    [Senate Hearing 115-52]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                             S. Hrg. 115-52

     HEARING ON S. 512, THE NUCLEAR ENERGY INNOVATION AND MODERNIZATION ACT

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 8, 2017

                                   __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

             Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov

                                _________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

     25-151 PDF               WASHINGTON : 2017
    ____________________________________________________________________
     For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    Internet:bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone:toll free (866)512-1800;DC area (202)512-1800
      Fax:(202) 512-2104 Mail:Stop IDCC,Washington,DC 20402-001

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
                                 FIRST SESSION

                        JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman
    JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma            THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
    JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas               BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    ROGER WICKER, Mississippi            SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
    DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
    JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
    MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota            CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
    JONI ERNST, Iowa                     EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
    RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama              KAMALA HARRIS, California

                  Richard M. Russell, Majority Staff Director
                   Gabrielle Batkin, Minority Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                 MARCH 8, 2017
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming......     1
    Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware..     2
    Inhofe Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma....    10
    Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode
      Island.........................................................    11
    Fischer, Hon. Deb, U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska.......    11

                                   WITNESSES

    Korsnick, Maria, President and CEO, Nuclear Energy Institute.....    18
        Prepared statement...........................................    20
    Finan, Ashley E., Policy Director, Nuclear Innovation Alliance...    28
        Prepared statement...........................................    30
    Back, Tina, Vice President of Nuclear Technologies and Materials,
      General Atomics................................................    43
        Prepared statement...........................................    45
    Lyman, Edwin, Senior Scientist, Union of Concerned Scientists
      Global Security System.........................................    58
        Prepared statement...........................................    60
    Bawden, Allison, Acting Director for Natural Resources and
      Environment, Government Accountability Office..................    71
        Prepared statement...........................................    73

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    Statements:
        William Paul Goranson, Executive Vice President, Energy Fuels
          Resources (USA) Inc. on Behalf of the Uranium Producers of
          America....................................................   127
        Victor M. McCree, Executive Director for Operations United
          States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.......................   135

     HEARING ON S. 512, THE NUCLEAR ENERGY INNOVATION AND MODERNIZATION ACT

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8, 2017

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m. in
    room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso
    (chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Barrasso, Carper, Inhofe, Capito,
    Boozman, Wicker, Fischer, Moran, Rounds, Ernst, Sullivan,
    Cardin, Whitehouse, Merkley, Gillibrand, Booker, Markey,
    Duckworth, and Harris.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

        Senator Barrasso. Good morning. I call this hearing to
    order.
        I am a strong supporter of American nuclear energy. It is a
    vital component of our all-of-the-above American energy plan.
        My home State of Wyoming plays a key role in the American
    nuclear energy supply by producing more uranium than any other
    State.
        Nuclear energy is clean, safe, reliable, and affordable. It
    is also a major boost for the economy. American nuclear plants
    provide thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in benefits
    to local communities. U.S. nuclear power plants have run safely
    for decades, and many will serve our Country for years to come.
        After decades of reliable power from our traditional
    nuclear plants, innovation is taking shape in the nuclear
    industry. Increased private investment in nuclear energy has
    led to advancements in safety, security, and cost. These
    advantages and advancements are exciting.
        The biggest challenges these innovators face, however, are
    delays and costs from regulatory red tape. Many of these delays
    come from trying to navigate a regulatory system that was
    developed around one specific technology, water-cooled
    reactors. Traditional water-cooled reactors have powered our
    Navy and our electricity grid for decades. Today's innovators
    are pursuing very different designs that are using high
    temperature gases, molten salts, and other high tech materials
    to advance the safety, efficiency, and reliability of nuclear
    energy.
        The nuclear regulatory system needs to be updated to enable
    these innovations. That is why I am joined by my colleagues,
    Senators Whitehouse, Inhofe, Booker, Crapo, Fischer, Capito,
    Manchin, Casey, and Duckworth to introduce the Nuclear Energy
    Innovation and Modernization Act. This bipartisan bill seeks to
    modernize the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by providing a
    flexible regulatory framework for licensing advanced nuclear
    reactors.
        The NRC needs a modern regulatory framework that is
    predictable and efficient. Reactor operators from both
    traditional and advanced reactors need timely decisionmaking
    from the NRC. At the same time, the Commission needs to
    maintain the ability to assess a variety of technologies and
    still meet its mission of ensuring safety and security.
        Additionally, our legislation will update the Nuclear
    Regulatory Commission's fee recovery structure. This measure
    will bring increased transparency and accountability to the
    NRC, while improving the Commission's efficiency and
    timeliness.
        This bill will also help preserve the uranium producers who
    are essential to powering this technology. The Energy
    Information Administration reported that uranium production in
    2016 was at its lowest level since 2005.
        One challenge that uranium producers face is the need for
    clear, predictable regulations. Under current law, the EPA sets
    standards of general application and the NRC implements these
    standards. Yet, there is no definition in the Atomic Energy Act
    for ``standards of general application.''
        Paul Goranson, from Energy Fuels Company in Casper,
    Wyoming, submitted written testimony for today's hearing in
    which he states, ``Clearly defining standards of general
    application, without reducing any oversight of the industry,
    would help clarify the roles and responsibilities of the EPA
    and NRC, reduce regulatory conflict, and provide for a more
    effective regulatory framework.''
        I am going to continue to work with other sponsors to
    address this more fully.
        Finally, the bill addresses the Department of Energy's
    mismanagement of the public's stockpile of excess uranium.
    Since 2009, the Department has repeatedly violated its own
    written policy and written law when managing the public's
    excess uranium. As a result, the Department of Energy has
    failed to obtain a fair return on this uranium for American
    taxpayers.
        For example, the Government Accountability Office found
    that the Department of Energy's transfer of excess uranium in
    2012 may have actually cost taxpayers up to $195 million. The
    Department of Energy's mismanagement has also contributed to
    volatility in the uranium market and has led to job losses in
    many States like my home State of Wyoming.
        So I want to thank Senator Ed Markey and his staff for
    helping with these specific provisions. This bipartisan
    legislation will enable the development of innovative reactors
    with bold new technologies.
        America needs to be a leader of nuclear development. We
    need to create an environment where entrepreneurs can flourish
    and create jobs here at home that will revitalize our nuclear
    energy sector. The Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization
    Act does just this. This broadly bipartisan bill will
    strengthen American energy independence, foster innovation and
    job creation.
        With that, I would like to turn to the Ranking Member of
    the Committee, Senator Carper.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Barrasso follows:]

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

        Senator Carper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I yield my time to the Senator from Maryland, Ben Cardin.
        Senator Cardin. I don't want your time, Mr. Ranking Member.
        Senator Carper. Five seconds of my time.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you. Appreciate that.
        As the home State for the NRC's headquarters, I ask consent
    to put in my statement in regards to work force challenges.
        Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. Thanks so much.
        Welcome, everybody. Delighted to see you again. Thank you
    for taking this time with us.
        My colleagues have heard me tell this story before. I want
    to tell it again; I think it is appropriate.
        Both my boys are, I am proud to say, Eagle Scouts and my
    wife and I are very much involved in their troop. I am a
    retired Navy Captain. I used to take our Boy Scout troop to
    Norfolk Naval Station about every 3 years to spend a weekend
    and to have a chance to climb over the ships, submarines,
    aircraft carriers, sleep in the barracks and even the galley;
    and it was a great adventure for them and, frankly, for all of
    us.
        One day, one Sunday, we went and visited the Teddy
    Roosevelt nuclear power carrier and we had the opportunity, the
    captain of the ship came out to welcome us. We were up on the
    bridge and he addressed 25 scouts, 5 adults, and here is what
    he said. To the boys, he said, boys, when Teddy Roosevelt goes
    to sea, it is 1,000 feet long. The boys went, ooh. He said,
    boys, when the Teddy Roosevelt goes to sea, it is 35 stories
    high. And the boys went, ooh. And he said, boys, when the Teddy
    Roosevelt goes to sea, it has 5,000 sailors onboard. Five
    thousand. And the boys went, ooh. And he said, boys, when the
    Teddy Roosevelt goes to sea, it has 75 different aircraft
    onboard. And the boys went, ooh. And then he finally added,
    and, boys, when the Teddy Roosevelt goes to sea, it refuels
    every 25 years. And the adults went, ooh.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. And I think that says almost not everything
    that we need to say, but a whole lot about what we need to say.
        I agree very much with what our Chairman has said. A lot of
    people I served with in the Navy actually were on ships and
    submarines and aircraft carriers that were nuclear powered, and
    the safety record is good. We have to continue to focus on that
    not only at sea, but on land as well, and we have.
        Today's hearing is very timely as the nuclear industry
    faces real challenge. The industry is what I describe as a
    crossroads, and which the path the industry decides to take
    will have ramifications on our Country and our citizens, I
    think, for decades to come.
        Let me begin by noting that it is important to examine the
    benefits. There are many. The Chairman has mentioned a number
    of those, of nuclear energy. There are some drawbacks, as well,
    and we need to be honest about those and address them.
        First and foremost, the energy from nuclear power plants
    helps curb our Nation's reliance on dirty fossil fuels and
    reduces air pollution emissions that threaten our health and
    our climate.
        Second, nuclear energy can be a major economic driver. Many
    Americans may be unaware that the United States invented
    nuclear technology. In fact, for many years our Nation led the
    world in nuclear manufacturing, construction, and production.
    The jobs and the economic benefits of this stayed here at home
    for the most part. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case.
        If our Country decides to retake its leadership in nuclear
    energy, I hope we do, and is successful in that endeavor,
    history has shown there will be economic benefits in the form
    of manufacturing and construction jobs and, frankly, operating
    jobs.
        It turns out there is, as we know, two test cases, examples
    in Georgia and South Carolina, real-life tests where the
    construction of two new reactors in each of those States has
    provided thousands of good paying jobs and spurred economic
    development in the surrounding communities.
        Despite all the benefits of nuclear power, I should mention
    also some of the potential adverse consequences of nuclear
    energy. We have seen, from serious incidents like places in
    Fukushima, the damage that nuclear power can cause if the
    proper safety precautions are not in place, not up to date,
    and, most important, not adhered to.
        With nuclear energy, safety has been, and must remain, a
    top priority in the operation of nuclear reactors. I salute
    everyone, whether it is the NRC, the folks in the industry
    themselves, everybody who has been involved to try to make sure
    that that safety record remains unblemished here in this
    Country.
        Unfortunately, the costs of safety precautions, along with
    the costs of construction, operation, and maintenance of
    current nuclear reactors can be expensive, especially when
    compared to the costs of other sources of energy, including
    natural gas. In fact, some of the U.S. reactors are retiring,
    as we know, sooner than expected due to market forces.
        At the same time, our Country's nuclear reactors are
    getting older and will need to be replaced in the years to
    come. Some people believe our Nation's nuclear success story is
    ending. They may be right, but I believe that success story may
    just be getting its second wind. I sure hope so. And if we are
    smart, we will replace our aging nuclear reactors with new
    technology developed in this Country that is safer, that
    produces less spent fuel, and is cheaper to build and to
    operate.
        If we seize this opportunity, seize the day, the U.S. can
    be a leader once again in nuclear energy, reaping the economic
    benefits that flow from that leadership.
        I am not the only one who sees the opportunity. U.S.
    companies have already invested in an estimated, I am told,
    $1.5 billion in next generation nuclear technology, and today
    we will hear directly from General Atomics, a company that is
    investing in a design that is much smaller than current
    reactors, doesn't need water for cooling, is able to use spent
    fuel as a fuel, and is passive in design so that it will shut
    down easily if a significant concern rises.
        As we will hear today, if this design works, this type of
    reactor may well be competitive in today's energy markets. This
    technology, like the dozens of other types of nuclear energy
    technology that are being actively researched, developed, and
    invested in today still face real material and design
    challenges before it is ready to be commercialized.
        I should hasten to add that as companies like General
    Atomics make advances in the technologies, we need to make sure
    that our regulatory framework can keep pace. The NRC is
    considered the world's gold standard of nuclear regulatory
    agencies; however, as science and technology evolves, so must
    the NRC.
        We also need to make sure that the NRC has the resources it
    needs to review these new technologies and ensure our current
    nuclear reactor fleet remains safe. At the same time, we must
    be conscious of how change to the NRC fee structure might
    impact the funds required from taxpayers.
        Finally, it is also important to remember that the current
    Administration wants to cut domestic spending to the bone,
    while increasing funding for defense and homeland security. If
    this Administration is successful, we may ultimately face a
    situation where there are insufficient taxpayer dollars for the
    NRC to work on advanced nuclear energy issues and meet its
    other responsibilities. We need to keep that in mind. I don't
    want to see that happen. I suspect that none of us in this
    Committee do either.
        I believe advances in nuclear energy can help us sustain
    that nurturing environment for job creation, cleaner air for
    our people and our planet. We need that.
        I want to again thank our Chairman and the cosponsors of
    the legislation he has mentioned before us for their work, the
    work of their staffs, and for working closely with my own
    staff. We look forward to building on that working
    relationship.
        I am just happy to be here for a hearing on something we
    agree on. It is a good thing. We are having a series of
    hearings on things we agree on, and maybe we can get some good
    work done for this Country.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inhofe. That is right. That is right.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Carper.
        Would any of the original cosponsors like to be recognized?
    Senator Inhofe.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

        Senator Inhofe. Well, you know, it is hard for me to accept
    the fact that it was 20 years ago, 19 years ago that I became
    chairman of the subcommittee of this Committee that deals with
    nuclear energy, and I remember when I became chairman they had
    not had an oversight hearing before the NRC in 10 years. Now,
    you can't let a bureaucracy, no matter how wonderful everyone
    is, go without oversight. And, of course, we changed that; we
    became very active at that time.
        I dramatically shortened my opening statement because they
    have already spoken for me. I agree with the comments that were
    made.
        It is important for everyone to understand this is the
    second time around for this, because we introduced this bill
    last year, and last year we had Senators Whitehouse, Booker,
    Crapo, myself, and others working on essentially the same bill
    that we have.
        Now, I have to say confession is good for the soul, and
    Senator Whitehouse and I don't always see eye-to-eye on every
    issue. That is a shocker to a lot of people, but on this issue
    we do. So it shows the broad base of support that we have, and
    I think this is the time that we can get it through. We didn't
    get it through last time. It always surprised a lot of people,
    when I chaired this Committee, how many times Barbara Boxer and
    I agreed, and we got a lot of things done that we couldn't have
    otherwise, if it hadn't been for a close friendship. I could
    never sell her, though, on this one, so she opposed that. This
    time, I think, that is going to happen.
        It bothers me, when I look at countries like China and
    Russia, to see that they are advancing ahead of us at this
    time. New technologies are out there. We know we can reach
    them. And this is what we have to pass to make sure that it
    does happen, so I am very enthusiastic about this. And I agree
    with you, Senator Carper, that it is a lot fun when we can work
    on issues that we agree on, so let's get it done.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Inhofe.
        Senator Inhofe. One other comment I want to make. There are
    several members over here on this side that are also on the
    Commerce Committee, so we will be going back and forth, so you
    know why we are doing this at the same time.
        Senator Barrasso. Any other cosponsors like to make a
    statement? Senator Whitehouse.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE,
              U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

        Senator Whitehouse. I would be delighted to, Chairman. Let
    me first say that I believe I am now in the position, as
    Ranking Member on the subcommittee with Senator Capito, and I
    look forward to working with her to move this legislation
    quickly forward through the Committee, and, of course, with our
    Chairman and Ranking Member.
        I want to particularly thank Senator Inhofe and Senator
    Crapo, who are the two opening cosponsors on the Republican
    side, along with myself and Senator Booker. Senator Fischer is
    here, and I am delighted that she has joined us as a cosponsor
    of this legislation; and, of course, Chairman Barrasso is now a
    cosponsor of this legislation. So I think we have a good
    opportunity to move forward and get it done.
        To me, one of the elements of this that is most attractive
    is the potential down the road for advanced nuclear technology
    to begin to direct its attention to our existing nuclear waste
    stockpile and find a way to turn it from a massive and unbooked
    liability for this Nation into an asset for this Nation. If
    that scientific achievement can be reached, all of our work
    will not have been in vein and very good things will have been
    done.
        Mr. Chairman, I would just like to close by recognizing Dr.
    Ashley Finan, who is here from Jamestown, Rhode Island, a
    particularly beautiful part of our State, and I am very pleased
    to have her here and thank her for her work advising us on this
    legislation.
        Thank you, Chairman. Thank you to the Ranking Member.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Whitehouse.
        Thank you, Dr. Finan, for being here as well.
        Senator Fischer.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA

        Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening
    this hearing. I am very pleased to be able to cosponsor this
    Act. At a time when we see it is hard for us to agree on
    things, it is nice to be part of a bipartisan effort.
        I am especially pleased with the addition of the new
    uranium recovery provisions that strengthen the bill and
    provide benefits to my State. We have a nuclear plant in the
    southeast corner of Nebraska and we have a uranium mine in our
    western panhandle.
        So this bill will make regulatory reviews more efficient
    and costs more predictable without compromising safety. It also
    enables the licensing of advanced technologies, which can
    revitalize our industry and ensure that nuclear energy is a
    robust energy source for decades to come.
        So I am glad to be here today, Mr. Chairman. I thank you
    again for the hearing. I am eager to hear what the Committee
    will have for consideration of the bill. Thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Fischer.
        Senator Whitehouse. May I ask for unanimous consent?
        Senator Barrasso. Senator Whitehouse, yes, please.
        Senator Whitehouse. Senator Lamar Alexander is another
    Senator who is keenly interested in nuclear advancements, and
    he and I wrote together an op-ed at the end of last year, and I
    would like to ask unanimous consent that that editorial piece
    by the two of us be included in the record of this hearing.
        Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. I also ask unanimous consent to submit a
    statement from Senator Crapo, a long-time member of this
    Committee, into the record. Without objection.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. We will now turn and hear from our
    witnesses. I would like to start with Maria Korsnick, who is
    president and CEO, Nuclear Energy Institute.
        Thank you so much for joining us.

    STATEMENT OF MARIA KORSNICK, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NUCLEAR ENERGY
                               INSTITUTE

        Ms. Korsnick. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good
    morning. I am Maria Korsnick, President and CEO of the Nuclear
    Energy Institute. And on behalf of the nuclear energy industry
    I want to thank the Committee for considering the Nuclear
    Energy Innovation and Modernization Act. We are very pleased
    that this bill is being reintroduced and are grateful for the
    opportunity to testify about the important matters that it
    brings today.
        Our operating nuclear plants are the backbone of the U.S.
    electric system and a critical part of our Nation's
    infrastructure. Nuclear energy is the largest and most
    efficient source of carbon-free electricity in the United
    States. We currently have 99 reactors in 30 States that produce
    20 percent of our Nation's electricity and approximately 63
    percent of our carbon-free electricity. Nuclear produces
    electricity 24/7, regardless of weather, and with all its fuel
    onsite for 18 to 24 months.
        Nuclear energy facilities are essential to the Nation's
    economy and to the local communities in which they operate.
    Collectively, the nuclear industry contributes about $60
    billion every year to the U.S. economy, supports over 475,000
    jobs, and produces over $12 billion a year in tax revenue, both
    Federal and State.
        I am proud to report that since I last testified before
    this Committee last year, a new reactor has begun to operate in
    Tennessee. And, as you know, an additional four reactors are
    under construction, two in Georgia and two in South Carolina,
    and these are expected to come online in 2019 and 2020. The
    current nuclear fleet is a significant contributor to the
    Nation's infrastructure.
        The newly constructed plants will likely provide valuable
    electricity for 80-plus years, and future nuclear innovations
    in the form of a variety of advanced design reactors are being
    developed to meet the needs of our society well into the next
    century.
        But, for that to happen, the industry must be able to rely
    on a safety-focused, efficient, and technically expert
    regulator. That requires strong and focused leadership from the
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
        Because the Senate is responsible for confirming qualified
    candidates to serve on Federal agencies, we wish to emphasize
    the importance of maintaining a five-member NRC board. The work
    of this agency should be conducted as Congress intended, with
    five commissioners. As the Commission currently has two open
    seats and potentially faces the lack of a quorum by the end of
    June, we do urge the Senate to act swiftly on Administration
    nominations.
        We commend the bill's sponsors for taking the NRC's
    untimely, somewhat outdated and unnecessarily costly,
    regulatory process. The need to reform has become more pressing
    as companies are beginning to submit the NRC applications for
    certification of small modular reactors and development of
    advanced non-light water reactors are looking for their
    deployment within the next decade.
        For years, the industry has raised concerns regarding the
    NRC's fee structure, only to be told by the NRC that its hands
    are tied by the current law. This bill makes several long-
    overdue changes to the NRC's fee recovery structure. It repeals
    the 90 percent fee recovery requirement and replaces it with a
    more predictable, transparent, and accountable fee recovery
    process that also ensures that the agency continues to be
    sufficiently funded to carry out its important safety mission.
    The legislation would create greater accountability and
    transparency by requiring the NRC to expressly identify annual
    expenditures anticipated for licensing and for other activities
    requested by applicants.
        The legislation also would help drive greater efficiency in
    the NRC's operation. In turn, it would drive down annual fees
    by limiting the corporate support to 28 percent. The industry
    supports this provision and we believe there is an opportunity
    to reduce this percentage even further.
        Complementing the limit on corporate support, the bill
    would cap annual fees for operating power reactors at the
    Fiscal Year 2015 levels. We commend this approach and we
    strongly believe that the cap should apply to all licensees,
    including uranium recovery and other fuel cycle facilities.
        The bill also affirms Congress's view that this Country
    can, and in fact should, be a leader in advanced reactor
    technology. The bill directs the NRC to think differently about
    reactor licensing. It requires them to accommodate light water
    reactors, small modular reactors, and advanced non-light water
    reactors; in short, an all-of-the-above approach.
        This bill directs the NRC to resolve the central issue
    standing in the way of innovation. In sum, we need to start
    planning today if we are going to meet the enormous demand for
    U.S. technology at home and abroad.
        On behalf of the nuclear energy industry, I would like to
    thank Chairman and Senators Whitehouse, Inhofe, Booker, Crapo,
    Fischer, Capito, and Manchin for their commitment to innovation
    and to retain clean, reliable, and constant nuclear
    electricity. We look forward to continuing to work with you and
    your staff as the legislation progresses through the Congress,
    and I encourage you to enact the legislation expeditiously.
    Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Korsnick follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much for your
    thoughtful testimony.
        Dr. Finan.

      STATEMENT OF DR. ASHLEY E. FINAN, POLICY DIRECTOR, NUCLEAR
                          INNOVATION ALLIANCE

        Ms. Finan. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member
    Carper, and distinguished members of this Committee. Thank you
    for holding this hearing and for giving me the opportunity to
    testify. My name is Ashley Finan, and I am Policy Director for
    the Nuclear Innovation Alliance, a nonprofit organization
    dedicated to leading advanced nuclear energy innovation.
        The NIA was established by a cross-cutting group of
    innovators, academics, environmental organizations, industry
    groups, and other experts and stakeholders who believe that
    advanced nuclear energy is needed to ensure a better future.
    The world will double or triple its energy demand in 30 years,
    driven by the emergence of a middle class in the developing
    world and the need to bring electricity to 1.4 billion people
    who lack it today. At the same time, many analyses point to the
    pressing need to drastically reduce global carbon emissions if
    we are to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, and clean
    air is essential to human health.
        A more rapid expansion of nuclear power is a vital part of
    the solution. In the United States and elsewhere, dozens of
    innovative startup companies are pioneering advanced nuclear
    designs that offer opportunities for increased safety and
    affordability, resistance to proliferation, and a reduction in
    nuclear waste. These designs can revolutionize the nuclear
    industry and revitalize U.S. exports with products that take
    advantage of the latest manufacturing and competing technology,
    that are competitive in markets across the globe, and that
    exceed the expectations of customers and the public. But the
    transition from design to commercialization and deployment,
    both in the U.S. and globally, has been slow.
        Current NRC regulation confronts the licensing of advanced
    technologies with two major challenges. First, NRC approval
    calls for enormous front-loaded investment during a protracted
    development and licensing phase, without a staged structure to
    provide applicants with clear, early feedback on an agreed
    schedule. Second, current regulation primarily evolved to
    oversee light water reactor technologies. It must be adapted to
    the features and performance characteristics of advanced
    reactors, which rely on substantially different fuels, cooling
    systems, and safety strategies, and use novel operating
    approaches.
        Over the past 3 years, the NIA has been developing
    strategies to facilitate the efficient, cost-effective, and
    predictable licensing of advanced nuclear power plants in the
    U.S. These strategies are based on consultations with nuclear
    innovators, safety experts, former NRC staff and commissioners,
    members of the financial community, and other nuclear industry
    stakeholders. We compiled the results of some of our work into
    a report called Enabling Nuclear Innovation: Strategies for
    Advanced Reactor Licensing, which was issued in April 2016. The
    report has been provided to the Committee and is available to
    the public on the NIA website. It discusses in much greater
    detail the points that I am touching on today.
        To address the LWR-centric nature of the current
    regulations, a more technology-inclusive approach is needed. A
    risk-informed, performance-based licensing approach will allow
    the NRC to review a diverse set of advanced reactor
    technologies. This would incorporate both modern methods of
    risk assessment and traditional deterministic methods to
    provide an exhaustive safety review. The Nuclear Energy
    Innovation and Modernization Act, or NEIMA, provides for the
    NRC to do work in this area without impacting the costs
    incurred to the existing plants.
        To address the investment challenge, the NIA recommends
    that the NRC offer a staged approach, one that would be more
    aligned with private sector development of innovative
    technology using a licensing project plan, topical reports, and
    other existing mechanisms; and one that would offer clear and
    early feedback to investors and developers through an optional
    conceptual design assessment. This approach maintains the rigor
    and high standards of the NRC and facilitates the development
    of safer nuclear technology that produces less waste, or even
    consumes it.
        This approach can be achieved using existing regulatory
    tools at the NRC, with some adjustments on the development of
    additional guidance. The NRC has already begun doing this work,
    and has made considerable progress in the past year, but they
    have done so with extraordinarily limited resources. NEIMA
    authorizes the NRC to do the crucial work to further develop
    and implement this staged licensing process with dedicated
    funding.
        When NEIMA was first introduced in this Committee in 2016,
    the bill was subjected to useful critiques and several concerns
    were raised and addressed. It ultimately passed out of
    Committee with strong bipartisan support. The bill under
    consideration today is stronger for that and I hope that the
    same support will be evident in 2017.
        This is an important bill that will enable the NRC to
    develop the rigorous, technology-inclusive regulatory
    infrastructure to support the review of advanced nuclear energy
    technologies without diluting funds used to regulate operating
    plants. It also allows for immediate adjustments that will
    provide a more efficient, predictable, and effective process.
    The Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act is needed
    to enable progress in advanced nuclear energy.
        Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I would be
    pleased to respond to any questions you might have today or in
    the future.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Finan follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much for your testimony,
    Dr. Finan.
        I am glad you could join us today. I would like to next
    turn to Dr. Tina Back, who is Vice President of Nuclear
    Technologies and Materials at General Atomics.
        Welcome.

         STATEMENT OF DR. TINA BACK, VICE PRESIDENT OF NUCLEAR
              TECHNOLOGIES AND MATERIALS, GENERAL ATOMICS

        Ms. Back. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, thank
    you very much for the invitation to appear here today. I also
    thank the bipartisan group of Senators for introducing the
    Nuclear Energy Innovation Modernization Act, NEIMA, and for
    their interest in advanced nuclear reactors.
        General Atomics is a high technology company that has long
    history of innovation in nuclear energy, which is detailed in
    my written testimony. Our long-term vision is embodied in GA's
    advanced reactor concept, the Energy Multiplier Module, or EM2.
    It has arisen from RD&D, Research, Development, and
    Demonstration, which has informed and shaped our beliefs of
    what nuclear innovation can achieve.
        In the near-term, the vision is brought into sharper focus
    through projects such as Accident Tolerant Fuel, ATF, and Moly
    99. ATF makes existing reactors less subject to a Fukushima-
    like event and more economically viable. The Moly 99 project
    establishes a domestic source of a medical isotope. Ultimately,
    both grew out of EM2 research and development and, in return,
    both deepen the skills and understanding needed to make EM2 a
    reality.
        It might be helpful to explain why we believe nuclear power
    is critical for the energy future and the national defense of
    the U.S.
        Nuclear power is the largest source of baseload clean
    energy available to our Nation.
        At present, there are no U.S.-owned commercial vendors of
    nuclear reactors. Furthermore, the supply chain of nuclear
    grade materials and components has either gone offshore or gone
    out of business. This is in stark contrast to vigorous nuclear
    industries in China, Russia, and Korea. Unless the U.S. is able
    to stimulate its near-dormant nuclear industry, we will be one
    of their future customers.
        On the bright side, there is a strong, nascent effort in
    U.S. private industry to innovate nuclear technologies. NEIMA
    will help us do that. There are many concepts that require
    different materials and technologies to advance beyond the
    light water reactors of today, all of which need NRC approval.
    The NRC is an important and necessary agent in ensuring nuclear
    power remains safe.
        If the U.S. is to proceed, it will require the support of
    our Government through regulatory support like that proposed in
    NEIMA and also through financial support of R&D. It may also
    benefit from mechanisms like public-private partnerships to
    foster new generations of nuclear scientists and domestically
    held intellectual property.
        For the U.S. to be a leader in nuclear energy, General
    Atomics believes our Country must do what it does best, bring
    the ingenuity of the people to bear on creating new ways to
    produce nuclear energy safely, cleanly, and at much lower cost.
        So what exactly are nuclear reactors that are advanced?
    Advanced reactors are those that improve over existing reactors
    in the following four core objectives: they must produce
    significantly cheaper and cleaner electricity; be safer;
    produce significantly less waste; and reduce the risk of
    proliferation.
        These seven improvements identified in NEIMA are consistent
    with these core objectives. We believe every worthy advanced
    reactor concept must address these four core objectives
    jointly. It is not sufficient to address one at the expense of
    the other three.
        My written testimony provides details on how EM2 leverages
    engineered ceramic materials and leapfrog technologies to meet
    these four core objectives.
        As with any new reactor design, this one will require
    extensive interactions with the NRC. Ideally, interactions
    would occur early enough to inform the initial design and
    produce a safer reactor design. Then, when applying for a
    license, this early effort would pay off many times over.
        Radically new concepts employing new technologies require
    upfront investments involving some risk. Some investments may
    not pay off, and even those that are successful could require
    at least 10 years to produce any revenue. While General Atomics
    has already invested more than $40 million in EM2, these
    commercial realities make it very difficult to justify early
    costs to engage the NRC.
        If the Committee's objectives are to stimulate development
    of advanced reactors and technologies, then we suggest it would
    be relatively inexpensive to involve NRC in the early phase of
    development for potentially high impact. We suggest the
    Committee authorize the appropriation of $5 million at first,
    growing to $15 million over 5 years, to provide the NRC
    services. To trigger funding, a relatively low cost-share of 3
    percent could be required.
        Thank you for your interest, and I hope that you can all
    come to San Diego and visit our facilities. There you could see
    our science in action and understand why we at GA are so
    optimistic about the future of advanced nuclear reactors. We
    are at the cusp of some significant scientific discoveries that
    are within the reach, with a bit of Government support.
        I would be pleased to respond to any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Back follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much, Dr. Back, for
    your thoughtful testimony. We appreciate you being here.
        I would like to next turn to Dr. Edwin Lyman, who is the
    Senior Scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists Global
    Security System.
        Dr. Lyman, thank you for joining us today.

       STATEMENT OF DR. EDWIN LYMAN, SENIOR SCIENTIST, UNION OF
              CONCERNED SCIENTISTS GLOBAL SECURITY SYSTEM

        Mr. Lyman. Thank you. Good morning. On behalf of the Union
    of Concerned Scientists, I would like to thank Chairman
    Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and the other distinguished
    members of this panel for the opportunity to testify today on
    NEIMA and its potential impacts on nuclear safety and security
    in the future.
        UCS puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve our
    planet's most pressing problems. We are neither pro-nor anti-
    nuclear. But we do believe that nuclear power must meet high
    standards of safety and security if it is to be a reliable
    option in the future.
        This Saturday marks the sixth anniversary of March 11,
    2011, the day when a massive earthquake and tsunami in Japan
    triggered the triple core meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi
    nuclear plant. We know when the disaster started, but we cannot
    predict when it will end, because its legacy will affect the
    Japanese people for decades to come.
        Today, the direct economic impact is estimated at almost
    $200 billion, approximately 80,000 people remain displaced from
    their homes, contaminated water continues to flow from the site
    into the sea every day, and the interiors of the three damaged
    reactors are so intensively radioactive that even the robots
    sent in to explore are quickly disabled by the radiation.
        The accident had a significant impact on Japan's use of
    nuclear power. It now only has three operating reactors, and it
    pays handsomely for imported natural gas to meet its
    electricity demand. A similar accident in the U.S. would almost
    certainly compromise the future of nuclear power in this
    Country.
        Fukushima serves as a graphic reminder of the consequences
    of complacency. The nuclear industry and its regulators
    seriously underestimated the risk from natural disasters and
    did not adopt safety measures strong enough to mitigate those
    risks, so the urgent need to ensure such a nuclear disaster
    does not happen again provides the context for my remarks
    today.
        UCS testified on an earlier version of this bill last year.
    The current version of the legislation has some changes that we
    believe have improved it, and, as a result of those changes, we
    do not oppose the bill. But neither do we support it, because
    we still find its basic approach problematic from a safety and
    security perspective. We also question the need for the
    legislation. We don't believe it is going to be effective in
    actually facilitating the deployment of advanced reactors.
        One of our main concerns is the promotion of a ``risk-
    informed'' licensing strategy. We do not believe that risk-
    informed licensing is appropriate for new and novel designs.
    The computer models used to calculate risk need to be
    thoroughly validated by comparison of results with actual plant
    operating experience before you can rely on them to do
    licensing, and such experience is not available for new reactor
    concepts.
        To focus licensing on new reactor designs is to introduce
    an unacceptably high degree of uncertainty in the process. So
    in this light we appreciate that the current version of NEIMA
    requires that NRC develop strategies for implementing risk-
    informed licensing only where appropriate. And this phrase
    effectively provides the NRC with full discretion to confine
    the use of risk-informed licensing to those areas where it
    determines it is appropriate, and it is our expectation that
    there will be few, if any, aspects of advanced reactor
    licensing where they will make that determination.
        There is also a question about which designs may clearly
    fall under NEIMA's definition of ``advanced reactor.'' I agree
    with Dr. Back that advanced reactors should improve upon the
    current generation in a whole variety of different ways, and
    that there should not be tradeoffs of one improvement for
    another.
        But, in our assessment, none of the advanced reactor
    designs that are currently under discussion, at least non-light
    water reactors, actually will achieve that. Liquid metal-cooled
    fast reactors, high-temperature gas-cooled reactors, and molten
    salt reactors all introduce new and novel safety and/or
    security issues relative to light water reactors that may
    ultimately outweigh any improvements they provide. And this is
    also true for small modular light water reactors like NuScale.
        For example, deployment of any advanced reactor that
    requires reprocessing and separation of plutonium or other
    weapon-usable materials will increase the risks of nuclear
    terrorism and nuclear proliferation, and that includes any
    reactor that claims they can consume spent fuel for
    electricity. So I would really recommend the Committee look
    deeper into what it means to actually consume spent fuel.
        The Transatomic Power reactor is an example. The company
    promoted the idea that its molten salt reactor could consume
    spent fuel, and actually they had to backtrack recently when it
    turns out their analysis was wrong.
        This isn't to say that TAP is necessarily a failure, but it
    illustrates the development of advanced reactors cannot be
    rushed and that early optimism may well be tempered by later
    results.
        It takes a long time and a lot of money to develop advanced
    nuclear reactors, and a number of studies have demonstrated
    that. NRC licensing is not the chokepoint or the bottleneck in
    that process; it is the need to develop the necessary technical
    basis to convince the regulator that a reactor design is safe.
    And you can't short-circuit that process, so that is the main
    reason why we are concerned about the emphasis of this bill in
    trying to accelerate or bypass the critical safety functions of
    the agency?
        I will conclude there, and I appreciate and welcome your
    questions. I apologize for exceeding my time. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Lyman follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much for being with
    us, Dr. Lyman. Thank you for your testimony.
        I would like to next turn to Allison Bawden, who is the
    Acting Director for Natural Resources and Environment with the
    Government Accountability Office. Thank you very much for
    joining us.

       STATEMENT OF ALLISON BAWDEN, ACTING DIRECTOR FOR NATURAL
      RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

        Ms. Bawden. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and
    members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to discuss
    GAO's work on the Department of Energy's management of excess
    uranium.
        The Department of Energy regularly undertakes sales and
    transfers of uranium from its excess inventory. This inventory
    largely resulted from years of Government enrichment activities
    prior to 1992 and is considered a national asset.
        DOE has a responsibility to effectively manage the excess
    uranium inventory on behalf of the American people, who paid
    for it in the first place.
        When DOE conducts transactions in uranium, it is legally
    obligated to ensure these transactions will not result in
    adverse material impacts to uranium markets and that it
    receives reasonable compensation for its uranium.
        A portion of DOE's excess uranium inventory is in the form
    of depleted uranium tails, which historically have been
    considered waste. However, under certain market conditions,
    tails may have value. For example, tails can be profitably re-
    enriched when the price of natural uranium is high, because the
    re-enrichment bypasses the early stages of the nuclear fuel
    cycle, including mining of uranium ore.
        Today I will discuss findings from GAO's prior work on
    three aspects of DOE's management of its excess uranium
    inventory. I will also comment on how provisions of the Nuclear
    Energy Innovation and Modernization Act address legal concerns
    we have raised.
        First, DOE has contracted with a private firm for market
    impact studies to help it determine whether planned uranium
    transactions will result in adverse material impacts to uranium
    markets. The Secretary of Energy is legally required to make
    these determinations.
        In 2014, we found the DOE could not be assured of the
    quality and reliability of two market impact studies because,
    despite requirements to do so, DOE did not take steps to
    address their technical quality and the studies did not include
    sufficient methodological information to assess the
    reasonableness of their conclusions. Both studies, however,
    concluded that DOE's transactions would not have an adverse
    material impact on domestic uranium markets.
        We recommended that DOE take steps to ensure the quality,
    credibility, and transparency of any future uranium market
    impact studies, but DOE neither agreed nor disagreed with this
    recommendation.
        Second, even though DOE is legally required to receive
    reasonable compensation for its material, in May 2014, we found
    that DOE did not have guidance for valuing tails. We also found
    that DOE has inconsistently valued tails when it has sold or
    transferred them. For example, in 2005, DOE charged a price for
    tails. But in 2010 DOE transferred tails to a company without
    charge, despite an estimated value for the transferred material
    of up to $300 million.
        In May 2014, we recommended that DOE develop consistent and
    transparent valuation methods that maximize the value the
    Government derives and provides predictability for uranium
    markets. DOE disagreed with this recommendation.
        There continues to be commercial interest in purchasing
    DOE's tails, which we last valued in June 2014 at about $1
    billion.
        Third, since 2006, we have concluded that DOE's uranium
    transactions have, in some cases, violated Federal law. Our
    legal opinion is that DOE likely does not have authority to
    sell or transfer tails because of specific prohibitions imposed
    by amendments to the Atomic Energy Act.
        We have suggested that Congress consider clarifying DOE's
    legal authority to sell or transfer tails. Also, in reporting
    on certain transactions where DOE has paid for services with
    uranium, we concluded that DOE's legal authority to conduct
    barters is unclear and that DOE violated the miscellaneous
    receipts statute. This statute requires an official or agent of
    the Government receiving money from any source on the
    Government's behalf to deposit the money into the Treasury.
        We suggested that Congress consider clarifying DOE's
    authority to conduct barters and to retain the proceeds from
    such barters.
        Provisions included in the Nuclear Energy Innovation
    Modernization Act would address the legal concerns GAO has
    raised. The bill clarifies DOE's authority to transact in
    depleted uranium tails and provides DOE with authority to
    barter. The bill does not authorize DOE to retain the proceeds
    from barters.
        The bill also addresses concerns we raised about assuring
    quality for market impact studies by requiring them to undergo
    peer review.
        This concludes my statement, and I look forward to your
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Bawden follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate
    all of you being here. We are going to proceed with questions
    at this time, and I would like to start with you, Ms. Bawden,
    if you would.
        First, I wanted to commend you and commend your team for
    the good work that you have done in bringing to light the
    Department of Energy's mismanagement of the public stockpile of
    excess uranium. I want to thank you also for the technical help
    that you and your team have provided to me and to Senator
    Markey as we drafted these provisions.
        In your testimony, you explain that Federal law requires
    the Department of Energy to assess whether its forthcoming
    sales and transfers of excess uranium would impact the uranium
    market.
        For years, the Department has relied on a contractor to
    assess whether the Department's sales and transfers of excess
    uranium would impact the market, but your team has found that
    the Department has not taken steps to ensure that the
    contractor performs quality analysis of that market.
        In the process, the Department has ignored the terms of its
    own contract and its own information quality guidelines, and I
    think this is critically important.
        On Monday, the Casper Star Tribune in Casper, Wyoming ran a
    front-page story entitled State Uranium Operators Are Facing a
    Global Glut. The State uranium operators facing a global glut.
        We need to know whether and to what extent the Department's
    proposed sale or transfer of excess uranium will hurt America's
    uranium producers. So my question to you is what should the
    Department do to assess the quality of its contractor's work?
        Ms. Bawden. There are many actions DOE could take to ensure
    that it fully understands the basis for its conclusions
    included in its secretarial determinations that uranium
    transactions will not have an adverse material impact on the
    market. First and foremost, we have recommended that DOE take
    steps to technically evaluate the studies for which it
    contracts to ensure the reliability of the conclusions of those
    studies.
        We have also recommended that another way the Department
    could evaluate the quality of those studies is to put them
    through peer review.
        We have also recommended that the studies should include
    sufficient information on their methodology and their
    assumptions so that others can assess the veracity of those
    studies' conclusions.
        Senator Barrasso. Could I just followup? How would this
    bill improve the quality of the market impact analysis that the
    Department prepares for itself or contracts others to prepare
    for it?
        Ms. Bawden. The bill includes provisions that require the
    studies to be subject to peer review, and that is consistent
    with our recommendation to the Department.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Korsnick, in 2018, my home State of Wyoming is going to
    become an NRC agreement State, which, as you know, allows
    Wyoming to assume responsibility for regulating uranium
    recovery. When that happens, the total number of uranium
    facilities that the NRC oversees is going to shrink from 11 to
    3. So that means that there are only going to be 3 facilities
    left to shoulder all the costs of the NRC Uranium Recovery
    Office.
        You noted in your testimony how the decline in the number
    of NRC licenses increases the fee burden on those licensees who
    are remaining. Do you believe this problem is a result of a
    faulty fee recovery system?
        Ms. Korsnick. Yes, that is a concern for us. It is very
    similar to when plants decommission, as an example, the same
    burden is raised on the other plants that continue to operate.
    So that is why, in this bill, there is a cap structure that is
    established, which we think directly applies to this concern
    and would help ameliorate that effect.
        Senator Barrasso. Terrific. The performance in the report
    and reporting provision in our legislation directs the NRC to
    expressly budget for the funding necessary to complete license
    reviews requested by the applicants and licensees. The bill
    also directs the NRC to establish transparent schedules to
    complete each requested review along the way.
        So would you please describe the benefits of these
    provisions toward improving the timeliness and the
    predictability of the reviews?
        Ms. Korsnick. We think that is very important. Right now,
    the process is much less predictable from a licensee
    perspective in terms of the amount of time that the NRC would
    need to review products, etcetera. So we think that this helps
    improve that transparency and the predictability from a
    licensee perspective. It is a step in the right direction.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much for your comments.
        Senator Carper.
        Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, I notice a number of the guys
    up here on the dais are wearing red ties and some of the folks
    in the audience are wearing red as well, and today is a day
    where we specially recognize the contributions that women
    continue to make in even greater ways.
        I think Senator Inhofe mentioned earlier today that about
    20 years ago he was the chairman of the subcommittee on Clean
    Air and Nuclear Safety, and held the first oversight hearing, I
    think, for NRC that had been done in maybe 10 years. It has
    been interesting to see the lineup of the witnesses 20 years
    ago. My guess is it looked a little different then.
        We are happy to see all of you, and thank you for your
    contributions and those who you represent in a very important
    way.
        I want to start off and ask my first question. There are a
    lot of things in the legislation that we are here talking about
    that I think commend it to all of us, but what might be one
    thing that each of you would change in the bill? What would be
    maybe one thing you would like to see changed in the
    legislation?
        We will just start right here. Thank you.
        Ms. Korsnick. One thing that we would like to see changed
    from what is?
        Senator Carper. Everything I do I know I can do better. I
    have not written the perfect bill yet, and my guess is this one
    probably is not perfect either. Maybe one thing that you would
    like to see changed as we go forward.
        Ms. Korsnick. I think there are some provisions in the bill
    relative to baffle bolts and some emergency planning zone
    issues that we feel have been addressed and were not
    necessarily needed for the current bill. That would be one
    example that we think that would be something that could be
    removed.
        Senator Carper. All right, thank you.
        Dr. Finan? Do you pronounce your name Finan?
        Ms. Finan. Finan, yes.
        Senator Carper. Good. Thanks.
        Ms. Finan. Thank you.
        Senator Carper. I never want to get to the end of the
    hearing and find out we have been mispronouncing your name for
    the last 2 hours.
        Ms. Finan. OK.
        I think something could be added to make the bill stronger.
    One thing that would be helpful is if the research and test
    reactors were able to recover more than 50 percent of their
    operating costs through providing services like irradiation and
    tests and power and electricity or heat. That would potentially
    make the case for private funding of demonstration projects
    stronger and reduce the amount of Government matching funds
    that might be needed there. So I would suggest that as a
    possible addition.
        Senator Carper. All right, thank you.
        Dr. Back? Not Back. It looks like Back, but is pronounced
    Back.
        Ms. Back. Thank you very much. Yes.
        You know, I would like to stress the fact that innovation
    actually brings advantages that you can't always foresee, but
    one of them in the case of advanced nuclear reactors is to
    reduce the cost and to actually foster innovation. So I would
    like to see, in this bill, maybe a strengthening of the ability
    to look at cost-share from an industry point of view. As I
    pointed out, it takes 10 years or more, potentially, for
    technologies to give some kind of payoff. That is much longer
    than any private company will take on, and so we are not asking
    for a free ride, but a fair look at the cost-share and the
    contribution, especially early in the phase for the NRC
    regulations, would be a huge help to all of the companies that
    are working on advanced reactors.
        Senator Carper. All right, thanks, Dr. Back.
        Dr. Lyman, if you have an idea you would like to share with
    us, please do. One improvement you would like to see made in
    the legislation.
        Mr. Lyman. Thank you for your question. UCS believes that
    the NRC does need regulatory reform, but it would be in the
    direction of strengthening safety and security, rather than
    weakening it. In particular, the post-Fukushima reforms that
    the NRC has enacted do not go as far as we would like. In
    particular, the Commission rejected a recommendation of its own
    task force to reform the regulatory structure to increase the
    defense in depth, that is, extra layers of protection in
    regulations. So, you know, as part of the larger package, we
    would like to see an enhancement of NRC's regulatory framework
    to account for defense in depth in its regulatory decisions in
    a more formal way.
        Senator Carper. All right. Thanks, Dr. Lyman.
        Allison Bawden.
        Ms. Bawden. Thank you.
        Senator Carper. Let me say we so apricate the work that you
    and your colleagues at GAO do for us and applaud your efforts
    on behalf of our Country. Thank you. But go right ahead.
        Ms. Bawden. We appreciate it. Thank you.
        I don't know that I would characterize this as something
    GAO would like to see changed, but we have suggested that the
    Committee could consider using a percentage-based cap in the
    bill for the amount of uranium the Department of Energy is
    authorized to transfer, rather than a hard cap. We have
    suggested that to the Committee. It may provide additional
    flexibility.
        Senator Carper. All right, thanks.
        One last question for Dr. Back. It has been, I think, about
    a year since the Obama administration announced efforts to
    assist the research development and deployment of advanced
    nuclear reactors. Could you just give us a quick update on how
    things are going, please?
        Ms. Back. Sure. I would be happy to do that.
        We have been very appreciative, industry has been very
    appreciative of opportunities that now are available to get
    some grant funding. Those have not been large, but there have
    been some that we have been able to take advantage of, and that
    has helped us develop some of these critical technologies that
    are allowing much higher temperature resistance, superior
    neutron irradiation tolerance; and those kinds of efforts have
    led to beginnings of standards that are being developed to
    treat accident-tolerant fuel, as well as future materials that
    are able to withstand much greater temperatures and much
    greater conditions, harsh conditions in the reactor.
        So those areas we would like to see more of, but we are
    very appreciative of what exists. It has helped in the
    crosscutting, looking across all the reactors. But those
    opportunities are few and far between.
        Senator Carper. All right, thanks.
        I am going to slips out right now. I will be back. We have
    another simultaneous hearing going on in Homeland Security, but
    very much appreciate you being here, your thoughtful testimony,
    and your responses.
        Senator Inhofe.
        [Presiding.] Thank you, Senator Carper.
        Ms. Korsnick, we are in kind of a situation now, and you
    have heard me talk about this before, that the last 10, 15
    years we have seen the workload or proposed workload in
    anticipation of growth in nuclear energy go up and down and up
    and down. Now, it was Reagan that said there is nothing closer
    to life eternal on the face of this earth than a government
    agency once formed. Well, the same thing is true with the
    expansion of an agency. When the workload of this agency looked
    like it was going to be going up, we prepared for that and then
    it didn't happen. And there are a lot of political reasons why
    it didn't happen. I am thankful that I think we have overcome
    those now.
        In the year 2000, the NRC got its work done with 2,800
    people and $470 million. Now, with 3,300 people and twice the
    amount of money, $905 million, it oversees six fewer reactors,
    half as many as the materials, licenses and reviews
    anticipated. The GAO commented on this. They said by 2011,
    however, it had become clear that the projected growth had not
    materialized. NRC's budget and its regulatory fees, however,
    have not declined since that time.
        So what is your thought on that? I know a lot of people on
    this side of the table are thinking, well, the stakeholders are
    going to be paying for this more than just Government. But,
    nonetheless, that is a fact that we have anticipated, growth.
    And, of course, it didn't happen and yet Government just grew.
    What are your thoughts about that?
        Ms. Korsnick. Well, I agree with your sentiments, Senator.
    We do understand why the NRC staffed-up. They did staff-up
    significantly, as you suggest, and if you look at the details
    for the bill, the cap is capping it at a 2015 level, which we
    think is a high watermark, if you will, so more than sufficient
    for the agency.
        Senator Inhofe. Well, I wasn't really referring just to
    this bill. I am just saying that this is history now. This has
    happened. We didn't shrink any when our workload was
    considerably reduced in the past.
        Now, I am concerned about the caps, and that was addressed
    by the Chairman in his questions. And I think it is a good idea
    to go ahead and get on record where we are going to be at that
    time, where we anticipate. Do you think that under 512, that
    the caps are realistic? I want to get on record now and say
    that we are going to be able to do it within those caps?
        Ms. Korsnick. Absolutely. I think that there is clearly
    room for the agency to be more efficient than it is today. They
    have done some work in their Project Aim. I would say this bill
    institutionalizes some of the thinking that they are doing
    under Project Aim, and I think the caps within the bill are
    clearly achievable.
        Senator Inhofe. OK. That is good to hear, and we will get
    that on the record.
        You know, as we watch, I mentioned in my opening statement
    the concern I have over the fact that we are not operating in a
    vacuum, there are other countries that are maybe even passing
    us up. I would like to have any one of the witnesses respond to
    where do you think we are right now with China and Russia.
        Why don't we start with you?
        Ms. Korsnick. I guess I will start with that. I would tell
    you that there are 60 reactors being built around the world
    today, and two-thirds of those reactors are being built by
    Chinese and Russian design, and I think that is a significant
    concern that we, in the United States, need to take a look at
    the leadership level that we want to play in a world
    conversation relative to nuclear. It is not only that we have
    the technology and the best designs; we have the best standards
    on how to operate these reactors. And when you get engaged in
    the conversation about these reactors being operated in other
    countries, those standards and those nonproliferation
    requirements go with it, and that is something that is
    significant, should be very significant to us.
        Senator Inhofe. Yes.
        Anyone else want to comment on that, as to where we are
    with our competition? Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Back. I would just like to add, also, that in, for
    instance, China, they are pursuing every kind of advanced
    reactor in R&D and hopefully, from their point of view, to a
    demonstration plant, and the challenge with this is that the
    governments, for instance, Japan also, are sponsoring the
    research that is being done. So it is very difficult to compete
    at a fair level.
        Senator Inhofe. Yes, that is a good comment.
        Any other comments?
        Mr. Lyman. Yes, I appreciate the opportunity. I do agree
    with Ms. Korsnick that domestic U.S. standards, including NRC
    regulations, are the gold standard, and that is why we believe
    it is very important to maintain those standards and not engage
    in a race to the bottom. So of Russia and China, you know,
    Russia is the country that brought us Chernobyl, and my
    understanding is that China's own regulatory process, including
    the process for qualifying fuel, is not nearly as rigorous as
    the United States. So I think we need to maintain those
    standards, and that is the best selling point we would have.
        Senator Inhofe. I think that is good. I don't want to race
    to the bottom, either, but I think it is important for us to
    talk about the fact that there is competition out there and
    other countries are doing things more aggressively than we are.
    So I think we are all in agreement on that.
        Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman.
        First, can I say I am delighted that we have been joined by
    Senator Booker, who is my co-lead sponsor on our side.
        Let me ask, first, Ms. Korsnick, is there value to the
    carbon emissions-free nature of nuclear generated power? And,
    if so, are nuclear power plants compensated for that value?
        Ms. Korsnick. There is absolutely value, and, no, they are
    not compensated for it.
        Senator Whitehouse. I consider that to be kind of a market
    deformation. How does that market deformation work out in
    practice in the nuclear market?
        Ms. Korsnick. So the challenge we have today is that the
    marketplace just values electricity. It values the capacity and
    it values the product, but it doesn't value whether or not you
    have a carbon-free nature or if you have any other impact to
    the environment. And as you know, from a clean air energy, as
    we look at nuclear, you know, there are asthmas, issues in
    terms of health for people and there are also impacts on the
    environment, things like acid rain. So nuclear power is very
    environmentally friendly; doesn't produce any of those. In the
    marketplace we have today, that is just simply not something
    that is valued. So many of the States are using individual
    solutions and out-of-market solutions right now that they are
    using to value that, and that is becoming a challenge for the
    marketplace, and I know that is something right now that we are
    working with our members to see what it is that we can do to,
    in effect, come up with a more holistic solution.
        Senator Whitehouse. Well, I look forward to working with
    you. I think Chairman Alexander has a similar concern. And if
    there are ways we can find to compensate safely operating
    nuclear plants for the carbon-free nature of their power, that
    creates, I think, a level playing field for nuclear power,
    which is now disadvantaged by the fact that it gets no benefit
    for that.
        My other question is similarly an accounting question. Very
    often accounting is policy. As I understand it, we don't have a
    liability on the books of the United States for the out-year
    cost of dealing with our stockpiles of nuclear waste. If we
    were a company and we had that liability, we would have to
    report it to our shareholders, and management would take a look
    at that liability and say, oh my gosh, that is a real drag on
    earnings, that is a real out-year risk for our shareholders. We
    better pay attention to that; we have to figure out what to do.
    We might even pay somebody to figure out how to reduce that
    liability, because there would be value in reducing the
    liability.
        When we don't adequately account for the liability we have
    of all the nuclear waste we have stockpiled, then there is no
    economic rationale for spending money to try to move to the
    point we talked about earlier, which is is there a technology
    out there, or is there the potential for a technology out
    there, that could rid us of the liability for our nuclear waste
    stockpile by actually figuring out, through innovation, how to
    turn it from a liability into an asset, and find a way to turn
    it into a safe nuclear fuel.
        Would you comment on the liability accounting of all of
    this and how that acts out in your world?
        Ms. Korsnick. Yes. I guess I would just frame it by saying
    that all of the used fuel is being safely stored today. It is
    not a technology problem; it is a political problem that we
    need to appreciate and make decisions on where we want to
    ultimately store this fuel. And as you heard earlier today,
    what we consider a challenge today, or trash today, or used
    fuel today, in the future I am sure we will look at it as a
    resource. So what you consider a liability today, depending on
    new technology, can quickly become an asset for the future.
        Senator Whitehouse. And last question to Drs. Finan and
    Back, who are technical experts here. Is that a prospect worth
    pursuing?
        Ms. Finan. Absolutely. And many of the innovative companies
    today are pursuing that. So I think we need to be supportive of
    them so that they can achieve that goal.
        Senator Whitehouse. Dr. Back.
        Ms. Back. Yes, I agree. Many people do consider the waste
    at the back end. When we were looking at EM2 and designing the
    reactor, we took that into consideration to be able to use the
    spent nuclear fuel in light water reactors regenerated and
    reformed into a fuel that the EM2 reactor could use. And in
    doing that you are gaining back all of the energy that would
    usually just put stored in waste and just sit there and not be
    reused, so we are not putting more effort into taking new
    natural resources, but we are actually using the waste as fuel.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman. My time has
    expired.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Bawden, I would like to followup on what Senator
    Whitehouse was just talking about. In your GAO report you
    actually identify the fact that there are tailings and so forth
    that are the property of the U.S. Government today, and that
    there appears to be a commercially viable alternative to simply
    storing them and that there has been an interest in purchasing
    those tailings. Could you share a little bit about your report
    and what you are finding actually in today's marketplace with
    regard to those tailings?
        Ms. Bawden. Thank you for your correct. The last time we
    valued the Department of Energy's inventory of tails was in
    June 2014, and we put that value at about $1 billion. We have
    reported over the years that sometimes certain types of tails
    may be able to be re-enriched, and when that occurs basically
    the tails are used as the feedstock for enrichment, rather than
    natural uranium that has been converted. That has occurred on
    several occasions, re-enrichment has occurred, and most
    recently the Department of Energy issued a press release
    stating that there is commercial interest in purchasing a
    significant amount of the Department's inventory.
        Senator Rounds. So there has been a private entity which
    has made an inquiry to our Department requesting the
    opportunity to purchase tailings, correct?
        Ms. Bawden. That is correct.
        Senator Rounds. And at the same time we don't have a
    process in place in which we can facilitate the negotiation of
    the sale of that in any type of a regulated manner, is that a
    fair way to put it?
        Ms. Bawden. So we have had a legal opinion in the past that
    says we do not believe the Department of Energy has authority
    to transact in tails. The Department has disagreed with that
    legal opinion, and the bill before us today does address that
    issue.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you. Let me ask another question. In
    your May 2014 report you recommended that for each uranium
    transaction that it conducts, that DOE should publicly identify
    the legal authority that it relies on for that transaction. You
    went on to indicate that there were times in which there had
    been transfers of uranium, a product owned by the Federal
    Government, that had been delivered to a third party that we
    apparently had a contract with and we owed money to. And
    instead of paying the bill with cash, we bartered it out by
    giving them uranium instead, and that they were then allowed to
    sell the uranium and that was our way of completing the
    transaction through DOE.
        Can you talk a little bit about what that does to the
    accounting process and keeping track of where the money goes in
    an asset of the Federal Government that has been converted at
    this point?
        Ms. Bawden. It is confusing. So what we have said in the
    cases of those transactions that we reviewed that we believe
    there was a miscellaneous receipt statute violation, and that
    the Department of Energy should have deposited in the Treasury
    the net proceeds of the sale of that uranium. It did not, and
    that continues to be a legal disagreement between GAO and DOE.
        Senator Rounds. Do you have any idea as to the size of that
    transaction in terms, if we converted it to cash like we would
    normally do if we were going to have a transaction that could
    be followed, what size was that transaction?
        Ms. Bawden. Well, there have been several of those
    transactions. We looked at the first in a legal opinion we
    issued in 2006 and then there were others that we looked at in
    a report in 2011. I don't know the current value of that, but
    we would be happy to look into that for the record.
        Senator Rounds. Would it be fair to say that if a
    department such as DOE wanted additional resources that they
    could utilize, they can sell an asset of the U.S. Government,
    basically fuel, they can sell it to a third party or transact
    it to a third party, rather than paying cash, which would be
    part of their budget, and they then have additional excess cash
    available to do what they want with or to cover other expenses
    as they see fit?
        Ms. Bawden. The Atomic Energy Act and amendments to it does
    authorize DOE to transact in certain types of uranium. But what
    we believe is not allowed is DOE's authority to retain the
    proceeds from those transactions. And in these cases that is
    what we believe DOE has done, and that is why we included an
    opinion that said there was a miscellaneous receipts statute
    violation.
        Senator Rounds. In other words, what they should have done
    is deposited it back with the United States Treasury.
        Ms. Bawden. That is correct. And not having done so, they
    would have supplemented their appropriation.
        Senator Rounds. Are you aware of any other department that
    transacts business like this that is currently allowed to keep
    the resources that we could follow? I know in your
    recommendation you suggested actually that rather than simply
    slapping their hands for doing it, you suggested that we amend
    the laws in place today so that they could do that in the
    future.
        Ms. Bawden. We suggested that the lobby clarified one way
    or the other. There are examples across the Government where
    Federal agencies are allowed to retain proceeds from various
    things, but I personally don't know of any Federal agencies
    that transact in this way.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Markey.
        Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Korsnick, before we discuss next generation reactors, I
    have a question about how we can ensure that the current
    nuclear fleet is secure against terrorism. The 2005 Energy
    Policy Act includes a provision which I authored that mandates
    that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission conducts security
    inspections at U.S. nuclear power plants. The reason I built
    that in, obviously, is the terrorist attack on 9/11, where two
    planes were hijacked from Logan Airport that flew into the
    World Trade Center. So my goal was to make nuclear power plants
    more secure.
        The inspections must include force-on-force exercises where
    a mock adversary terrorist force conducts a simulated attack on
    a power plant to probe potential gaps in the plant's security.
    These exercises allow the NRC to ensure that nuclear power
    plants are adequately protected against terrorists or other bad
    actors.
        The alternative, having plant operators run their own
    exercises, would not only violate the law, but it would create
    a clear conflict of interest and undermine public safety.
        In the past, the Nuclear Energy Institute lobbied the
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission to get rid of its force-on-force
    exercises in favor of exercises conducted by the owners of the
    power plant. In effect, this would have nuclear power plant
    operators inspecting themselves.
        In December I wrote to the NRC to explain that implementing
    such a proposal would not only be dangerous, but also illegal.
    In response to my letter, the Nuclear Energy Institute stated
    publicly that it did not support getting rid of the NRC's
    force-on-force exercises.
        But at a recent public meeting, the Nuclear Energy
    Institute appears to have shifted its position yet again and
    now says that it might support getting rid of NRC-run security
    evaluations in favor, instead, of letting the owners of the
    plant do their own inspections.
        Could you clear this up? Which side of that issue is the
    Nuclear Energy Institute on?
        Ms. Korsnick. I can share that we are currently conducting
    these force-on-force exercises. I am familiar with those. I
    know that there has been some work with the industry working
    with the NRC to see if we could do these in a more efficient
    way, rather than the way that they had been conducted.
        Senator Markey. Do you support that the Government ensure
    that it is done independent of the owner of the plant, or do
    you support letting the plant operator do it? Which position do
    you take? There are two different positions here just in the
    last couple of months.
        Ms. Korsnick. What I am familiar with is that it is done
    independently. I will let you know that----
        Senator Markey. Independently of?
        Ms. Korsnick. That there is an independent force that
    conducts these, that the NRC observes this independent force on
    this force-on-force exercise. That is how it is done today. I
    do know that there are folks that are looking at our security
    right now.
        Senator Markey. So you support the continuation of NRC-run
    force-on-force exercises, is that correct?
        Ms. Korsnick. That is correct. That is what we do today. I
    do know that there are people looking----
        Senator Markey. Do you support that position being
    continued?
        Ms. Korsnick. I do support that, but there are folks that
    are looking at it. If, in the future, they come up with a
    recommendation, we will evaluate it, but that is how it is
    currently being done today.
        Senator Markey. Well, the reason that we have the goal of
    having the plant operator not inspect itself is the same reason
    that you don't have take-home exams in school, that not only do
    you take it at home, but then you give yourself your own grade.
    There would be a disproportionate number of A-plusses that
    students would give to themselves for the work which they were
    doing. So you need an independent way of looking at the safety
    issues, especially post-9/11, post-Tsarnaev brothers in Boston,
    as well, on Marathon Monday.
        So I urge you very strongly, Ms. Korsnick, to have the
    Nuclear Energy Institute adopt the position which you did at
    the end of last year, that there should be independent
    inspections to make sure that these plants can withstand a
    terrorist attack, and it is not just done by the plant owners
    themselves, who will want to have, necessarily, a stake in
    lowering the cost that they would have for trying to protect
    these plants.
        So I can't urge you strongly enough that we learn this
    lesson in Boston, on 9/11, and then with the Tsarnaev brothers.
    They are coming; they have plans. Nuclear is at the top of
    their list; nuclear weapons coming in from overseas, nuclear
    power plants in the United States. If they don't have the kind
    of security that protects against a successful terrorist
    attack, then we are going to see them try to penetrate the
    loose standards that some of these power plant owners will put
    in place.
        So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Markey.
        Senator Fischer.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Bawden, I would like to followup a little bit on
    Senator Rounds' questioning that he had with you. In your
    testimony, you mention the miscellaneous receipts statute. Can
    you please expand on the purpose of the statute and how it
    protects Congress's power of the purse under the Constitution
    and why the American public should care whether the Department
    of energy violates that law?
        Ms. Bawden. Essentially, the miscellaneous receipts statute
    requires that any money the Government receives be deposited in
    the Treasury. When that doesn't happen, an agency has
    essentially augmented its appropriation or used money that
    Congress didn't give it, and this circumvents Congress's power
    of the purse, which, as you stated, is its constitutional
    responsibility.
        In the cases that we have looked at with respect to uranium
    transactions the Department of Energy has carried out, DOE paid
    for certain services in uranium rather than paying for them
    with appropriated funds, and in our legal opinion did so
    without authority.
        Senator Fischer. So what are the consequences if the
    Department has violated that statute?
        Ms. Bawden. It is difficult to determine the consequences.
    Miscellaneous Receipts Act violations can be resolved if
    Congress were, for example, to retroactively approve what the
    Department did or for the Department of Energy to adjust its
    books to reflect the uranium that it essentially provided as an
    obligation against its budget authority. It has not done either
    of those things. So it is possible, if the Department of Energy
    obligated more money than it was appropriated, that it could be
    viewed as having an Anti-Deficiency Act violation, which does
    carry with it penalties, civil and criminal penalties.
        But we believe that Congress could ask DOE for more
    information about this issue to really try to understand its
    scope. For example, Congress could ask DOE to provide the total
    value of the uranium it has traded and look at that with
    respect to its obligational authority. There are also
    appropriations levers that could be used.
        Senator Fischer. So Congress does have some tools to be
    able to address this.
        Ms. Bawden. Yes.
        Senator Fischer. And do you think they are appropriate at
    this time or do we need to look at augmenting them?
        Ms. Bawden. I haven't looked at that issue.
        Senator Fischer. OK. Thank you.
        Dr. Finan, I understand that there are several advanced
    reactor technologies that need uranium enriched up to 20
    percent, and this is higher than the standard 5 percent
    enrichment currently used in operating reactors. Can you tell
    me more about the situation?
        Ms. Finan. Sure. Thank you for the question, Senator.
        There are many of the advanced reactor companies who will
    need to use enriched uranium that is low enriched, but is
    between 5 and 20 percent, and currently we don't have a
    domestic supply chain for that fuel because there hasn't been a
    demand. So that is essentially the situation. It is possible
    that they could obtain the materials internationally, but that
    is not the preferred option.
        Senator Fischer. So it is not available right now in the
    commercial market?
        Ms. Finan. It is not.
        Senator Fischer. And is the Department of Energy's uranium
    surplus, is that the only source that we have?
        Ms. Finan. It is the only domestic source currently.
        Senator Fischer. Domestic. Which is the preferred method
    that we should be looking at, right?
        Ms. Finan. Right, right. So it would be a very promising
    way to provide a bridge for those early movers to have the fuel
    that they need to do their development work before commercial
    enrichment capacity is established in the U.S.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Korsnick, to followup on the line of questioning we
    just had here, how long would it take to establish a commercial
    fuel supply with the enrichment necessary to meet the needs of
    the advanced reactors that we are looking at?
        Ms. Korsnick. For that higher enrichment, very much what
    Dr. Finan just said, we would look to the down-blending of the
    highly enriched uranium as sort of a stopgap measure, and we
    would need that until enough of a market develops that there
    would be a commercial opportunity. Once there is investment at
    a commercial level, we are estimating probably in the
    neighborhood of 7 to 10 years, but that is after the decision
    has made to pursue it. So I want to be careful there. It is not
    7 to 10 years after people start needing it; it is after
    somebody has made a commercial commitment to actually pursue
    it. And in the meantime we think down-blending the HEU is the
    best approach.
        Senator Fischer. And it is appropriate that the Department
    would be able to supply that, do you think?
        Ms. Korsnick. It would. I think we need to look at this
    current bill and some caps that were put in place. We would
    think that the caps would not apply to the down-blending.
        Senator Fischer. And in the bill before us, S. 512, it
    directs the NRC to examine the feasibility of extending the
    duration of uranium recovery licenses, and your testimony
    states that you believe 40 years would be appropriate. Can you
    explain why?
        Ms. Korsnick. Yes. It is very commensurate with other
    facilities, we think, the 40-year timeframe. For example, when
    you license a reactor, that comes in a 40-year license. And the
    risk associated is much less with the facilities that we are
    talking about. So we think it is very commensurate with the
    risk that a 40-year license would be very appropriate.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso.
        [Presiding.] Thank you, Senator Fischer.
        Senator Booker.
        Senator Booker. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And let
    me just say, to begin with and echoing the comments of Senator
    Whitehouse, how grateful I am that we have a tremendous
    bipartisan bill together. It really is a testimony to this
    Committee and our ability to work together, and I just want to
    thank Senators Inhofe, as he walks out, and thank you, sir,
    always for your leadership, and Barrasso, Capito, Fischer, as
    well as Senator Duckworth and Manchin, who are now all
    cosponsoring what I think is a very strong bill. In fact, I
    think it is an urgent bill.
        Nuclear energy, right now, is critical, if not vital when
    you look at the larger energy picture in the United States of
    America. Not only is it from the perspective especially from us
    Democrats here, about the challenges, crises we are facing from
    the bleaching of coral reefs to, as was mentioned already, the
    extraordinary high asthma rates in communities like mine. But
    it is also urgent when it comes to the global security
    perspective and the competition we are seeing in nuclear
    energy, and what is happening with those scientists who are
    many ways being developed more so in China or Russia than here
    in the United States.
        Right now we all know that nuclear energy provides a very,
    very critical aspect of our non-carbon-producing power. We did
    the right thing in a very important negotiation in 2015, when
    we extended tax credits for wind energy and solar energy and,
    as a result of having 7 years of predictability, we saw a boom
    in investment in this area, literally creating thousands and
    thousands of more American jobs. And it was the right thing to
    do, especially if you look at, as Senator Whitehouse was
    saying, the impact of carbon and the cost of carbon. But we did
    not include nuclear energy as a result.
        Now, the crisis we have is the fact that if you look at
    wind and solar, we still have nuclear power, baseload, critical
    baseload power, which now compromises about 20 percent of the
    total U.S. electricity generation and more than 60 percent of
    our Nation's carbon-free electricity. It is a powerful
    component. And to have these plants closing down and having us
    move, as a Nation, away from nuclear energy really threatens
    our ability to do carbon-free, to reduce our carbon-producing,
    polluting-producing energy sources.
        So right now in the United States, though, the good news is
    that there are dozens of private sector companies that are
    moving forward and making billions of dollars in investments in
    advanced nuclear designs that could lead to the next generation
    of reactors. I confess, when I first read about advanced
    nuclear, I thought I was reading science fiction and not
    science fact, because these reactors are far more safe to not
    have a lot of the challenges or problems; actually eat the
    spent nuclear fuel of current generation reactors.
        So we really need long-term policies that are going to
    support the existing fleet, but also support the development
    and upscale of advanced nuclear technologies. So that is what
    the urgency is right now.
        I think some of the issues that Senator Markey was bringing
    up are critical. We need to always be doing everything safely.
    But if we are going to move forward and embrace a carbon-free
    future, we are not going to get there quick enough relying on
    solar or wind; nuclear has to be a critical part of it. And,
    again, looking at the critical global security issues and
    competition issues, this is a space that we don't want to give
    the advantage to other nations.
        So I want to thank everyone who joined together on trying
    to design a bipartisan bill. It creates a regulatory regime
    that still focuses on safety, but also focuses on creating a
    regulatory environment for us to lead. And my hope is, I think
    what Senator Whitehouse was hinting at, is we start looking at
    valuing the carbon contributions or, I should say, the non-
    carbon contributions of nuclear as well as thinking of ways to
    create tax policy in the way we did with solar and wind in this
    space.
        But very quickly I would like to just put a question to Dr.
    Finan on a concern I have about the first-of-the-kind
    technologies, people that are moving in this advanced nuclear
    space that is really, I think, critical right now and exciting.
    There is an issue for the first-of-the-kind technologies that
    there is a significant design review costs in this space, both
    pre-application and post-application. These costs can be higher
    and less predictable than for subsequent projects. So I want to
    know, Dr. Finan, do you see this as a problem and can you talk
    about how the DOE matching grant program in this bill could
    really help solve that problem?
        Ms. Finan. Yes. Thank you for the question. Many of the
    advanced nuclear companies have cited these review costs as a
    major challenge to their commercialization. I think that the
    grant program will help to address that, as similar programs
    have for the AP 1000 and for the NuScale project.
        Senator Booker. So this is a first step. But looking at the
    future, this really exciting technology in the nuclear space,
    are there things that we can do to expand on the DOE grant
    program in this bill and make it actually more effective, if
    you were sort of advising us?
        Ms. Finan. I think that there are. The current language
    authorizes that that grant program can be used to defray NRC
    fees. You could expand that to allow it to be used for
    applicant costs in preparing and pursuing the applications, as
    has been done in the SMR program; and that might be more
    effective.
        Senator Booker. Thank you very much. And then there are
    clearly these economic reasons, which I have discussed, why we
    want to develop these next generation nuclear technologies, or
    safety reasons why we want to embrace these next generation
    nuclear reactors here in the United States, but can you talk
    about some of the other reasons why this is so critical and
    what risks we face if we don't allow these technologies? What
    is exciting you about it and what are the risks for not moving
    forward?
        Again, I feel like a nerd now when I go around sort of
    talking about the exciting next generation nuclear
    technologies, so I am hoping that you can confirm me so I can
    clip this part right here and my friends don't think I am weird
    for talking about it so much.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Finan. Absolutely. Well, the U.S. has been a leader in
    nuclear energy since the dawn of technology, and we are
    actually starting to cede that leadership, as has come up a
    couple times today. Many would argue we have ceded it to Russia
    and to China and others, but we have an opportunity here with
    this future before us to seize that role back and to really
    regain that leadership role so that we have influence on non-
    proliferation discussions and on best practices and safety and
    environmental issues globally. And I think that is a key thing
    that we will lose if we don't maintain leadership here.
        Just one other point is that if we don't support our
    domestic innovators, some of these technologies might not be
    developed at all, or they could be supplanted by designs
    developed elsewhere, where they don't necessarily prioritize
    safety the way that we do here.
        Senator Booker. And if you could just clarify for me, in
    terms of, again, Senator Whitehouse is one of the leaders on
    this issue of trying to create a carbon-free future in energy.
    To get there quickly, what is the role that nuclear must play
    if we are going to get there in 10, 15, 20 years?
        Ms. Finan. Nuclear needs to play an enormous role. We have
    a huge increase in energy demand globally that we are going to
    see, and we can't keep those people from having energy. We need
    to have everyone have energy abundance for human health and
    economic growth, and nuclear really is available and ready to
    play a role in providing that energy globally, without any
    carbon emissions or criteria pollutants.
        Senator Booker. And so from India, which is still embracing
    coal power plants left and right, China still starting new coal
    power plants left and right, if we get this technology right,
    if America leads on it in this space, we can really be the
    leaders in proliferating and really helping to stop this
    continued reliance on dirty fuel.
        Ms. Finan. Right. We can bring great opportunity to
    developing countries so that they can have clean, abundant
    power, but also help our economy here at home with abundant
    exports of our technology.
        Senator Booker. And is the safety of advance nuclear excite
    you as much as me? Does it?
        Ms. Finan. Absolutely. I think that one of the biggest
    amazing things about advanced nuclear is the prospect of being
    able to have a plant that does not have impacts outside the
    site boundary in an accident. I think that is a critical
    characteristic for advanced nuclear plants to meet.
        Senator Booker. Thank you very much. Please, more caffeine
    in your next hearing so you can be as jazzed as I am about
    this.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Booker. And, Dr. Back, really quick, I am excited
    about the work that you and your team are doing over at General
    Atomics. In your testimony, you touched on advanced reactors
    can be safer than existing technologies. Could you just
    elaborate on that safety as the last point? Thank you.
        Ms. Back. Yes. This gets to your excitement about new
    technologies. I mean, we start with a fiber that is a silicon
    carbide fiber. We make it into a weave and then we solidify
    that by depositing silicon carbide in between. That makes
    something that is called a silicon carbide composite that is
    much more resistant to the neutron radiation and also can go to
    more than two times the temperature of metal zircaloy, for
    instance.
        So that fundamentally changes the game for safety because
    you cannot only avoid accidents in areas where you had meltdown
    in Fukushima of the fuel and the fuel rod, but also you reduce
    the generation in hydrogen so you don't have explosions like at
    Fukushima. Also, that allows you to burn the fuel more
    efficiently; you can go to higher temperature. That allows you
    to generate more electricity from the same amount of heat. So,
    for instance, for EM2, we can generate 60 percent more energy
    from the same amount of heat.
        And there are simple things with technology where you can
    borrow and build on other technologies, for instance, moving
    from a steam generator to a gas turbine also jumps you
    enormously from light water reactor plant is sort of bounded by
    33 percent efficiency. When you use gas turbines, you can jump
    up to 53 percent for our particular design. There are other
    designs that use gas turbines, but also make other advantages
    in technologies that allows you to burn fuel more or, in the
    case of safety, which I shouldn't forget, we started EM2 before
    Fukushima happened, but it turns out the silicon carbide
    material that we use is exactly used. It is important for light
    water reactors for the same reasons it is for EM2, which is
    that it is more resistant at temperature and you can avoid
    these problems that happen at Three Mile Island and Fukushima.
    These would not have been problems where you would have to walk
    away from the reactors.
        Senator Booker. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Booker.
        Senator Capito.
        Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank all the witnesses.
        I would like to address both my questions, really, to Ms.
    Korsnick. In the GAO report on the NRC's fee recovery process,
    one industry stakeholder indicated a lack of understanding as
    to how the fees actually relate to the NRC's budget. You talked
    a lot about this in your written statement. Another noticed a
    mismatch between the activities in the NRC budget and the
    activities the staff actually performs.
        So are the structural problems with the NRC's fee recovery
    a recent development or has the industry had longstanding
    concerns about the fee structures?
        Ms. Korsnick. We have actually had longstanding concerns,
    and I know we have had conversations that date back, I don't
    know, to the early 1990's, I believe, talking about the
    concerns that we expressed. We do think that this bill is a
    step in the right direction in terms of creating more
    transparency and making it much more clear in terms of where
    money is being spent. You mentioned a report. There was also an
    Ernst & Young report that was done in terms of the amount of
    money that the NRC spends on their corporate costs, so through
    the provisions in this bill I think there is more clarity in
    terms of how much money would actually be spent on those
    corporate costs, which is something that is of much interest to
    the industry.
        Senator Capito. I guess a very simple question, when I was
    reading some of the background on this issue, in terms of
    corporate costs, is that another name for administrative fees?
    Do you know what those corporate costs are that they are
    devoting, what is it, 32, 33 percent of their budget to?
        Ms. Korsnick. It is a wide range of things; human
    resources, administrative costs, building fees, for example,
    where the offices are located. There are information systems
    costs, etcetera. So it is a variety.
        Senator Capito. It is a variety. OK.
        So you just mentioned that you think that S. 512 would go a
    long ways toward the transparency. I have the GAO report here,
    which recommends greater transparency. So you are satisfied
    that this is necessary to get that transparency and equity that
    you think would make this fee structure much more fair and
    transparent?
        Ms. Korsnick. Absolutely. Step in the right direction.
        Senator Capito. Well, thank you. S. 512 also directs the
    NRC to expressly identify the funds necessary to work on
    reviews requested by licensees and applicants, and I understand
    that one of the issues is, as plants decommission, it then gets
    the last man standing, fees go up. Could you talk about that a
    little bit?
        Ms. Korsnick. Yes. And that is why the provision in the
    bill relative to the cap is important to us, because, as we
    spoke earlier to your point, as plants decommission, it raises
    the price, if you will, on the plants that remain, so the cap
    structure that is put in in this provision in this bill would
    help ameliorate that effect.
        Senator Capito. Could you say affirmatively that this
    wouldn't compromise any safety or security issues around any of
    the plants?
        Ms. Korsnick. Absolutely. And the reason I would give you
    for that, first of all, the level that it is capped at is the
    2015 level, which is a high watermark in terms of the amount of
    money; and in the same token, if there is some, I will say,
    unforeseen event that for some reason the NRC would feel the
    need to go higher than the cap, there is a provision in the
    bill for them to make that appeal in that case. I would find
    that, obviously, very remote, but there is a provision in the
    bill should that be necessary.
        Senator Capito. Right. Thank you very much.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Capito.
        Senator Harris.
        Senator Harris. Thank you.
        To Ms. Bawden, as you know, the San Onofre Nuclear
    Generating Station in San Diego, California was nationally
    scrutinized, beginning in 2012, for concerns over the
    radioactive leaks and potential fire concerns, and I can tell
    you, living close to that community, many families, many
    children very concerned about the health consequences of what
    happened there. And the Nuclear Regulatory Commission then
    began its investigation, which ultimately led to the
    decommissioning, as you probably know, in 2013, of the station.
    Still, there are concerns that of the almost 3.6 million pounds
    of radioactive nuclear waste that was left behind, that there
    could be significant risk to the 65,000 residents of the San
    Clemente area and its surrounding communities.
        So from the GAO's perspective, has the Nuclear Regulatory
    Commission sufficiently overseen what is going on in that area
    and in particular the work of Southern California Edison and
    its process for handling the nuclear waste?
        Ms. Bawden. I appreciate that question. Unfortunately, I am
    not GAO's expert on NRC regulation. I came today----
        Senator Harris. What have you heard around the office?
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Bawden. That is a great question. No, I would be happy
    to provide the details on GAO's work for that for the record.
        Senator Harris. OK, I would appreciate that. And as soon as
    possible, because, obviously, it is a big issue for the folks
    who are there.
        Ms. Bawden. Absolutely.
        Senator Harris. In addition, GAO issued four reports
    between 2003 and 2011 which cited the Commission's regulations
    were ``too weak'' in their ability to ensure safety and
    security for the nuclear power plants, and also the concern
    about their ability to monitor the underground pipe leaks and
    their ability to enforce fire protections, all issues that
    apply to many places but, in particular, San Onofre, from my
    perspective.
        Do you think that there are existing regulations that the
    Commission should strengthen or others that the Commission
    should consider before we start having a discussion about
    expediting licenses to advanced nuclear energy projects?
        Ms. Bawden. Again, I very much appreciate your question and
    I will provide a full response to it for the record.
        Senator Harris. OK. And thank you.
        Ms. Back, one of my general concerns about how nuclear
    waste is disposed of is that even if there is some of it that
    remains, it presents a serious challenge and harm to the health
    of the people in that community. Last year, in an interview
    with the San Diego Tribune, you stated that General Atomics'
    new Energy Multiple Module, which you have mentioned, EM2,
    could decrease the amount of nuclear waste by 97 percent, which
    is laudable, compared to a traditional nuclear reactor. So
    although, of course, that is encouraging, what will completely
    eliminate the nuclear waste that is produced?
        Ms. Back. That is a tough challenge, but the way that we
    reduce the amount of waste is we I don't want to say burn,
    because you are not really making a flame, but you are using up
    the fuel, you are consuming the fuel when you start to generate
    heat which then turns into electricity. If you generate at
    higher temperatures and you generate or you run the fuel for a
    longer time--in EM2 we use the fuel for 30 years--then you can
    burn up, if you will, the radioactive elements that are having
    long life radioactive decay, also short life. But if you then
    use that fuel and reconstitute it and then take it through the
    reactor again, then you can burn more. After multiple cycles is
    how you get to a 97 percent decrease.
        Senator Harris. So what about that remaining 3 percent?
    Let's talk about that.
        Ms. Back. So that remaining 3 percent, there is still some
    part you will have to put into a geological disposal. That will
    be much, much smaller volume. If you look at the amount of
    volume from reducing it to 97 percent less, it is hardly
    comparable.
        Senator Harris. So what do you imagine the future will look
    like in terms of our ability, based on the research and the
    science that we are engaged in, what could it possibly look
    like that we would be able to completely eliminate that
    remaining 3 percent? What would need to happen?
        Ms. Back. I think in the end you still have to dispose of
    it as a geological waste. So there will be some small amount
    that you will still have to dispose of.
        Senator Harris. Do you foresee that incrementally we will
    get to the point that we will at some point reduce that number
    to 2 percent and 1 percent, or have you determined that 3
    percent is pretty much the end? Pardon the pun.
        Ms. Back. No, I am never going to second-guess science;
    there are too many discoveries that have happened.
        Senator Harris. Of course.
        Ms. Back. And new technologies that maybe are able to do
    something in the future that we can't imagine now. But today I
    would say that that 3 percent is going to have to go into a
    geological waste. But I think that should be kept in contrast
    with the huge amount of waste that you see generated for other
    power sources. So this is an extremely efficient use, where you
    are taking a large atom, uranium, it is splitting, you are
    getting out energy.
        You know, the footprint of a nuclear reactor, for instance,
    compared to a solar array, which basically we can't get States
    that will give us a large enough amount of surface area because
    it is just not possible; the technology is not able to
    compensate. So replacing that 20 percent of nuclear energy that
    is going to be retired, I personally can't see a way to do that
    right now. So, to me, nuclear has to be a part of the diverse
    mix of energy sources. I think it is also good for the Nation,
    for national security, and this is, I think, something that we,
    as a Country, have to make a decision to invest the money and
    the technology to really be able to make these hurdles.
        I mean, if you look at the comparison of, I have used this
    before, but it is just too simple to see. If you look at your
    telephone from the 1950's and you look at your iPhone today, I
    mean, you could never have imagined that it could grow by leaps
    and bounds there. Nuclear technology has not really
    fundamentally changed since the 1940's and 1950's, when it was
    developed, so I think probably there is not a person in this
    room that couldn't imagine that you could make improvements and
    make them safely. I mean, we value the NRC. We believe that
    they should exist and we believe they should be regulated, and
    we think that advanced reactors can fit within that envelope
    easily. We have to be given a chance and it takes time to prove
    these things out, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't start
    now.
        Senator Harris. Thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Harris.
        Senator Duckworth, thank you for being a cosponsor. If you
    would like to have some additional time to make an opening
    statement as well as the questioning, please feel free.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Well, I would like to thank the Chair and Ranking Member
    for convening today's hearing. I also want to commend Chairman
    Barrasso for your leadership in developing this legislation in
    a transparent and bipartisan fashion. I am very proud to
    cosponsor this bill that seeks to modernize how we regulate the
    nuclear industry.
        My constituents get a significant amount of energy from
    nuclear sources. Illinois's 11 reactors, the most of any State,
    generate half of the State's electricity. We also have 3-D
    activated reactors.
        But that is only half of the story. These facilities are
    major job creators in my State. Illinois's nuclear energy
    facilities employ nearly 6,000 high skilled workers and, on
    average, each reactor has an annual payroll of $40 million a
    year, and Illinois facilities pay almost $300 million in State
    and local taxes. These are good jobs, and my mission in the
    Senate is to protect them and the communities that they
    support. So I thank the Chairman for this bill.
        I would like to begin my questioning by just saying a
    lesser known fact, but one that we take special pride in, is
    that Illinois is home to Argon National Laboratory, one of our
    Nation's crown jewels of scientific research and a leader in
    developing nuclear technology. In fact, our current nuclear
    technology is a product of the hard work performed by Argon
    researchers in Illinois.
        The folks there, about 3,300 researchers and scientists,
    are leading the Nation's development of fast reactor and fuel
    recycled technologies, and if Congress fulfills our commitment
    to fund this program, Argon will fulfill its promise to improve
    the affordability of nuclear power, enhance safety and
    security, and minimize radioactive waste, as we have been
    discussing already.
        Dr. Finan, you mentioned in your testimony that startup
    companies are pioneering nuclear designs that offer safer and
    more affordable nuclear technology options. In your view, what
    are the top nuclear innovation benefits of our investment in
    DOE national laboratories, such as those made at Argon,
    particularly when it comes to materials development, advanced
    chemistries, reduced nuclear wastes, and super-computing
    capabilities? Can you talk about some of the things that are
    exciting that are happening right now that really depend on the
    DOE laboratories?
        Ms. Finan. Absolutely. The national labs are really
    invaluable and irreplaceable partners to these nuclear
    innovators. Not only, as you said, do they develop many of the
    technologies that this work is based on now, but these
    innovators are working hand-in-hand with experts at the
    national labs, including Argon and Oak Ridge in Idaho, all of
    those places, to do their materials work and to do their super-
    computing. They are using the experimental facilities at those
    labs that aren't available elsewhere, and, really, it is
    enabling them to move forward in a way that the private sector
    couldn't do alone. So the labs play a critical role in all of
    those areas.
        Senator Duckworth. Is there any particular technology that
    is being developed that you find especially exciting that is a
    partnership with private organizations?
        Ms. Finan. I think one of the key technologies being
    developed or worked on and furthered is fast reactor fuels,
    which are really being developed in partnership with the labs
    and the private companies, and that is an important synergy,
    where the fuels really couldn't be developed on their own in
    the private sector.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
        I believe deeply in scientific research and remain
    committed to advance in innovation. I also know that R&D on its
    own will not make the lives of Illinoisans or Americans better
    by itself. In order to fully capitalize on our investments in
    next generation nuclear technology, we have to make sure that
    those jobs associated with them stay at home. So could you
    speak a little bit as to how you think we could ensure that
    U.S. components manufacturers and manufacturing workers, what
    kind of a role do they plan in the development of manufacturing
    of SMRs and other advanced nuclear technologies, the folks who
    are the subs and who are making the components?
        Ms. Finan. Sure. You know, I think it is important to note
    that several U.S. companies are already turning to other
    countries to be their main partners in licensing and
    demonstrating their technologies. And when they do that and go
    that route, they are much more likely to use manufacturing in
    those countries where they are looking for their demonstrations
    to be built. So I think the best way that we can support more
    manufacturing here in the States is to really support the
    innovators' ability to be licensed and to demonstrate their
    technologies here in the U.S., and I think that S. 512 goes a
    long way toward assisting that. We also need to support the
    supply chain here to make sure that the manufacturing is
    available for those technologies.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
        Ms. Korsnick, how can advanced reactors and innovation
    contribute to overcoming the economic challenges that current
    nuclear power plants are facing in States like Illinois?
        Ms. Korsnick. Well, if we were to look ahead in the future,
    you know, 30 or 40 years, I see a grid that is supported by
    advanced nuclear in strong partnership with, say, wind and
    solar for a clean energy future. And by doing that, these
    advanced reactors, they produce more than just the electricity
    that we are all interested in; they are partnering with other
    systems, say, high temperature, steam that maybe another
    technology might need to use. So you can imagine these reactors
    of the future supporting desalinization plants or supporting,
    again, other technologies that are in need of this high
    pressure steam, for example.
        So I see the design very different than just reactors that
    are there and supporting of just an electric grid. It will be
    more of an integrated view.
        And, also, as you look at these advanced reactors, they are
    not all the large reactors that we think of today and benefit
    today from; they are reactors that are a 1 or 2 megawatt size,
    a 50 megawatt size, as well as the large size. So you can then
    see a variety of deployments, right? Think of some remote
    locations out in the middle of the desert or out in the middle
    of, say, Alaska, that maybe you only need a couple of megawatts
    or maybe you want a couple of megawatts that you put together
    that you are now able to have in this remote location. Maybe it
    only needs fuel every 10 to 15 years. Well, that is very
    helpful in some of these remote locations.
        We talked about the fact that the world needs energy. But
    some places in the world are relatively remote. So being able
    to provide this technology in a case where you don't have to
    refuel it very often, also very significant. So we really look
    ahead to see a very dynamic future. Our challenge is what can
    we do today to spur that future to a reality.
        Senator Duckworth. I really see nuclear as a consistent
    source of fuel in that coalition with wind and solar and all of
    the other sources, because it is always there.
        Ms. Korsnick. Absolutely.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much.
        At this time I would like to ask unanimous consent to
    submit for the hearing record three letters in support of the
    bill, one from Mr. Ed Wallace of GNBC Associates, Mr. Jay
    Faison of ClearPath Action, and Mr. Josh Freed of the Third
    Way.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Senator Carper.
        Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Thanks again to all of you for joining us today and for
    your testimony. I think we feel encouraged on much of what has
    been said.
        Dr. Lyman, in his comments when he was speaking earlier
    today, reminded us of Fukushima and the horror and havoc that
    it has created for a place in Miyagi Prefecture, a place which
    is a sister State of the State of Delaware. I have been there
    before and have a great affection for Miyagi and the people who
    live there.
        I am going to ask a question for the record, but I am going
    to tell you what it is now and we will ask it for the record.
    There are a number of lessons we needed to learn; the Japanese
    needed to learn from Fukushima: What went wrong? Maybe what
    went right, but mostly what went wrong. I am not going to ask
    you to respond right now, but I am going to be asking for the
    record. In terms of what went wrong, what have we learned? What
    are we doing differently hear in this Country? Maybe what more
    do we need to do in order to fully realize and gain from the
    lessons of something very bad that happened?
        I would like to say sometimes out of something bad
    something good comes, and my hope is that certainly is the case
    here.
        The other thing I want to ask, one of our witnesses before
    this Committee once talked about if you could take all the
    spent fuel from nuclear power plants in this Country and stack
    them up on a football field, Mr. Chairman, it would fill up a
    football field and go up into the sky not a couple of miles,
    but it would go up into the sky for some distance. And some of
    you probably know the answer to that question. Does anybody
    know how high it would be today? Anybody know? I don't know.
        Ms. Korsnick. I think the estimate is 20 yards. It is not
    very tall.
        Senator Carper. It is not that far.
        Ms. Korsnick. No. If you used all of your energy personally
    that you got for your entire lifetime, and you got it from
    nuclear power, that waste would fill a 12 ounce can of soda.
        Senator Carper. Thank you.
        Ms. Korsnick. So the volume is not very large.
        Senator Carper. I am encouraged by what Dr. Back told us
    about 97 percent spent fuel being really burned up or consumed.
        Whether it is 20 yards or however high that pile of spent
    fuel rods goes in that football field, do we have the ability
    to derive additional energy from that spent fuel? I know a lot
    of it is in casks and so forth, but is it gone forever and just
    has to sit around for tens of thousands of years, or is there
    some potential to derive energy from it going forward?
        Ms. Korsnick. Oh, we can absolutely. There is about 95
    percent of the energy left in that spent fuel; it has just been
    transitioned to a different isotope, if you will. There is
    technology available around the world today in reprocessing. As
    you may know, France reprocesses fuel.
        Senator Carper. I have been there.
        Ms. Korsnick. And that is how they tap into that additional
    energy, because you then make that available, if you will, for
    a different source. And some of the technologies that these
    folks here are talking about are other ways that they can tap
    into the use of that energy?
        Senator Carper. All right.
        Do you have any closing statement, any briefly closing
    thought that comes to mind before we conclude that might be
    helpful for us? Anybody? Please. Just very brief.
        Mr. Lyman. Yes. I would just like to go back to this issue
    that keeps coming up about consuming spent fuel, about
    reprocessing. You know, I appreciate Senator Booker's
    enthusiasm for these technologies, but I do believe that many
    of them still are in the science fiction stage, and it is not
    clear that throwing a lot more money and time after them is
    going to realize their promise.
        Reprocessing is dangerous, it is dirty, and it is
    expensive. Other countries have had terrible experience with it
    and they are dealing with the legacy. The French company AREVA,
    is practically bankrupt, or it is bankrupt, and a large part of
    that has to do with its reprocessing activity. So reprocessing
    is not a solution for nuclear waste.
        And my concern is that a focus on the pipe dream of trying
    to burn up or consume spent fuel is distracting from developing
    systems where you increase uranium utilization on a once-
    through basis, and one example of that was the original
    TerraPower reactor that was being developed by the company Bill
    Gates sponsored. The promise of that type of system is that you
    can achieve the goals that people who claim are for
    reprocessing without having to actually process the spent fuel,
    extract plutonium, and securing the safety liabilities
    associated with that process.
        So our recommendation as the main direction for innovation
    should be to pursue once-through cycles where you can get some
    of the purported benefits of reprocessing without separating
    plutonium, which is a proliferation and terrorism risk. And I
    would really hope that you would look into those issues in your
    reconsideration of whether it is really feasible or practical
    to burn up spent fuel.
        Senator Carper. My time is about over.
        I am going to ask, for the record, I will ask our other
    witnesses to respond to what Dr. Lyman has said. And we
    appreciate you raising those points.
        I will close with this thought. We know climate change is
    real. We only have to look at what has happened this winter on
    the east coast and California, where they got more rain in a
    couple of weeks than they have gotten in years, and stuff like
    that. So it is apparent that it is real.
        The question is what do we do about it. About two-thirds of
    the carbon-free electricity being produced in this Country
    comes from nuclear, and that is a good thing, and we need to
    figure out how to come up with more carbon-free energy. But we
    need, at the same time, to keep in mind that nuclear has a lot
    to offer, and hopefully in the future even more.
        Thanks so much.
        Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you, Senator Carper.
        Thanks, Senator Booker, for staying with us all the time.
        Thank you all for your testimony. It was, I think, very
    beneficial to all of the members of the Committee. Some members
    who weren't able to be here for the whole time may submit
    written questions. I hope you will try to get those answers
    back to us.
        The hearing record will remain open for 2 weeks. Thank you
    for being here. The hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m. the committee was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows.]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]