Chairman Capito Participates in EPW Subcommittee Hearing on Nuclear Energy Legislation

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, U.S. Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, participated in an EPW Clean Air, Climate and Nuclear Innovation and Safety Subcommittee hearing examining S. ____ Build Nuclear with Local Materials Act, a discussion draft of S. ___ The RECHARGE Act and a discussion draft of S. ____ Enrichment Licensing Modernization Act.

During the hearing, Chairman Capito asked witnesses about implementation of the ADVANCE Act and how changes brought about by this legislation have made improvements to Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) operations. She also asked witnesses about the distinct roles of the NRC and the Department of Energy (DOE) in nuclear reactor licensing.

HIGHLIGHTS:

LEGISLATIVE OPPORTUNITIES AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ADVANCE ACT

Chairman Capito:

"Over recent years, Congress has actively focused on addressing outdated statutory requirements that have limited the safe deployment of nuclear power. The cornerstone of those was the enactment of the bipartisan ADVANCE Act, the bill that I sponsored with help from members of this Committee, including Ranking Member Whitehouse, Senators Lummis and Kelly.

So, while we focused on ensuring the NRC implements the bill as we intended, there are discreet and targeted legislative changes that need to be addressed, and that's the subject of this discussion obviously. Those issues include eliminating what is known as the "mandatory hearing," […] modernizing the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards and building on previous efforts to provide sufficient compensation to NRC leadership to compete with the private sector.

We had a hearing last week […] with all the NRC Commissioners. I was very encouraged in that hearing because having sat in past hearings, oversight hearings, with the NRC, there […] had previously been a lot more tension and a lot more disagreement among Commissioners and therefore a lot of stagnation. This particular commission that's been put together, while there are differences, […] it appeared […] as though they are cleaning out the cobwebs here and moving towards where they have […] possibility of reaching agreements to pick up speed and to implement the ADVANCE Act at the same time. So that, to me, is encouraging.

I would be interested to know, we'll just go through the panel here, Mr. Loris. Would you agree with that, with the implementation of the ADVANCE Act and the EO 14300? How has the NRC been moving forward, in your opinion, on that?"

Nick Loris, President of C3 Solutions and Energy Fellow at the Abundance Institute:

"I think very well. And kudos to you for the passage and ultimately signing ADVANCE into law, as well as NEIMA. I think it built a foundation that so many proponents of nuclear energy have been talking about for so long, which is how do we reform and modernize the NRC and how do we reform a lot of outdated rules and regulations? And I think what the NRC is doing now is making progress on that…"

Dr. Adam Stein, Director of Nuclear Energy Innovation at the Breakthrough Institute:

"Yes, I agree with that. I think the commission is working well together at this point, and they all are, and mentioned in the last hearing to my recollection that they're all focused on enabling nuclear technologies for the benefit of society. And that difference has shifted how they're approaching what needs to be done, and the timeliness of how it needs to be done. There are around 70 rule makings ongoing right now, which is a huge change from the past…"

Dr. Patrick White, Group Leader for Fusion, Safety, and Regulation at the Clean Air Task Force:

"I agree with both Mr. Loris and Dr. Stein. The pace of change at the NRC over the last few years, really pushed by Congress, by the administration, has been unprecedented. I think if we had discussions about how quickly the NRC is completing some of these new rules, people that have been in the industry for years wouldn't have believed it, and so I think it is a really exciting time to see how the NRC is updating its processes, updating its internal culture, and really moving quickly on these things.

The two items I would just note, though, is that I think they're with such, with the excitement that we have around the pace of this regulatory change, let's make sure that we're not just rushing for the sake of rushing, and we're still ensuring that the regulations that we're developing are effective and efficient. To the point that Dr. Stein made, with 70 rule makings that are ongoing right now, there's a lot to review, both for NRC staff, for the commission, and for public stakeholders that really want to provide the input from their own perspective, whether it's members of the public or companies. How do we make sure that the rules that are moving through ultimately meet the need of the industry and of the nation?

I think the other thing to just keep in mind is, let's not lose sight of the licensing reviews that are underway right now at the NRC. I think sometimes there can be a bit of a distraction on, okay, what's the new thing that we're working through, what are the rules? But let's not lose track of the companies that are actually making progress and make sure they're getting the resources."

Chairman Capito:

"As I recall from the previous meeting that we had, I think it's part of my remarks. It was noting that one of the license reviews had moved through […] much more timely than it had been in the past. […] And the other thing, obviously, is the first thing, number one, is safety all the way through […]. And if you could say, 'Oh, we're rushing 70 regulations through,' it could appear that you're forsaking safety. They made it all clear all through the panel that safety is number one and remains number one. And so, I was pleased with that."

THE ROLES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND NRC LICENSING

Chairman Capito:

"Last question I wanted to ask is, the Department of Energy launched an initiative to use a previously unused authority to allow for construction and operation of privately owned and privately funded nuclear reactors. This was undertaken in part because of historic challenges we just talked about, about slow and expensive licensing.

Dr. Stein, what is your view of these respective tools for the DOE? […] And the roles of each, DOE and NRC, in terms of licensing test reactors and commercial power plants? And do you think any limits should be placed on DOE authority, and how to make sure that the current initiatives don't sacrifice long-term durability?"

Dr. Adam Stein, Director of Nuclear Energy Innovation at the Breakthrough Institute:

"I think that the NRC has jurisdiction over commercial and industrial applications of reactor and nuclear power technology under the Atomic Energy Act, pretty clearly. And that was not removed from the NRC's purview when the Energy Reorganization Act split the Atomic Energy Commission into the NRC and what became DOE.

DOE has authority to develop technologies and test and research technologies, but there are authorities limited to what is under contract for the Department of Energy. It's not primarily supposed to be for commercial or industrial uses. Atomic Energy Act under Section 104 gives the NRC the authority for research and test reactors for a reason, so research and test reactors can be properly licensed for long-term use, and the NRC has used that authority for both research and university and other test reactors in the past.

So, for durability, my view is that we need to fix the NRC, not bifurcate the licensing between DOE to NRC process. That is not to say that there is no pathway between the two. Technologies that are developed under DOE should have a path to commercialization. Ultimately, there shouldn't be a barrier there, but I don't think that that should be the primary pathway."

Chairman Capito:

"Dr. White, do you have an opinion on that?"

Dr. Patrick White, Group Leader for Fusion, Safety, and Regulation at the Clean Air Task Force:

"Yes, I do. […] I completely agree with Dr. Stein here in terms of, how do we think about the Atomic Energy Act, and how do we think about really the role and regulatory jurisdiction of the Department of Energy and the NRC when it comes to these facilities? I think it's really important to keep in mind when Congress in 1974 ended up splitting the […] Atomic Energy Commission, the focus really was to say one organization should be primarily looking at commercial applications, licensing different activities, and that Department of Energy should be supporting these research and development activities.

And so I think, as we're trying to think about how to accelerate, I fully agree with Dr. Stein that the focus should really be on continuing the progress that we've seen at the NRC, and not trying to create alternative shortcuts or pathways around kind of the original intent of the Atomic Energy Act and the amendments in 1974. So, I think there are opportunities to think about how do we leverage lessons learned from projects that are licensed under the Department of Energy to subsequent commercial activities, but we shouldn't necessarily look for ways to get around that essentially separation of the Department of Energy and the NRC."

Click HERE to view Chairman Capito's questions.

# # #