Off the floor, house and Senate Conferees will meet to negotiate the differences between the two tax reform bills passed separately out of each chamber. You can follow the house live here on cspan when members return at noon eastern. Right now, though, until they come back, well take you live to a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on oversight committees at the Nuclear Regulatory commission. I was general counsel from early 2009 to 2012. They dont prohibit Foreign Ownership and uranium milling operations. It is again, milan as opposed. Go ahead. Mr. Burns yes. You dont have the prohibition for production utilization facilities. However, as with all licensing you have to reach the finding ininmicale. Thats a finding you have to make in licensing determinations. Senator carper correct lee me if im wrong but its the n. R. C. Staff and not the commissioners when it comes to the transfer of milling in our licensing or the export license, is that correct . Mr. Burns i think thats generally true. There are circumstances to which you might if you had a contested matter which the adjudicatory ts role i will have to refresh myself as we prepare to answer senator barrassos question. I dont think that was the case there was a contested or an a decision that came before the commission. Senator carper my memory is not what it used to be either but if you find you want to add something for the record in response to my questions that will be fine. I would ask you also for the record, do you believe that the n. R. C. Staff followed all appropriate regulations and guidance for uranium one and reviews and decisions and if you want to respond to that now you may or may respond for the record . Mr. Burns i think ill respond for the record because having just seen the letter come in i dont have a robust recollection of the particular circumstances at that time. Id appreciate the opportunity to do that. Senator carper lets talk a little bit about morale. Used to be the top of the charts. Number one. Down to number 11. Think went down to 12, maybe 11. Youre coming up in the right direction. Number 11 with a bullet, as i hope. Commissioner, can you take a minute, tell us about the impact of the recent budget cuts. Can the n. R. C. Complete the work that it needs to do in a timely manner . Well, thank you for the question. I think youre right that the effort and the budget cuts have had an impact on morale. I think its primarily there are few opportunities for promotion, often reduced training, rotational opportunities. We need to make sure at the agency that we retain the tremendous talent that we have. Its really a terrific work force. Its still a great place to work. And im hopeful that one of the things we can do with strategic Work Force Planning tools is to help the staff better see if they want to get to a position in a few years, what particular skills they need to work on, the training, the rotational opportunities to get themselves in position to advance to that position, to move into those positions. I think given the staff a better sense, what are the opportunities at n. R. C. , and what do they need to do themselves to get themselves in position to take advantage of those opportunities will help morale further. I think we are starting to head in the right direction but its been a challenging time. Senator carper i have more questions. Maybe about new reactors. Interested asking questions about that but thanks for your responses. I look for your responses for the record, mr. Burns, thank you. Thank you, senator carper. Senator capito. Senator capito thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, all, for being here today. On march 8, which was the very same day that we had a legislative hearing on the Bipartisan NuclearEnergy Innovation and modernization act, which we joined together on, the g. A. O. Published a report on the n. R. C. s budget structure and justifications. In my view, part of the one of the things i found troubling in the report it seems as though the n. R. C. Is keeping two sets of books, and i quote, one to formulate its budget, and another obligate funds based on its appropriations for congress. To put it another way, the n. R. C. Has budget in its budget it creates a public consumption for congress but then operates under a separate budget under its internal operations, making it tough for authorizers and appropriators, which i am an appropriator, and obviously we are the authorizers, to discern how the n. R. C. Is actually spending taxpayers dollars. So as an example, according to the n. R. C. s monthly report, 3,2100. Had a had in time equifflents equivalents this past september. If you kind of multiply that out, thats about 25 Million Dollars in, quoteunquote, extra funding. In other words, f. T. E. s that were budgeted for but not actually filled. I believe mr. Baran mentioned that the work force is down 12 . I would like to know an speculation of where is where are these extra dollars that were actually appropriated that were not fulfilled by the f. T. E. s that were actually n. R. C. . At the n. R. So some flushing out where that is and does that mean your budget requests in the future will be lower because you were able to roll this money over . How does that work. Ms. Svinicki thank you for the question, senator. If i could supplement this for the record because there are a lot of moving parts here, it is true that over the course of the last budget year we were conducting a reduction in force and we were through attrition getting smaller in the area of f. T. E. The difference in funding i would forecast probably will has shown up as carryover money from one budget year to the next. If our Staffing Levels at the end of the year ended up being lower than the requested budget, some of that would likely materialize as carryover funding into the fiscal 2018, the current fiscal year. And its difficult as we develop the Agency Budgets two years in advance since we are reducing in employment levels, its difficult for us when we submit the budget to forecast the exact difference. Again, we were under the period youre discussing was a period of continued decline in Staffing Levels. So we probably hit a little bit under the target and had fewer staff at the end of the fiscal year. So i think in general its a forecasting error but the money likely would show up as carryover. Senator capito so when you say carryover, does that mean you carry over to the next year and subtract that from your budget request the upcoming fiscal year . Ms. Svinicki well, i can check for this fall but often appropriations clerks will ask us for updated carryovers as we approach the end of the fiscal year. Sometimes appropriators make an adjustment in the enacted level based on the carryover since we tend to have the enacted levels after the start of the fiscal year now. Senator capito do you know if the f. R. C. Treats this carryover or extra amount that you have at the end of the year, is that a fungible line item, does it have to go to f. T. E. s, how do you treat that . Svincki i dont know if thats consistent year to year. If i could take that for the record. Senator capito yes. I will say you are not the only Government Agency thats falling into this into this category. Ive always sort of you know, i dont know. According to the g. A. O. It was not a it was not a satisfactory way to actually present the reality of where your budget is and where the actual spending is and what happens to this extra extra or carryover amount. I think that needs to be tracked, it needs to be accounted for. Any Additional Information you can give me in written form would be much appreciated. Ms. Svinicki i will say in response to that g. A. O. Report both house and Senate Appropriations have instituted basically additional control points for the execution of our budget. And the monthly report you cite, too, is one of the outgrowth of our monthly reporting to our consistency with those budgetary control points. Senator capito i would say in october of 2017 you budgeted for 3293. In actuality its 31037. The pattern is still continuing. Realizing you cant get it down to the one or two, i get that. But its significant the numbers i think is 156. So with that i would just ask if we could maybe either, a, submit a question, or our staff could get with you to get more details on this. Thank you. Thank you, senator capito. Senator markey. Senator markey thank you, mr. Chairman. Commissioner baran, right now the United States has restarted negotiations with saudi arabia on nuclear cooperation. Both during the campaign it turns out and after becoming president Trumps National security advisor, flynn was beginning that process. So far we have not met the legal requirement to keep us informed of any negotiations relating to a new and amended agreement as required by the Atomic Energy act. Last week Trumps Energy secretary rick perry visited saudi arabia to discuss their bids to build new Nuclear Reactors. Its been reported that these deals may allow for enrichment of uranium which all previous u. S. Agreements have prohibited. The n. R. C. Has oversight responsibility over the export of nurke source materials and Technology Nuclear source materials and technology. Has the n. R. C. Been consulted on the export of these sensitive technologies . Commissioner baran so as part of the 123 agreement process, n. R. C. , as you mentioned, has a role. It comes later in the process when there are certain statutory findings the Commission Must make in order tore 123 agreement recommendation to go to the president. We are not at that stage yet. Senator markey so if the agreement does allow for the enrichment of uranium or reprocessing of plutonium, do you think that could pose a proliferation and safety risk . Commissioner baran well, its challenging to answer that question without having any sense of whats actually agreed to. I know that senator markey does a country need to be able to enrich enrich or reprocess in order to have a civilian Nuclear Power program or can they bring the uranium in from commissioner baran its not necessary. Senator markey the nuclear regular regget staff granted the power station and exemption from the requirement that a seismic probabilistic Risk Assessment be performed. They saw a bigger increase in seismic risk during the postfukushima. Pilgrim has a seismic hazard that is significant higher than the plant was designed to withstand. Seismic assessments are very important. These are used to evaluate our safe Nuclear Sites are from earthquakes and can be used to determine what improvements and changes need to be made to protect the sites and surrounding communities from disaster. Commissioner baran, while the n. R. C. Staff decided the pilgrim is not required to do this assessment, do you think that station should voluntarily perform a seismic analysis . Commissioner baran this was, as you mentioned, a staff decision. I think the staff in this case made the wrong decision given the particular set of situations at pilgrim. I think n. R. C. Should have asked for the assessment that should have been completed by the end of the year. Senator markey i agree with you. Since 2015 pilgrim has been assessed as having multiple reat the time tiff repetitive safety violations. The n. R. C. Is taking a rulemaking to decommissioning of plants. As pilgrim decommission, do you have any insight how that will take safety into account . Commissioner baran you know, with regard to pilgrim, the rulemaking is complete prior or after pilgrim has is already shut down so it may not be directly applicable to pilgrim depending what the ultimate timing is. I think the staff is aiming to complete a rulemaking package or draft final rule by the end of 2019. But i think its as i mentioned in my opening remarks, i think its going to be a very good move to move away from this exemption, regulation by exemption approach that can he currently have going on that we currently have going on. I think it makes sense a detailed list of the regulatory requirements, safety and security requirements that apply to a permanently defueled decommissioning plant. We dont have that right now. This rulemaking would accomplish that, and i think thats a good senator markey its imperative that the rules on decommissioning have safety and security long after they stop generating electricity. I have to say at the state of this industry, westinghouse went bankrupt while trying to complete the local plants. And thats not because of any tempts by granola frumping tree hugging liberals trying to stop the plant. It is very hard and very expensive to build Nuclear Power plants that are safe and theyre under tremendous pressure, obviously, from the wind and the Solar Industries which there is an attempt by the fans of all these alternative generating sources to take away the benefits for those competing sources of energy. I will say in response to the gentleman from oklahoma when he talked about the war and the Obama Administration on coal, gas and oil that there was a dramatic, historic rise in oil and natural Gas Production during the Obama Administration rise, dramatic rise. And amongst other things, the drop in the price of natural gas is what has led to wind and solar, the very difficult Economic Conditions within which the Nuclear Power industry is trying to survive. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, senator. Senator fischer. Senator fischer thank you, mr. Chairman. Madam chair, as i understand wyoming will likely become an n. R. C. Agreement state in 2018. As a result, the state of wyoming will begin regulating its uranium Recovery Facilities in place of the n. R. C. To do that. Seven of the nine uranium Recovery Facilities who paid fees to the n. R. C. In 2017 are located in wyoming. The other two are located in south dakota and my home state of nebraska. The n. R. C. Determines its uranium recovery annual fees by dividing by the number of facilities. So how will the n. R. C. Maintain the uranium Recovery Office to ensure the two remaining licensees are not unfairly burdened with an extreme increase in those regulatory costs . Ms. Svinicki thank you, senator, for this question. Although our commission has not grappled with this, i have been monitoring the potential impact that wyoming would have in the financial structure of how we recover costs and so i will speak for myself and not for my colleagues. This is a management challenge and i appreciate that you raised it. Already our director of the relevant office and our chief Financial Officer are looking at this question and so i think that there will be with wyoming taking a significant number of the entities now paying fees for uranium recovery regulation, this will be a step change for us. And so this isnt a small change. This will be something that were going to have to look at the structure of how were recovering these costs. I would like to maybe provide a fuller answer to you for the record on exactly where the chief Financial Officers examination of the question resides. Again, its a definite issue. So but im confident were foreseeing it and looking at it now. Senator fischer i appreciate you responding for the record. That would be helpful. I would also appreciate if you could keep our office informed on the progress that youre making on that before you announce any decisions publicly so that we would be able to have son input and also review with you. Also, madam chair, this committee has tasked the g. A. O. With reviewing the n. R. C. Cost estimating practices in the wake of concerns that the n. R. C. Significantly underestimated the cost of implementing its filtered vents proposal. In december of 2014, the g. A. O. Released a report that was fairly critical of the n. R. C. S Development of cost estimates stating the n. R. C. s procedures, quote, do not adequately support the creation of reliable cost estimates and that the cost estimate did not fully or substantially meet any of the four characteristics of a reliable cost estimate, end quote. The g. A. O. Recommended that the n. R. C. Alignment cost estimating procedures with relevant cost estimating best practices identified in the report. Miss fischer there are no objectives in place to look at the analysis. My question would be what basis does the n. R. C. Have for assessing whether the cost benefit analysis used by the commission for decisionmaking re, in fact, reliable . The g. A. O. Thank recommendations. And i dont dispute your description of the intervening time period, the g. A. O. But we been informed by the agency staff that they are the staff is updating the cost benefit guidance documents and among the changes that are being incorporated, they include recommendations from 2014 report findings, including that the agency adopt relevant cost estimating best practices identified in the 2014 report findings, including that the agency g. A. O. s 2009 guide or authoritative best practices that the g. A. O. Referred to. This is the staff communication to the commission of their current activities under way. We will look forward to updating you on dont have a date here for when that would be published. I think its 2018. But we can provide that answer for the record. Ms. Fischer i have a couple questions i would like to submit for the record. Chairman barrasso when senator markey was referring to tree hugging, i know that didnt apply to anyone any specific member, but with that let me recognize senator whitehouse. Senator whitehouse i resent that remark. Chairman barrasso represent. Senator whitehouse i would like to focus on the question of advanced reactor licensing. As you know i have been persistent about trying to open the possibility of next generation advanced Nuclear Technologies with the ultimate holy grail, if possible, of finding Nuclear Technologies that can allow us to go through our Nuclear Waste stockpile and try to turn that into valuable Energy Rather than leave it lying out there as a Massive Public health and financial liability. Authored hat i have cosponsored is still in process. We have i think considerable support for it. Its very bipartisan. In the meantime youall received a additional cosponso process. We have i think 5 illion appropriation for advanced reactor licensing. And i wanted to get your sense on how far that 5 million takes you. Does that take you 1 of the ay where you need to be . 2 . 10 , or can you wrap your hands and say job done, were all set with that money. What do you think let me put it another way. You are not supposed to ask for more money. If you continue to get that year nal 5 million after year, what time frame does that put you on for achieving your goal with respect to advanced reactor licensing . I know you are year after year, what time frame does that put you responding to all of our concerns about this by doing things administratively. If you could fill me in on whats happening administratively and what the 5 million does for you in the context of what youre trying to achieve. Ms. Svinicki thank you for that question. Ill start and my colleagues will probably remember some good points i wont remember. The most important use we put that 5 million to is making sure that n. R. C. Is engaged and part of the dialogue that is going on between the department of energy, the designers of these new designs, the national laboratories, and having the regulator in the room i think is important. Were have done what bringing to that engagement is we have created a strategy document and series of implementation plans. Hose are focused towards n. R. C. Developing the regulatory capacity and some of that is knowing different fuel cycles. Knowing different materials. What kind of capacity and expertise do we need to bring in an informed way to the engagement as the community of designers of these advanced reactors wants to push forward. Its also important that n. R. C. Experts be present with the department of n. R. C. Developing the regulatory capacity and some en National Laboratory experts because what i have learned is that the researchers at d. O. E. National labs are actually drawing upon the earliest experiences of the atomic history of the United States because some of the reactor designs are really not entirely new. They are designs that this country did Experimental Work on or prototyping in the 1960s nd 1970s. Senator whitehouse its used on outreach and connection ms. Svinicki the implementation plans allow us to look at what d. O. E. s doing, what the labs are bringing to table, what the vendors are identifying as the gaps and needs for information that they have. And were able our implementation plans are iraive iterative. But we dont want to go back where we throw up our hands and say we dont know anything about that type of material. Were never going to be able to approve its use in a nuclear reactor. We get to ng forward taking that framework and applying it to specific technical issues. From a budgetary standpoint i think thats where it gets more expensive because then the labs need to be doing things. We need to be weighing in on their testing plans and their data plans and say this if you collect this data, will it be sufficient for to us make regulatory determination . I think the framework is essential and we spent the 5 million on that. But in response to your question senator whitehouse let me ask if the other two commissioners if theres if you can make a joint statement that youall agree on in terms of a response to this being a question for the record. Or if youd like to add additional thoughts of your own i would invite you to respond in writing as a question for the record. In my last moments i just want to say again that to me it is very disappointing and discouraging to see safe and safely operating Nuclear Plants that produce carbonfree power have to close down in order to build and run new Carbon Pollution generating plants simply because of the market failure of having any value to the carbonfree nature of Nuclear Power. I know thats being resolved a bit at the state level. I hope that i can continue to work with colleagues to try to get something done. And o our Carbon Capture utilization storage bill to encourage the continued safely operating Nuclear Fleet not to have to be artificially shut down at a time when we could certainly use both the and utilization electricity, the jobs in those location, and carbon free nature of that power. Thank you. Chairman barrasso senator carper. Senator carper excuse me. Still in the room munching on a granola bar, i want to say i approve that message. Thank you. I want to come back to something that senator raising and raise it a different way. Several years ago, maybe five or six, i was with a member of our staff to france to look what they are doing with respect to efforts to recycle reprocessed spent fuel. And to see what lessons there were for us. And i know additional work has been done im sure in france but also here in this country. Could you just talk about that a little bit, looking forward, and with a real respect to what we need to be doing here in this side . Ms. Svinicki on the issue of recycling or reprocessing, early in my service on our commission i think in 2009 the agency received some expressions of interest from potential developers of reprocessing capability in the United States. I would say, though, in the last number of years since then we as a regulator, we have not heard any expressions of anyone interested in developing. In 2009 we were asked by the potential industry developer could we update our old regulations on reprocessing and recycling . Before we even understood that effort, i think the business interest in doing it diminished. Other than that its been fairly door meant area for us as a regular dorment area for us as a regulator. I would just echo the chairmans remarks. The three years i have been on the commission its not something i heard anyone propose to move in that direction. Which may be a reflection of low uranium prices. Mr. Burns. Per do you think going to any other countries in this regard, france or others, where they have a fair amount of nuclear that you are aware of . Ms. Svinicki for the countries that do engage in reprocessing, its a fairly stable process that they have developed. Im not aware of them proposing any dramatic changes to it. Its pretty stable. I think the basic process was developed in the 1970s. I think it stayed the same. Senator carper thank you. Turning if we could to fukushima, Lessons Learned. Lessons that we learned from that tragedy and have taken actions here in our country with our own Nuclear Plants, how are we doing in that regard . Give us an update. Ms. Svinicki the implementation of the n. R. C. s postfukushima set of regulatory actions has effectively been accomplished. There are some, as was made mention, to seismic hazard analysis upgrades and the institutionalization for us of a routine looking at updating assessments for the Natural Hazards for the facilities. Some of the post fukushima actions we have taken will have a very enduring footprint at the operating facilities assess across ral the country because they require a very consistent focus on being prepared for these very extreme natural events. I would say another element as an observer of the events at fukushima and what countries have done around the world as they have learned lessons from that, i think theres been a strong emphasis on the fact that there are human people that are responsible. You can have the best set of procedures and response and you can have great equipment available, but its the individual responders at the plants who have to carry that out. I have seen a consistent focus on that from the us us industry and n. R. C. To make sure that training and procedures and exercises that thats going to be the essential element to the resiliency going forward. Senator the chair recognizes the gentleman fromer senator carper commissioner baran, commissioner burns . There has been a lot of progress on the ground in terms of equipment to address certain scenarios. I travel to plants across the country. If you go to a plant youll see a dome or other type of with re its filled equipment that could be used at any plant in the country. Mr. Baran generators, pumps, hoses. That would be fulse in the event of an accident scenario. Thats all new equipment since fukushima. Thats a concrete manifestation of the effort. Spent fuel pool, instrumentation levels that was something that wasnt previously required. Thats now at every plant in the country. The with long poll intent has been capable vents for certain boiling water. Those are going to be completed in the 20182019 time frame. The only thing else thats outstanding are some these hazard evaluations which are multiyear efforts. Senator carper commissioner burns. Mr. Burns i would just add many respects the what the industry was built on and what has built on from the requirements that we imposed after fukushima, actually had some their origins in our thinking after 9 11. In terms of the ability to withstand large explosions and things like that. So there was a baseline due to the requirements of the agency had adopted after 9 11 that were really built on the fukushima era. The other thing i add is i had the opportunity to go to a nume of Nuclear Power plants outside of the United States and a number of Nuclear Power plants outside the United States. For the most part i terms of addressing for the most part i think our approach is similar. Whats going on in other countries is very similar to the type the type of g in way to basically prepare for the unexpected. The beyond design basis worldwide i think were pretty much on worldwide i thin pretty much on the same page. Senator carper when you look at the difficulties that have been encountered in South Carolina and georgia in the construction of new facilities, i understand in georgia there are still under construction. South carolina construction, the work has i think stopped. Any idea whether or not some of the Lessons Learned from fukushima added to the cost of these projects in a way that sort of led to the slowdown, in one case stobbage . Ms. Svinicki i dont have any gorous analysis of that, but i cant i would be very, very surprised if that played a role. That doesnt logically follow to me because the types of actions postfukushima are all something that are well contemplated by the new plants. I dont think in terms of an increment of additional expense they would not be significant. Not significant enough to cause the plant cancellation. Senator carper due the two commissioners agree . Mr. Baran i agree. Mr. Burns i would agree, partly the chairman alluded to, is that the passive designs, thats in effect the generation three plus, thats the advantage of the newer designs, they would account for some those aspects. Senator carper is the largest factor that led to the decision not to go forward with the South Carolina project, and frankly to the decisions around the country to close or marked for closure, a number of Nuclear Plants, more to do with very low cost of natural gas . Is that a bigger factor . Ms. Svinicki i know that the South Carolina public utilityity commission and the state legislature is conducting a Utility Commission and the state legislature is conducting hearings. I suspect when it is done there will be multiple contributors to why the project was abandoned. I think some will resolve around project management aspects. Others will be perhaps the bankruptcy as a complicating factor and others. I suspect there will be multiple contributors to why the protect did not go through to completion. I know that the state is looking closely at that. Senator carper gentlemen, anything . Mr. Baran i dont know i have anything to add. Putting aside that is a factor in terms that utilities are looking at if they are contemplating they have a combined license to build a new plant what are the wholesale electricity prices. I think thats a key factor. Senator carper our colleagues from georgia have been supportive of including a tax reform legislation provision ealing with section of the 45j. Lled that affects nuclear, investment tax credit provisions. Are you familiar with that . Do you have any reviews on that . Ms. Svinicki i am certainly not 45j. That affects nuclear, investment tax credit but i hav same expert, comments from the constructors of the vogel units , not the tipation or extension of certain favorable tax treatment is an underlying part of their Business Case for completing the units. I dont have separate expertise on that. I just read the same at the same time die statements by the constructors of the plan. Carper the last thing i would ask, i like to ask people whats the carper the s being married a long time. I get funny answers. One of my favorite answers has been the two cs. Communicate and compromise. In delaware we added two more cs. Civility and collaboration. I think thats not just a secret for a long union between two people, its also the secret for a vibrant democracy. And effective leadership. I said to the chairman earlier before we started that in the past i remember gathering here for oversight hearings with the commissioners, and they were not happy chapters in your lives our or ours. There was a time when the commission really struggled working together. I would just ask for the three of you, how are we doing with respect to the four cs communicate, compromise, collaboration, civility. How are we doing . Ms. Svinicki well, i again i feel very privileged to serve with the two gentlemen who are here with me. We always welcome new colleagues and i have served with i think i have had four chairmen and a lot of different colleagues during my nearly 10 years on the commission. Again i chairman burns, which commissioner burns was so gracious in assisting me in taking over the chairmanship, and im very grateful. I continue to consult with him matters and say how did you handle this as chairman. I would i would say were doing very well. Its because i think that the secret to getting along is respect. It doesnt mean matters and say everything. Senator carper how do you spell that . Svinicki i think its something senator duckworth mentioned. Our own safety culture. Part of the training of having difficult conversation was colleagues or with your boss, it is respect element some of what we emphasize there. I think as a commission we try to model that. Senator carper commissioner burns, are you going to sit there and let her say that . Get away with that . Mr. Burns absolutely. Having reached my 40th wedding anniversary this year i agree your characterization colleagues. The three of your characterizat whats successful. Im sure my wife will, too. Mr. Baran i agree with my us wo together. We dont always agree on policy matters, thats fine. Thats the idea behind a commission. You have people with different view, different experiences. Sometimes they agree, sometimes they dont. We try to persuade each other. Were excited if we can. We often find Common Ground and compromise. We have a lot of decision where is were 30. Its worked well. We have very happy with the colleagues i have. Chairman, i r mr. Know i said i only had one more. Can i ask a question with respect to sishe attacks . Earlier this year there were reports of possible cyberattacks on some of our Nuclear Reactors as you know. I would like to ask for a moment how is the coordination going with the other federal agencies, including the department of homeland security, but coordination going, as we defend our reactors from these kinds of attacks in the few tire . Ms. Svinicki our commission, e Nuclear Regulatory commission, at the direct commissioner involvement i think has a really strong track record in the entirety of my mmission, service on the commission, we conduct twice a year meetings where we go into the appropriate setting with representative sampling of the interagency, our federal partners, who monitor these events very, very closely. I service on the am not aware of other commission vs. That as a routine practice t allows us to ere directly from intelligence analysts from throughout the government. I think as a result our confidence in our regulatory response to cybersecurity is raised because we monitor this very frequently and very directly. We have e dont our own experts as well and they are in the room. But i think to have the to invite interagency partners to come and sit with us as political appointees is very important. Im proud we we have our own experts as well and they are in the room. But i think do that. Senator carper gentlemen . Mr. Baran i agree. Mr. Burns i agree. Been very useful. I think it helps our thinking. And our preparation as well as for our staff. Because its something thats not going to go away. We need to continue to be vigilant about. Senator carper mr. Chairman, do you have any advice for us, to enable you to do your jobs etter . Couple of words . A lot of times i ask that question they say more oversight. Which is interesting. Any advice for us . Ms. Svinicki do i think that the consistent engagement you have with our commission as a committee and then the staffs that support you and the work that you do, it allows the committee staff, i think, because of the consistency of your interest, they are able to have the time to develop the knowledge and expertise on our issues as an agency. Benefits us. I know that senators and as a result their staffs are pulled in many Different Directions on any different day, but i think that the opportunity for your staff to work with us more directly and develop a kind of longterm observation of our agencys achievement and progress and challenges i think is a helpful back and forth engagement that we have. Senator carper gentlemen . Mr. Baran i agree. I appreciate that we have had that my time on the commission, we have had so many constructive hearings where we go through both management type issues and budget type issues, but also more policy focus issues. I found it to be very constructive and useful. It sounds hokey, but that oversight is important. We apreeshate t as someone who worked for the house of representatives we appreciate it. As someone who worked for the house of representatives, doing oversight work, its valuable. Mr. Burns i agree. I think the chairman alluded to these are issues for us as commissioners and who are sort of thats our daytoday work, they are not easy issues. That engagement with the staff as well as engagement with you directly i think helps us all understand challenges we have, concerns you have, and how we can work through it. Senator carper thank you very much. Airman barrasso two final questions. Economic mulvaney had a member yum sent out to the heads of the department of agencies in july, in there he provided guidance for the development of the fiscal year 2019 budget. He specifically highlighted how, he said the fiscal year 2019 budget process will give special consideration, he said, to bold reform or reorganization proposals that have the potential to dramatically improve effectiveness and efficiency of government operations. Is the n. R. C. Considering any proposals that might align with what hes recommending in his guidance . Ms. Svinicki of course our engagement with o. M. B. Does advance the president s budget rollout in february of next year. There are of course sensitivities. As a general matter we have been engaging in o. M. B. In the development our fiscal 2019 budget. An element of that are these reform initiatives and proposals. We have engaged our examiner. She has come back and asked us additional questions. We have been in the process of developing our agency proposals to accompany the president s fiscal 2019 budget. That engagements been going on. I understand there may be some additional feedback we receive in the coming months prior to the budget rollout. And when we appear before the committee next year in support of our budget, we can speak of those specifics at that time. Chairman barrasso the final question, i called on the n. R. C. To consider implementing this flat flee structure for recovery licensing actions. To date they have taken multiple years to establish a Pilot Program for a secondor with only 11 licensees. Im concerned the n. R. C. Is taking too long to get the program up and running. The agreement states likes b like texas, utah already have routine in place for uranium recovery licensing actions. Could you tell us why the delay and why the n. R. C. Cant use programs that have been routine place like utah . Maybe templates for your own program . Ms. Svinicki i agree, chairman barrasso, it does seem for a long period. I have come to understand from the n. R. C. Staff a couple of things that persuaded me. The first is that uranium recovery is a pilot for flat fee. I think the agency is intrigued about the potential use of flat fees beyond uranium recovery in other areas. As a result the n. R. C. Staff really pantses the pilot to be successful. In order for it to be successful, they need to develop the flat fee estimates with a certain level of fidelity. The best way i could describe this, and the staff hasnt corrected me so i hope im right. We know what recent uranium recovery fees have been, but we dont have a good understanding what to attribute f. One costs x million and the other costs y, we dont want to average x nd y and say thats the flat fee. What if the one that was higher had a lot of complexity. Its not going to be an equitable or realistic estimate. I know it seems like a prolonged period. With the parallel fee. What if the one that was higher had a lot of complexity. Develo of wyomings agreement, state agreement, it may be this pilot maybe this wasnt the best area to pilot given other events. I think the agency is very committed to exploring flat fees in a way that we think they have promise for other types of licensees as well. R commitment is to doing a pilot that will demonstrate that and doesnt just fail maybe for reasons that we didnt prepare it properly. Chairman barrasso members may submit additional questions as you know for the record. The hearing record will remain open for two weeks. I want to thank the witnesses for your time and testimony today. Hearing is adjourned. [captions Copyright National able satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] the house is in recess at this point. Members will be back at noon eastern. About half an hour from now to begin work on two iran finance related bills, including one requires the treasury secretary to report to congress on assets held by top iranian leaders. Also coming up this afternoon, debate on a measure exempting more Financial Institution from requirement to deliver annual privacy notices to customers. A time vote on that takes place tomorrow. Off the floor, house and Senate Conferees will be meeting to negotiate the differences between the two republican tax reform bills that were passed separately out of each chamber. Follow the house live here on cspan when members return at noon eastern. Coming up, house and Senate Conferees will meet to negotiate the differences between the two republican tax reform bills passed separately. Live coverage beginning at 2 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan3. And also watch online at cspan. Org, or listen with the free cspan radio app. Watch cspan3 thursday at 10 30 a. M. Eastern for live coverage. F. C. C. s vote on net neutrality. The vote is to roll back rolls passed during the obama regulation and intended to reduce regulation of the internet. Live thursday at 10 30 eastern on cspan3, cspan. Org or listen live with f