[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]