Section 1 Short title
This Act may be cited as the “Nuclear Regulatory Commission Survey Act” or the “NRC Survey Act”.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Survey Act
A BILL
To require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to distribute an optional and anonymous survey to certain Commission employees to ultimately find solutions to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Commission, and for other purposes.
Sec. 2 NRC Survey
Findings— Congress finds the following:
The Commission is an independent agency created by Congress in 1974 to ensure the safe use of radioactive materials and nuclear power for beneficial civilian purposes while protecting people and the environment.
The mission of the Commission is to regulate the national civilian use of nuclear byproducts, nuclear sources, and special nuclear materials to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety, to promote the common defense and security, and to protect the environment.
Before commercial nuclear technology can be deployed in the United States, it must be approved by the Commission.
Historically, the Commission has been a thorough, methodical, and conservative agency and is considered to be the gold standard in the world with respect to regulating nuclear power.
The Commission is a technically competent agency that seeks strategies to successfully modernize its approach to license the next generation of nuclear reactors.
Current licensing procedures through the Commission are very prescriptive and based primarily on conventional pressurized water reactor designs that have the potential to restrict nuclear innovation.
The existing design, licensing, and delivery processes for new reactor projects are extremely expensive and have lengthy timelines compared to such design, licensing, and delivery processes in other countries.
The Commission reports directly to Congress each year and is an independent agency that is not a part of the executive branch.
Sense of Congress— It is the sense of Congress that Congress—
recognizes the need for the Commission to maintain public trust by keeping the nuclear industry safe while also recognizing the need for increased efficiency to license nuclear reactors in the United States;
understands that asking for continued transparency from the Commission relating to the development and licensing of nuclear reactors is important for Congress and the American public;
stresses the need for the Commission to modernize its regulatory regime to facilitate efficient licensing of innovative next-generation nuclear technology; and
believes that unnecessarily long licensing reviews raise significant barriers to investment, reduce customer interest in advanced reactors, and threaten the long-term deployment potential of nuclear reactors for the next generation.
NRC employee survey—
In general— Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the inspector general shall draft and distribute an optional and anonymous survey, in accordance with paragraphs (3) and (4), to covered employees.
Report— Not later than 60 days after the date of distributing the survey to covered employees pursuant to paragraph (1), the inspector general shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report containing—
an unbiased cumulative summary of the responses to each question of such survey;
a document that contains every individual response to each question of such survey; and
any other information the inspector general determines necessary or appropriate.
Contents of survey— The survey drafted and distributed under paragraph (1) shall inquire about the following:
Any enhancements that can be made to existing licensing frameworks utilized by the Commission to increase the efficiency, timeliness, and predictability of engagements between the Commission and licensees.
How the Commission could improve the process of preparing for and learning about the technical details of each proposed nuclear reactor in a licensing application.
How the Commission could improve outreach to stakeholders, including any recommendations with respect to changing the existing policies of the Commission relating to public engagement.
Whether the Commission implemented a risk-informed and performance-based approach to reviewing licensing applications and, if implemented, how the Commission has implemented such approach to reviewing licensing applications.
Examples of laws or regulations relating to nuclear energy that—
may be unnecessary, irrelevant, or duplicative;
need to be revised for modern advanced reactors; and
negatively affects the effectiveness and efficiency of the Commission.
How the Commission could maximize the efficiency of licensing reactors that are similar to reactors that are already licensed by the Commission.
How efficient the Commission would be in reviewing licensing applications if the Commission reviewed licensing applications through a holistic approach instead of a chapter-by-chapter approach.
How providing clear expectations and targets for achievable review milestones for potential applicants would affect the process of reviewing and approving licensing applications.
Suggestions for Congress to revise or clarify any terms and definitions relating to nuclear energy that—
are used within the scope of employment for covered employees;
may be outdated;
have inconsistencies in term usage or definitions across different laws and regulations; or
with respect to terms and definitions relating to nuclear energy in laws and regulations, used within the scope of employment for covered employees.
Any term, and the corresponding definition, relating to nuclear energy and nuclear waste matters in laws and regulations, that are used within the scope of employment for covered employees, that—
may be outdated and in need of revision;
have—
inconsistencies in the definition of such term across different laws and regulations; or
inconsistencies in the definition of such term across different agencies; and
may affect potential innovation in the nuclear industry due to the inconsistencies described in clause (ii) in the definition of such term.
Suggestions to Congress to clarify any inconsistencies described in paragraph (3)(J)(ii).
Whether covered employees feel a sense of urgency when reviewing a licensing application.
Whether covered employees believe that the lack of efficient licensing is hampering nuclear innovation and dissuading American companies from getting involved in the nuclear industry.
Whether covered employees believe that the Commission is capable of approving potentially hundreds of new licensing applications, including licensing applications for fission reactors and fusion reactors, in a timely manner over the course of the upcoming decades.
Suggestions to redefine the overall mission statement and mandate of the Commission so that such mission statement and mandate reflects the goals of maintaining safety and promoting nuclear innovation.
Challenges a covered employee faces on a daily basis within the scope of employment of such covered employee and how Congress could alleviate such challenges.
How the current funding structure of the Commission affects the ability of the Commission to—
engage in rulemaking or licensing review;
educate covered employees; and
conduct research to support risk-informed and performance-based regulations.
How the current funding structure of the Commission may inhibit private companies from—
rapidly acquiring licenses for new nuclear reactors; and
suggesting improvements to the Commission, if any, to such funding structure.
Any obstacles imposed by the Commission that—
negatively affect American nuclear competitiveness; and
should be removed.
How the Commission could improve the resolution of disagreements between applicants and covered employees.
Recommendations on improving communication between the Commission and applicants with respect to providing an early and predictable timeline and estimated costs of the licensing application process, including preapplication review and application review.
Whether the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (established under section 29 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2039)) is effectively and efficiently reviewing safety studies and licensing applications, or whether the role of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards—
is unnecessary and redundant with the existing review process by the Commission; and
ultimately impedes nuclear innovation.
How the Commission is using artificial intelligence, whether the functions of the Commission could be improved if the Commission adopted an AI-friendly culture, and what organizational challenges the Commission would face in adopting and using a broader range of artificial intelligence.
How digitizing old data and information may improve the overall efficiency of the Commission, the steps taken to digitize such data and information, and any challenges the Commission is facing or will face in digitizing such data and information.
Challenges the Commission faces with relying on data from safety and performance data simulations of proposed nuclear reactors during the application review.
How effective the Commission is at communicating to applicants, potential applicants, and nuclear stakeholders about changes made to the regulatory process.
Whether any new requirements or processes implemented following the nuclear accident in Fukushima may have inadvertently changed the culture and safety precautions of the Commission in a negative manner, including any unnecessary and burdensome regulations that were promulgated due to such nuclear accident.
How to make the budget and fee processes of the Commission more transparent.
Whether the Commission is taking appropriate actions to hire highly skilled, technical individuals to prepare for the future influx of licensing new nuclear reactors.
Whether the Federal Government should standardize the definition of nuclear waste.
The effectiveness of topical reports in the licensing process, how topical reports improve the efficiency of the licensing process, any challenges that are involved with topical reports, and suggestions on how to improve the timeliness of reviewing and approving topical reports.
In the event the use of a topic report is not applicable, the effectiveness of other forms of preapplication engagement, including how the Commission and potential applicants may reach a resolution or binding conclusions on key issues in a timely manner.
How the Commission could navigate environmental impact statements in an efficient and effective manner, and any challenges that arise while performing and reviewing environmental impact statements.
Any lessons the Commission can learn from foreign governmental agencies that govern nuclear energy.
Any other question that the inspector general, in consultation with the Commissioners of the Commission, determines appropriate.
Additional language— The survey drafted and distributed under paragraph (1) shall include at the top of the survey a statement that—
describes the intent of this Act in relation to the purpose of the survey drafted and distributed under paragraph (1); and
assures covered employees that there will be no repercussions or consequences from taking such survey.
Stakeholder survey—
In general— Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the inspector general shall, if feasible, draft and distribute a survey similar to the survey under subsection (c) to stakeholders in the nuclear industry in accordance with this subsection.
Participation—
Stakeholder request— If feasible, in distributing a survey under paragraph (1), the inspector general shall distribute such survey to a stakeholder in the nuclear industry only upon request by such stakeholder.
Anonymity— If feasible, the inspector general shall establish a process that allows stakeholders in the nuclear industry to anonymously request to participate in the survey under subsection (a).
Notification— If stakeholders in the nuclear industry are able to anonymously request to participate in the survey under this subsection, not later than 5 days after the date the Commission distributes the survey described in subsection (c), the inspector general shall notify such stakeholders that have previously engaged with the Commission, and such stakeholders that are engaged in discussions with the Commission at a time after the date of enactment of this Act, about the opportunity to participate in the survey under paragraph (1).
Report— Not later than 60 days after the date of distributing the survey described in paragraph (1), the inspector general shall transmit to the appropriate congressional committees a report, accompanying the report in subsection (c)(2), containing—
an unbiased cumulative summary of the responses to each question of such survey;
a document that contains each individual response to each question of such survey; and
any other information the inspector general determines necessary or appropriate.
Excluded activity from cost-Recovery requirement— Section 102(b)(1)(B) of the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (Public Law 115–439; 132 Stat. 5565) is amended by adding at the end the following:
“(iv) Costs for activities related to drafting and distributing surveys under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Survey Act.”
Definitions— In this section:
Appropriate congressional committees— The term appropriate congressional committees means—
the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Oversight and Accountability of the House of Representatives; and
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate.
Commission— The term Commission means the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Covered employee— The term covered employee means any applicable employee of the Commission.
Inspector general— The term inspector general means the inspector general of the Commission.