrichment capabilities here in the US?

If we if we do not have the ability to provide um high assay, low enriched uranium for some of these advanced reactors, it will hinder their deployment. We simply will not We will be able to build the reactors but not have the fuel to do it. I think there's been extraordinary progress in this area. Um, I would say there's one other thing that that I would posit for you. We have a problem right now in providing uranium for US content. Um, virtually all of the we have comes from abroad. For the civilian fleet, that's not as big a problem. For the US military and the navy, which are beginning to spin up their own enrichment programs, that has to be US sourced. we need more attention to that as well.

Thank you, and that is also um uh on this committee's uh watch and uh uh and agenda. Um, I wanted to thank you for that comment. I wanted to turn to nuclear licensing now. Um, reforming the licensing hearing process is another way that we can streamline licensing for fuel production and nuclear reactors. And um, when no one is even contesting uh the approval of a license for a project, NRC is currently still required to hold a hearing that takes thousands of man hours to prepare for. My bill with Representative Griffith solves this issue by only requiring a hearing when the issue is contested, and it allows the NRC staff to really focus their energy where it should be which is on disputed applications. Um mandatory uncontested hearings have already slowed down the licensing of three advanced nuclear reactors where there is zero opposition. Uh, three more have submitted license applications and will still need a hearing, again, even if there's no opposition to the projects. Um, dropping this hearing requirement when no one can test the project just seems like a smart thing to do.

Yes.

Seeing nodding, uh, with all of our witnesses. Now, I just, um, wanna make certain that we still preserve the public's ability to request a contested hearing if they want one. So, um, Miss Korsnek, uh, this question's for you. The NRC in March, proposed a rule that might change the public's ability to do so. Um, do your member companies believe this proposed rule, uh, would change or discourage public engagement or opposition, uh, to a project or limit access to information so that they would know whether to contest a project?

Yeah, just to be clear, the mandatory hearings don't even engage the public. So the mandatory hearings happen at the end of the process and the public's not invited. So that's how crazy this mandatory hearing is. When we say it has no impact on public engagement, it's because they're not invited to it. So there's like zero pain by having this mandatory hearing not happen. To your point, earlier in the process, the public is invited, there's all kinds of opportunity, and to your point, no, this will have no impact on the public having that ability to have a hearing process, a contested process. They use this term mandatory hearing. It's simply at the end of the process, an NRC only uh process that they named mandatory hearing. So you have the feeling that somehow the public's involved, and they're not.

Congressman, I was a member of a commission twenty years ago that called for elimination of that requirement. I'm very supportive of what you're trying to do. I agree with everything that Maria just said. I would also say, um, frankly, the agency's trying to be to do some workarounds relative how those are um, are undertaken. Legislation is important. This is a great fix.

Thank you for your comments. I just wanna make sure that we streamline and also protect public interest and the ability to speak up and contest if there is a problem. Thank you.

Absolutely.

I yield back.

General, I yield back. Chairman,

uh thank you mr. chair and thanks to the panel for for being here um miss korsak i was very much like the executive summary of your testimony so thank you for that uh you mentioned in answer to a previous question uh that you would allow construction to a point under the american enrichment deployment act um i think i understand what you're saying but why don't you explain to me how you would select that point

yeah basically you can do site preparation you can uh do certain things but you can't move forward by bringing uh special nuclear material on site you can't actually begin enriching um without a license so the stuff that you can do in advance is um construction type work but not any operation or receiving of of all products

it seems the the the other witnesses on the panel uh

That's how things

And let let me I I I work for I used to work for the sh after I left the Nuclear Regulatory Commission I went to work for the Shaw group. We built the RANKO facility uh from Richmond out in in New Mexico. Those buildings are are relatively relatively straightforward civil construction it's a pad, it's a it's a it looks a lot like a commercial building. The the safety significant issues are really the centrifuges themselves and how they're how they're piped together. So that non-safety significant work can can continue, it's not gonna have an impact on on public health, obviously it's done at the risk of the applicant, um but I think the the common sense reforms included in the legislation makes sense.

Right well so it seemed to me that uh, this help for example uh suggested in her testimony, uh written testimony that there should there could be a a problem in in bringing pressure on the uh agency because it had allowed the facility to go forward and then would be in no position to say stop and that's an unstoppable argument I'm a lawyer I know how that works but but I want I have forgive me I have to move on and uh but I but I appreciate

um I would respectfully disagree with that viewpoint

the thought uh well you're in the position to do so you're an expert but since I have you

no I mean with the uh the viewpoint expressed by my my good friend Dr. Hoffman

ok let let me shift over to the crane clean energy center formerly known as three mile island uh this I've read uh reports regarding the rejuvenation of that facility but there seemed to be some concern that uh once it gets up and going there will be additional uh unforeseen costs that somehow the public uh rate payers or the taxpayer would end up paying. Who who's in charge of making sure that doesn't happen?

Well, I I'm I I don't I don't know all the details in the that entail your question. I would say there's sort of two pieces. The NRC has under its authority the regulation of the reactor and to make sure that before it goes into operation then it is safe. You have an economic regulator um potentially in this state that would have authority over how those how that cost is shifted to rate payers, and and so those are those are two different those are really two different arenas. From an NRC federal uh standpoint, a as an NRC regulator I mean ultimately we were mindful of the costs that we imposed, but we did not reduce our um safety mission For that reason, we if if it needed to be done for safety purposes, the NRC required it to to be implemented. I don't think that's changed.

Hmm. Not sure if that answers the question, but uh it seemed to me that someone uh should be looking into the um rebuilding of these facilities and the uh the enthusiasm that seems to accompany the initial investment uh when we need thirty or forty years to actually pay the thing back and recognizing it's an older facility, it seems to me to be something we should be concerned about, at least the rate payers should. Um, I wanna go back to uh Miss Korsnick for uh several more questions. I'm looking at your second bullet point. Accelerate new nuclear deployment by quote " addressing early project cost and schedule risk" and then thus enabling private sector investment. I don't understand that. Can you explain?

Yeah, I would say it's hard to go first uh in nuclear. It's hard to have the first of a kind build and there's additional risk associated with the fact because it hasn't been built yet. And so private investment is taking a look and they're wanting to have more confidence. And so one of the uh things that has been uh proposed uh the ARC Act is to help have a government uh participate in risk sharing. So you can imagine if you're running a project, the first part is on the the owner, then there's a second part after say twenty percent that there would be some government private sector risk sharing to a capped limit. after which it would be back all on the owner. So, some structure that would send a signal to the private investment that that early mover risk is being reduced, it's being ameliorated. And this isn't for all of them, this is just maybe for the first few of a kind, uh, so that it could demonstrate. Then that private sector money comes in. They see what the cost is, they see what the schedule is, they understand.

Thank you for that clarification. I thank all of you for your testimony. Yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Now the chair now recognizes the gentleman from the great state of Texas for five minutes.

Uh, thank you very much. Um, chair uh, I wanna first of all say I'm proud to be the cosponsor of both uh, fifty five, forty nine and thirty nine, seventy eight. Uh, I don't think that this a partisan issue at all. I believe that advanced nuclear energy is going to be very uh, essential to a reliable, affordable, a cleaner grid, uh, and frankly, uh the chinese or the russians or any other adversaries they're not gonna wait around for us to get our regulatory act in order uh they're going to be moving ahead and we need to make sure that we're doing the same thing and i think that fifty five forty nine is a very sensible fix uh to um uh what we need to do the mandatory hearings on uncontested applications consume a lot of hours of uh nrc staff uh and adds on about an average time of about six months and that's just unacceptable um Thirty nine seventy eight, I think, clears real ambiguity standing in the way of domestic recycling technology that could go a really long way in helping us reduce waste uh and strengthen our fuel security. Uh, I think both of these reforms have uh been called for across administrations and across party lines. Uh, and that said, I wanna be direct though, I think that everything that we're trying to accomplish here, the deployment, the investment, the international credibility, uh it really rests on one foundation and that's a credible nrc uh uh not independent as a political talking point but independent as a structural reality uh doctor huff said well in her testimony that regulatory independence is most important when significant financial interests are at stake and so now we're talking about billions of dollars at stake and i think the committee that we have to make sure uh that we have efficiency reforms that don't inadvertently erode the credibility that makes nuclear regulation, uh, the global gold uh standard. Uh, that Don Donen wrote in a he wrote that that standard that we have here. And so, Doctor Hoffer, I wanted to ask you, uh, because I am a cosponsor of fifty five forty nine, and I believe, uh, the case for these efficiency reforms is strong. Uh, but you raised something in your testimony that I wanted to explore further. And you noted that the ACRS has contributed to safety, uh, review of virtually every generation of commercial reactor technology that we've deployed and that uh independent expertise is valuable when it's when it's empowered to disagree. Um uh my question is about the implementation. Uh as the NRC executes this reform, what should this committee be watching uh to make sure that the commission is actively and appropriately using ACRS not just technically uh complying with the law?

Thank you so much, Congressman. I really appreciate it. I think especially your comments with regard to financial uh pressure on NRC. Get back to uh Congressman Bentz's concern with my testimony, which was intended to suggest that a redress plan may be a helpful component of that law. Moving on to your comments about the ACRS, I think uh everyone on this panel agrees it's valuable in precisely this way, that it provides a technical sort of second opinion for the staff, for this oversight of all reactors. Um In in terms of the efficiencies, I think it's been made clear that reducing the amount of unnecessary meetings that either NRC or ACRS has is great but remaining flexible with regard to what ACRS believes is important if they feel strongly that there is a technical concern to be addressed I think uh enshrining in law that they can't ask that question kind of goes against some of the intent for providing their technical expertise in many ways, technical expertise. sometimes comes in the form of a question.

Yeah, yeah. Um, I know you also flagged that the NRC has dis- uh, has paused its discretionary grant programs, uh, the undergraduate scholarships, the graduate fellowships, the community college assistance, uh, the faculty advancement grants, uh, and you said that that was unsustainable. And I agree, I think that that's not not good at all for us trying to make sure that we're we're winning a competition. uh the bill addresses the pay bill addresses one end of the pipeline who addresses the the other and should this committee be asking the nrc directly why those grants are paused at exactly the moment we need to be expanding the technical workforce because that's an area where i've heard a lot of bipartisan agreement is that we this technical workforce is hugely uh important

thank you congressman indeed it's baffling to have those grants on pause they were the result of an executive order associated with oversight on discretionary granting across the agencies and the nr c still hasn't released those awards from fy twenty four. do we has moved forward many of those sort of awards under the same program in unlp the university nuclear leadership program and it has been baffling for the university community to see nr c not follow suit

yeah yeah yeah thank you very much thank you mr. chairman

thank you mr. b c the chair recognizes a gentleman from south carolina mr. fry for five minutes

Thank you uh, Mister Chairman, uh, for holding this important hearing today. Thank you, the witnesses, for for being here. I'm glad to see that this subcommittee is still continuing to focus, uh, intently on nuclear energy, as I've said before. Uh, the nuclear renaissance is here, and I believe that South Carolina has an important role to play in that. I support the efforts to improve the timelines uh, timeliness and predictability of nuclear uh, regulatory commission licensing decisions, which are essential to advancing next generation nuclear uh technologies in strengthening grid reliability. At the same time, I'm equally focused on ensuring that new nuclear development is cost-effective for customers. Uh, I have had ongoing discussions with groups like Duke Energy and the Palmetto Nuclear Coalition and other stakeholders about how to better manage and contain project costs. We have to take the lessons of South Carolina, specifically VC Summer, seriously uh by ensuring that future projects are structured so as not place an undue financial burden on taxpayers and the ratepayers of the Carolinas, or really the United States. Uh, this is particularly important as Duke Energy actively evaluates the potential development of new reactors in South Carolina, and the state continues to consider pathways for the partially completed VC summer units. With that said, um, nuclear projects are certainly capital-intensive, but operate for many decades, uh, with some lasting eighty years. Uh, unfortunately, as I've talked about before, VC summer uh shows that cost overruns and delays can have real big impacts on uh projects, oftentimes resulting in the abandonment of those projects, which saddled rate payers with the cost of nuclear plants that actually weren't producing anything cuz they didn't exist. Uh all of this I think has scared investors probably away from nuclear right when we need it most. Uh Mister Harrell how how can the bills that we discussed today, and you talked about a little bit about this earlier in your testimony, But how can these bills, um, which are focused on regulatory modernization, help companies with financing?

Yeah. Uh, time is money, Congressman, and so in the end, a predictable, efficient permitting process that the public has confidence in and that has strong uh safety protocols in place is good for innovation, it's good for deployment. Uh, investors wanna know that there's a schedule that's gonna be followed, uh, even on long lead items like nuclear that are gonna take longer than maybe your traditional investments that they wanna, you know,

Thank you. Thank you for that. Um, Miss Korsnick, turning to spent nuclear fuel, um, and uh n- our nuclear waste policy, you know in your testimony that we should advance an integrated a fuel management and recycling strategy that preserves rate payer interest uh and federal contractual obligations. Can you elaborate on what you mean here, especially about preserving rate payer interest?

Well, yeah, rate payers have uh paid in um to a uh fund um directed from the the Nuclear Waste uh Policy Act. And uh when they paid that money it was for long-term storage, a deep geologic repository. And so we think that recycling is a wonderful addition. We think it's part of closing uh the fuel cycle. We just want to ensure that um the money that rate payers put away, specifically for the purpose of long-term deep geologic repository, um, is spent, um, in in that way. Um, and so those are the the conversations, uh, if you will, there that are playing out now.

Yeah, South Carolina rate payers, from what I, uh, can see have contributed with interest about three billion dollars to the nuclear waste fund. Should should we make sure that this fund is used for credible, durable policies to address that nuclear waste?

Yeah, absolutely. Uh, as I mentioned, um, I think the move towards, uh, recycling starts with, um, uh I'll say small scale, then it has to get uh raised to commercial scale. There's there's a lot uh I would say to learn um and to and to discover. And uh so we just need to be thoughtful about what part of that that rate payers pay for.

Thank you for that. Um, you know the advisory committee on reactor safeguards uh was formed at a time when almost all nuclear technology was new. And there was a need to have maybe a variety of expert advice. Uh, that's not necessarily the case today. I think some of your testimony has exhibited that. Um, uh with the nrc uh do you agree with that mister merrifield

i absolutely do agree with that i think they serve a viable purpose but if if we were to have more ap one thousands built in south carolina that technology is well understood having acrs review those would be to me a waste of time

miss corzine do you agree with that as well

yeah i think um the acrs plays a role uh i think we can do it more efficiently

but we we should

Yes.

Mister Chairman, you're gonna cut me off here in a second, and I'm not gonna like it at all. I have more questions, but I really appreciate y'all's time today. Thank you for being here.

I've got a big gavel here to cut you off, Mister Fry.

A of a Texan would have a big gavel.

Exactly right. Thank you, Mister Fry. Chair recognizes a gentlewoman from North Dakota, Miss Fedorchuk,

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and thank you to my colleague from Colorado for letting me jump ahead of him in line. Appreciate that. Thank you all for being here to share your expertise on such an important topic. Uh, I watched as a state utility regulator, twelve years, ten to twelve years ago, our, I watched our country turn away from nuclear, regrettably. And it's really encouraging to see how quickly we're pivoting back. Uh, a lot to do with all of your leadership and then some of the great work that has happened here in congress in the last five five or so years um mister harrell uh north kote is a state without nuclear we have a lot of coal fire power we have a lot of gas we have a lot of oil and gas development uh we have a lot of wind generation so we are an all of the above state except for we don't have any nuclear assets uh there's a lot of interest in that and there's discussions happening but um can you talk a little bit about the changes that are being proposed

Absolutely. Thank you, Congressman, for the question Congresswoman, uh, for the question, and, uh, I think it's spot on, cuz I think there are a lot of states like North Dakota who in this moment, uh, want to explore adding nuclear into their mix. Um, I think the reforms on the bills of today continue to reinforce that there's a regulatory process um that includes public participation so that the your

mmm

constituents can have confidence both in the technical aspects of the technology as well as uh be uh certain that ultimately these projects can deliver power in a relevant time frame as you all wrestle with rising demand in north dakota um i also think that you're seeing states uh that wanna be fast followers here on these first of a kind do things like feasibility studies uh citing and permitting work workforce development um a couple of states like ohio and virginia have established nuclear authorities to try to foster these opportunities i think that's the type of thing that north dakota could do and then um referenced earlier i mean we gotta get regulators like your previous self over the hump and so policies like the arc act are the type of things that um can insure that the project two three four of a new

mmm

design um gets off the ground that we share the risk on that and regulators uh can have confidence that that ultimately is going to be a good return for the the taxpayer and be a long-term investment for the state's energy future.

Excellent, thank you for that. Um, Ms. Korsnick, increased nuclear capacity means increased use of uranium fuels. Um, as a country and a legislative body, we've encountered uh issues finding places to store our spent fuel. Uh, can you describe how a built-out nuclear recycling supply chain limits the need to find and house spent fuel in a natural repository?

Uh, sure. Um, thank you for the question. So in a recycling process, you take some of that used fuel and you actually use it again, uh, to feed a reactor as new fuel. And so, as you could continue to do that, you could lower, uh, the volume of fuel that you have that needs to be stored. That's a long-term vision. Um, and so it's gonna take us a while to commercialize and scale up, uh, the idea of recycling. But that's in in in the main, uh, the reason that it is helpful to close the fuel cycle is because you can use today what is used fuel and turn it into new fuel uh for uh a reactor.

So the the goal of getting a long-term repository has been something that has been out of reach for uh quite a while. Do you think it's um realistic that we might get the refueling process in place faster than a permanent storage solution?

Actually, I think you need the whole picture. Uh, even with recycling you still need a a geologic repository. Maybe that's bore holes, maybe it's uh a mine repository, I think uh it's probably a combination of those. So um please don't think that it's one or the other, it's really both.

Okay.

Yeah, I th I think the industry has really moved forward in this area, both recycling and other alternative means of disposing of fuel. We have the world's first nuclear repository that's opened in Finland. more movement's been made, uh so it we haven't been gathering dust.

Okay, w- I've got thirty seconds left. What else can this body do to support these this effort, both on the permanent and the recycling uh processes?

I think the Nuclear Refuel Act is a good step forward, uh in terms of bringing uh attention to it, as as I mentioned uh earlier, uh would actually um like to broaden it to all recycling and reprocessing methods to be considered non-production uh facilities and be licensed under part seventy, which is meant for fuel facilities, uh I think that would be appropriate uh for all technologies.

Okay, my time has expired, I yield back, thank you.

Thank you. The chair recognizes a gentleman from Colorado, Mister Evans, for his five minutes of questioning.

Thank you, Chair, Ranking Member. Thank you of course to the witnesses for taking some time to come out and talk to us today. Um, I'm from Colorado, we know it's happening. Energy demand is rising rapidly. uh, I've got utilities in my district that are expecting to triple demand in the next ten years, and that's after already doubling it in the last ten years. Uh, and unfortunately, the energy policies in Colorado right now, not my numbers, the Democrat controlled Colorado Energy Office say that their plan, uh, to get to, uh, net zero emissions is gonna cost sixty billion plus dollars. Uh, and as we're doing that, they're actually making less electricity per federal data, fifty eight thousand gigawatt hours. Um, two years ago and only fifty six thousand gigawatt hours this year. So, people are paying more money for less electricity, less reliable electricity. Uh, and one of the ways we can fix that is with nuclear. Uh, it's base load dispatchable, it's very low emissions, uh, it helps keep prices stable, prevents blackouts, preemptive shutouts, uh, and permitting reform is an essential piece of being able to bring this energy back onto the grid. Um, I've been proud to work on a bipartisan permitting framework uh with some of my colleagues actually on this committee um and across the aisle, uh, mister Peters being one, um, which has got the support of about fifty bipartisan members of Congress. And one of the things in that platform um is eliminating the uncontested mandatory NRC hearings for new reactors. Uh, and that's reflected in one of the bills before us today, mister Griffiths' bill. Um, and in previous conversations, uh, experts have testified that that could reduce permitting timelines by six months without compromising public safety or engagement. Um, and so I'm super excited to see this bill moving. Uh, my first question, um, to uh, Mr. Harrell is gonna be to you. Uh, we've got innovation happening all over uh the nation, uh, and even in the state of Colorado. Uh, Buckley Air Force Base or Space Force Base, uh, they're under a Department of War contract to bring micro-reactor technology in my district. Uh, we've got the old Fort St.

yeah it's a great congress uh question congressman and thank you for your leadership on permit reform um beyond the things that are nuclear specific here we need to be modernizing our grid

thank you

and really bringing new generation of all types uh to the marketplace quickly to meet rising demand. Um on the NRC side, we are in a critical moment, right. Uh a lot of the regulatory actions that have moved f- or have come forth in the last three months have been a result of your all's bipartisan leadership over the last ten years from NEMA from the Advance Act. Um and so you're we're now seeing those come to fruition and there's some real world examples of where we're seeing uh results coming from those, those type of reforms. I mean I would underscore in in Texas the Xenergy project, without the work that you all did over the last uh five years there is no way uh the nrc would have ultimately landed on an nea for that project and do the environmental in under twelve months um and then these bills build on that type of uh uh momentum right we need to keep plugging forward and showing the marketplace uh that we've got a regulator that's nimble that's predictable that is diligent um and that is ultimately gonna put us nuclear leadership in the forefront

thank you for that uh mister marifield i'm gonna come to you next uh chairman Um, I mentioned uh that thirty three thousand pounds of spent fuel that we have uh in my district in Colorado and so part of this whole nuclear conversation of course involves the supply chains from being able to produce the fuels uh mill and refine the fuels use them but then uh obviously what's the end of life cycle for those fuels. And so the the question to you today and I know we've already talked about it some, but if there's anything to add about um what is the legislation today that we're talking about or are there other things that we need to talk about to help the US establish that complete fuel cycle, um, specifically including that that end of life fuel and can modern technology help reuse that.

I think the legislation today is is gonna be helpful in helping to spur innovation in recycling of used nuclear fuel. Um, there are, by my count, probably seven or eight different com- companies out there that are pursuing different types of potential recycling of that material. As Maria described, it would, uh, really um help utilize that material in a in a very uh appropriate way um very and and and frankly the massive amount of energy that it still contains uh will be something that could help power um our nation's future nuclear fleet. So that that's an area I think um we will see more coming out of the NRC, we'll see more that probably Congress will need to assist in that area, um it's quite exciting. I do think we need to put some attention to the front-end of the fuel cycle, um uranium production, conversion, having sufficient enrichment, all of these pieces come together uh for us to be able to be able to build and sustain a nuclear fleet.

I I also will get gaveled if I keep going, so I'm out of time and will yield back.

Thank you, Mister Evans, chair, I recognize this is Doctor Joyce from Pennsylvania for his five minutes of question.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and thank you, ranking matter member Car- Caster for holding this important hearing. And thank you for our witnesses for being here today. Recently, I had the opportunity to travel with chairman Lada as well as other colleagues from the energy subcommittee on a bipartisan congressional delegation to France looking at their nuclear energy. There we heard from companies and government officials on how successful their expansion and use of nuclear energy has been. Since their large-scale expansion plan started in the mid-nineteen seventies, France has transformed themselves from an energy importer to an energy exporter. bolstering their economy while also relying on nuclear generation for a significant portion of their domestic energy needs. As we talk about achieving American energy dominance, I believe we can learn from the efforts in France. Already in places like my home state of Pennsylvania, we are seeing the expansion of nuclear generation. Just over one hundred miles from where we're sitting here today, constellation energy is well on their way to bringing the crane the crane clean energy center back online. America has an advantage over France, though. Vast fossil fuel resources like the natural gas that is underneath the feet of my constituents. This will allow us to even further leverage nuclear energy as it is brought online to improve our electrical grid and ensure reliable and affordable energy, for all Americans. Miss Korsnick. You mentioned in your testimony the momentum that is building up behind the deployment of new nuclear generation assets. How would the regulatory reforms under consideration today help bolster that momentum?

Yeah, um, it's, I'd say, critical, uh, because it brings that regulatory predictability. And, uh, Mr. Harrell has mentioned that, uh, a few times, uh, today. If you want investment in nuclear, you have to demonstrate that you're gonna take that great idea and it's gonna actually turn into a power plant, it's gonna turn into energy and it's gonna get on the grid. Or it's gonna turn into high temperature steam and it's gonna go to your factory and it's gonna be put to use. And so the ambiguity around nuclear starts in the regulatory process. How long is it actually gonna take for me to get that license or that construction permit? So the things that you're focused on here helps bring that predictability, which is crucial.

Is that ambu ambu is that ambiguity that you talk about, does that stifle innovation, does that stifle the progress that is so necessary?

Well, yeah, because it just takes too long to get to the marketplace, right? Innovation feeds on I not only had the great idea, but I turned the great idea into a widget that works, that I can bring to the marketplace. Well, if you can't get it to the marketplace, clearly, uh, it stifles.

You mentioned the success of executive orders in helping improve regulations. Do you agree that codified regulatory reforms would provide further confidence for developers to invest in upgrades and new deployments of nuclear assets?

Absolutely.

Mister Merrifield, do you agree that ensuring any regulatory improvement supply both to new nuclear generation and restarting or upgrading existing assets will aid the expansion of nuclear capacity of the grid.

Yes.

Mister Harrell, can you discuss how effectively deploying nuclear energy domestically can ultimately affect United States' global competitiveness?

Absolutely, sir. Um, we have to first learn by or have to do first, right, and show the globe that we can build these reactors and designs and and demonstrate these technologies. But in the end, the diplomatic partnerships that happen in nuclear are a century-long century-long agreement. Um, and China and Russia are going on offense on that. We're seeing those countries ultimately go to partners who are interested in nuclear, an immense amount of countries showing interest in - in new nuclear because of what it can bring to them for energy security and they're offering fuel take-back they're offering investments in the technology to build up, they're even willing to staff it in many cases. We're never gonna outsubsidize China, but what we can do is use better technology and ultimately the tools that we have in our tool belt, whether that's the Export-Import Bank of the US, which is up for reauthorization, the great work that Congress recently did in a bipartisan way to reauthorize the Development Finance Corporation, I mean other tools in the tool belt to off- uh to provide US offerings and ultimately be c- competitive on the market.

Well you talk about,

Yeah, co-

you talk about China and Russia both being on the offense. Is it time that we get off the sidelines and implement and allow the regulations to step aside so we can become part of that game again?

Uh

It's an it's a national se- security imperative for lead. I wouldn't say that we need to step away from the regulations. We need to show that we're a diligent, efficient regulator and that the rest of the globe can trust the diligence we've done on U. S. technology.

As we watch momentum build in the nuclear domain, I look forward to working with this committee to ensure that federal regulations are aligned with industry realities so that we can all benefit from affordable, reliable energy. Thank you, Mister Chairman, for allowing me to wave on, and I yield back.

Thank you, Dr. Joyce. Uh, the chair recognized myself for five minutes of questioning, um, seeing how there's no one left here right now, that doesn't mean someone may walk in. Um, but, Mr. Marifold, can I follow up with you? I know Mr. Pflueger from Texas, uh, talked about the SMR in Abilene, and you mentioned your involvement with it. Can you follow up on that? Um, I understand there is a bump in the road that we hope to rectify quickly, but let's talk about nationally. What other SMRs are out there? I think we're all in agreement. that that is a future, that's something we're all excited about, both on the Republican and Democrat side. So what other SMRs out there, and how close are we for them to come online?

Well, I I think there's a a lot of movement we're seeing, you have TerraPower which has its uh site in in Kemmerer Wyoming that's under construction. Um Xenergy which is a uh high temperature gas is is um moving forward well with s the CDRIR site in uh in Texas. Uh I think a number of states have announced movement forward. We've got the restart of the Palisades plant, the Crane Energy Center uh announcement of Duane Arnold uh in Iowa, which were previously uh considered reactors. State of South Carolina has an has an effort underway right now with um trying to bring s- summer unit two and three, which were the Westinghouse reactors, that started getting them uh back on board. Um I've talked to uh, you know, I talked to a utility executive of a large nuclear utility very recently You know, they had they had brought in experts to look at do we go with gas, do we go with nuclear, and they and they realized they really have to go with nuclear. So a lot of movement. All the advanced reactor work being done by DOE and elsewhere, um, really bringing things forward. So there's a huge amount of activity underway.

And so that's great news. How far do you think we are from cities being powered by SMRs?

Well, I think some of the micro-reactors are quite far along uh and i think because they are smaller and easier to deploy i think we'll see some of those put on the on the grid quicker um a large gigawatt size reactor like a westing s. eight P one thousand you know you order one today it's gonna take you probably seven or eight years to get to get it up and up and operating with all the approvals and requirements and what not so uh but i think we're making real progress. The other thing i would i would just mention quickly

Oh sure.

Ontario has uh GE uh BWX three hundreds, under construction right now those were developed in wilmington north carolina by g. u. v. nova um we're gonna see more of those in the us as well

and i was gonna follow up with are the economics there for them to compete let's say with natural gas

um nuclear is a uh a higher upfront investment in part because of the of the interest cost but i think if you look at the long range value of nuclear uh it beats everything including gas over the long range

Thank you very much. I'm gonna yield back the balance of my time. I'll recognize Mister Griffith for five minutes of questioning.

Thank you so much, Mister Chairman, for letting me uh wave on. Sorry, I haven't been here earlier. I was out doing other things, but uh and I'm not a regular member of the subcommittee. I'm I'm waving on. It used to be, and it's a great sub. Uh, but one of the s- one of the bills the subcommittee is discussing, the bill is a bill that Doctor Schreier, Representative Vizier and myself introduced, H R six four six four, the efficient nuclear licensing hearings act and uh our bill amends the atomic energy act to repeal the requirements for mandatory nuclear licensing hearings uh mister harold do you believe that these hearings actually contribute to stopping unsafe reactor designs

no i do not they're they're at the end of the process uh when they're uncontested and so by eliminating it uh we've already had the diligence uh by the nrc before

it's kind of uh duplicative and it's something that's hung around since what nineteen fifty seven and if nobody asks for it um it it really doesn't do much isn't that correct

correct

and this would make things a little streamline then without sacrificing any safety correct

exactly it could save thousands of hours of preparation that happen by nrc staff uh up to a million dollars uh for this process and uh delays application approvals by six months on average

So it causes delays, it runs up costs, and it has no net benefit for the um public.

Exactly.

Sounds like a good bill. I'm glad I introduced it. Um.

Thank you.

Ms. Korzenik, when we talk about mandatory hearings, nuclear reactor appl- applicants have to pay the NRC engineering staff to examine its application by the hour. Isn't that correct?

That's correct.

And so that's kind of the cost we were talking about. Isn't that accurate? When when when we have these extra hearings that are not beneficial?

Ab- absolutely. Runs at cost uh needlessly.

And how much does an applicant pay the commission staff per hour to examine its application?

Mm.

Not sure?

No, I think it's on the order of three hundred dollars an hour.

Three hundred, three hundred and twenty-five in that range per hour per staff.

So not quite Philadelphia lawyer fees, but higher than your average worker in the ninth congressional district of Virginia.

Well, and when you have a a dozen NRC staffers sitting around a table, it adds up quick.

Yeah. So you're talking three hundred plus and times twelve or

That's right.

eight or fifteen. All right.

And and by the way, the the NRC, I was a commissioner, we called for the elimination of these hearings over twenty years ago. This is long overdue.

Does anybody disagree with that? I mean, I'll give the naysayers a chance.

Even the NRC agrees.

All right. Well. Mr. Chairman, it sounds like without using up my whole five minutes that uh everybody's in agreement that uh the bill that uh Doctor Schreier, Representative Vesey and myself introduced, HR six four six four oughta move forward. And I appreciate their testimony and their time here today, and I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. Griffith. Chair recognizes Congresswoman Miller-Minks from Iowa for her five minutes of questioning.

Uh, thank you very much, Mister Chair, and I uh thank uh Representative Griffith for waving on. Uh, Uh, the current increased rates that people are experiencing right now are due to four years of a deterrence of energy generation and energy subtraction from the Biden administration so let me also say that Iowans and Americans are very appreciative of this hearing the United States is entering a new era of nuclear deployment and the institutions responsible for licensing and oversight must be ready to meet it. advanced reactors are moving from concept to construction, retired plants are seeking to restart, such as the one in Iowa, and domestic fuel infrastructure is being rebuilt from the ground up after decades of atrophy. Congress has a narrow window to remove the remaining friction to clear the procedural backlog that slows restart applications align enrichment licensing with the rest of the fuel cycle and make sure the NRC has the staff to handle what is coming. The opportunity is real. but it's not going to wait indefinitely. Mister Merrifield, you've been calling for the elimination of mandatory uncontested hearings since your time on the commission. And you support refocusing the ACRS on genuinely novel safety significant issues. Dwayne Arnold is a proven boiling uh water reactor with decades of operational history. There's nothing novel about the technology and nothing contested about the community's desire to see it back online. Can you tell us concretely how much time and cost these two reforms together could save a restart applicant like Nextera, and is there any safety justification for requiring either a mandatory uncontested hearing or a full ACRS review for a plant that was operating safely just five years ago?

Uh, I I would say in this case I don't I don't think either either one is is necessary. Um, in terms of the total savings, it it would likely range you know in the in the millions of dollars and certainly significant time both on the part of the nrc and of the applicant now i would put one caveat um there may be a unique circumstance it could be identified where the commission might wanna have the acrs look at it this legislation would not uh at all impose on the ability to do that if the commission felt that that review was needed

so the safety for the community would certainly be paramount in that situation

safety is paramount i don't think this legislation does anything to erode that

Um, and Mister Harrell, the conversation around nuclear energy is often framed as an energy policy issue, but increasingly it's also a matter of uh economic competitiveness, supply chain resilience and national security. Today, Russia remains the dominant supplier in the global nuclear market, providing reactor technology, fuel services, financing and long-term operational support to countries around the world. China is making significant investments

Yeah, um, first and foremost, I I think we've got the the premier technologies here and folks wanna work with the US, but the critical issue at the moment is we need to be able to deploy here and we need to be able to deploy efficiently uh the nrc is a critical regulator that is is recognized globally so success going through that process uh is instrumental in confidence in in doing this uh globally as well so we have to do here first and and meet our constituents needs uh obviously or the us consumers needs and then we have products that we can then market abroad uh folks wanna partner with the us these are century-long partnerships um and they're gonna have confidence in this in this technology as entrepreneurs and innovators are racing to the commercial market place.

Congressman, I was in Rwanda two weeks ago at a ministerial meeting hosted by the president of Rwanda, twelve countries, the message was we want American technologies. Um Holtec one I forgot to mention, a New Jersey based company that has a three hundred megawatt reactor signed an agreement there uh for cooperative agreement that was great news, uh it wasn't a Chinese signing, it wasn't a Russian signing. it was an American company, that's a good thing.

Well, I was gonna say we used to be the leader in all nuclear energy and with the capacity to train nuclear engineers and then that stopped. Um, I have a question for Miss Korzenek. I'm gonna submit it to the record to have you answer. And Mister Merrifield, you testified that uh NRCC is now more efficient, risk-informed, and results-oriented at any other point than in the past twenty years. Are restart applicants actually experiencing that cultural change in their interactions with NRC staff? or is the improvement concentrated in the advanced reactor licensing divisions, while the team's handling convention license actions remain more conservative?

I think the uh the licensing activities associated with Holtec's uh Palisades restart went quite well um and were ahead of time. I would expect the lessons that the NRC staff learned from that would enter well to the benefit of the review that uh uh next year will have for Dwayne Arnold. I would expect that one to go would that one would go very smoothly.

Thank you very much, I yield back.

Thank you. With that, I wanna thank Ranking Member Caster. Uh, we certainly wanna thank all the witnesses for being here today and taking your time to spend with us. Members have additional written questions uh for you all. I'll remind members, uh may have, members may have additional written questions for you all. I'll remind members they have ten business days to submit additional questions for the record. And I ask that witnesses do their best to submit responses within ten business days upon receipt of those questions. Ask unanimous consent to insert in the record the documents included on the staff hearing documents list. Without objection, so ordered. Without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned.

All right, good job.