    [Senate Hearing 116-295]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 116-295

                      PATHWAYS TO REESTABLISH U.S. GLOBAL
                        LEADERSHIP IN NUCLEAR ENERGY AND
                   S. 903, THE NUCLEAR ENERGY LEADERSHIP ACT

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 APRIL 30, 2019

                                   __________

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           Printed for the use of the
                   Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

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

                              ______

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    36-265                 WASHINGTON : 2020

                   COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                        LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman
    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
    JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho                RON WYDEN, Oregon
    MIKE LEE, Utah                       MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
    STEVE DAINES, Montana                BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado               MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
    CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi        MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    MARTHA McSALLY, Arizona              ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
    LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee           CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
    JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota

                          Brian Hughes, Staff Director
                         Kellie Donnelly, Chief Counsel
             Dr. Benjamin Reinke, Senior Professional Staff Member
                    Sarah Venuto, Democratic Staff Director
                    Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
               Rory Stanley, Democratic Professional Staff Member

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page
    Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Alaska....     1
    Manchin III, Hon. Joe, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from
      West Virginia..................................................    31
    Risch, Hon. James E., a U.S. Senator from Idaho..................    33

                                   WITNESSES

    Peters, Dr. Mark, Laboratory Director, Idaho National Laboratory.    34
    Finan, Dr. Ashley E., Executive Director, Nuclear Innovation
      Alliance.......................................................    44
    Korsnick, Maria, President and CEO, Nuclear Energy Institute.....    61
    McManus, Mark, General President, United Association of
      Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting
      Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO..............    71
    Merrifield, Hon. Jeffrey S., Former Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear
      Regulatory Commission, and Partner and Energy Section Leader,
      Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP............................    76

              ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

    Allen, Todd:
        Letter for the Record........................................     3
    Birol, Dr. Fatih:
        Letter for the Record........................................    30
    Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America:
        Letter for the Record........................................     5
    ClearPath Action:
        Letter for the Record........................................     6
    Finan, Dr. Ashley E.:
        Opening Statement............................................    44
        Written Testimony............................................    46
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   157
    Framatome Inc.:
        Letter for the Record........................................     7
    Irish, Simon:
        Letter for the Record........................................     8
    Korsnick, Maria:
        Opening Statement............................................    61
        Written Testimony............................................    63
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   163
    Manchin III, Hon. Joe:
        Opening Statement............................................    31
    McManus, Mark:
        Opening Statement............................................    71
        Written Testimony............................................    73
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   165
    Merrifield, Hon. Jeffrey S.:
        Opening Statement............................................    76
        Written Testimony............................................    78
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   168
    Milmoe, C.J.:
        Letter for the Record........................................     9
    Murkowski, Hon. Lisa:
        Opening Statement............................................     1
    Nuclear Energy Institute:
        Letter for the Record........................................    10
    Nuclear Engineering Department Heads Organization:
        Letter for the Record........................................    12
    Peters, Dr. Mark:
        Opening Statement............................................    34
        Written Testimony............................................    37
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   152
    Purdue University, Nuclear Engineering/College of Engineering:
        Letter for the Record........................................    17
    R Street Institute:
        Letter for the Record........................................    18
    Risch, Hon. James E.:
        Opening Statement............................................    33
    S. 903, the Nuclear Energy Leadership Act........................   119
    SMR Start:
        Letter for the Record........................................    20
    TerraPower:
        Letter for the Record........................................    22
    United States Nuclear Industry Council:
        Letter for the Record........................................    25
    X Energy, LLC:
        Letter for the Record........................................    27

                      PATHWAYS TO REESTABLISH U.S. GLOBAL

                        LEADERSHIP IN NUCLEAR ENERGY AND

                           S. 903, THE NUCLEAR ENERGY

                                 LEADERSHIP ACT

                                  ----------

                            TUESDAY, APRIL 30, 2019

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m. in
    Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa
    Murkowski, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

        The Chairman. Good morning, everyone. The Committee will
    come to order.
        We are here this morning for a dual purpose, to examine
    ways to reestablish U.S. leadership in nuclear energy and to
    receive testimony on S. 903, which is the Nuclear Energy
    Leadership Act, we lovingly refer to it as NELA.
        America has long been a leader in the peaceful use of
    nuclear energy, but over time, our global role has declined.
    Since 2013, seven U.S. reactors have shut down before the end
    of their useful life and more closures are planned.
        Our hopes for a nuclear renaissance, as envisioned in the
    Energy Policy Act of 2005--and I was a member of this Committee
    when Senator Domenici was leading things around here, and we
    talked often about that nuclear renaissance and we were all
    very buoyed and encouraged at that time--but that has really
    paled. We have been reduced to just two reactors currently
    under construction.
        In the meantime, China and Russia have realized nuclear
    energy's immense potential and are now considered the
    international leaders in this space. They are deploying their
    current reactors at rates far beyond the U.S. They are actively
    demonstrating advanced reactor technologies, and they are
    poised to take full advantage of the estimated $740 billion in
    world market growth for commercial nuclear power by year 2030.
        The loss of our nuclear leadership to these competitor
    nations means a degradation of our energy security, our
    economic opportunities, as well as our global security.
        Here in this Committee, we have already held two hearings
    looking at the impact of climate change and particularly on the
    electric sector. But just a recognition that we are focused
    here about ways that we can work within this Committee's
    jurisdiction to lower our emissions and a recognition that if
    you are seeking lower emissions, look no further than nuclear
    energy as part of that energy portfolio mix.
        My Nuclear Energy Leadership Act, which is cosponsored by
    Senator Booker and 16 additional Senators, is designed to
    reposition the United States as the undisputed world leader in
    advanced nuclear technology. It will focus the efforts of the
    Department of Energy on demonstrating advanced reactor
    concepts, establish a high-assay, low-enriched uranium fuel
    program, authorize the versatile test reactor, extend
    university scholarships and fellowship programs as well as
    allow the Federal Government to be an early adopter of advanced
    reactors for national security purposes.
        I would like to thank my colleague, Senator Manchin, also
    Senators Risch, Alexander, and Gardner, among others, for
    cosponsoring this legislation. We have also received letters of
    support from an array of companies and stakeholders, including
    ClearPath, the Nuclear Industry Council, TerraPower,
    Terrestrial, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. I am going to
    include all of their letters of support as part of the record.
        [Letters of support for S. 903 follow.]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Today's hearing is part of our ongoing work
    on nuclear policy.
        Last Congress, we successfully enacted two nuclear
    measures, the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act and
    the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act. These
    provide a federal framework for the development of advanced
    reactor technologies.
        And then through the good work of Senator Alexander and
    Senator Feinstein on the Energy and Water Appropriations
    Committee, we have provided greater funding to DOE's advanced
    reactor programs.
        I really appreciate, Senator Alexander, your leadership in
    making that happen on the appropriations side. We all recognize
    that we can do a lot on the authorizing, but if we have not
    worked on the appropriating side it doesn't follow through. So
    your leadership there is greatly appreciated.
        At a hearing earlier this year, we received testimony from
    Dr. Fatih Birol, who is the Executive Director of the
    International Energy Agency, and he spoke on the need for U.S.
    global nuclear leadership. After the hearing, Dr. Birol wrote
    to me in support of NELA. He noted his confidence that the bill
    will help address ``many of the innovation and investment
    challenges that nuclear power currently faces, and boost
    strategic cooperation between the government, private sector
    and academic institutions.''
        So I will also include this letter for the record.
        [Letter from Dr. Fatih Birol in support of S. 903 follows.]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. I am particularly excited about a subcategory
    of advanced reactors that we call the microreactors, which have
    off-grid capability and could help provide clean, affordable
    energy in many of our remote towns and villages.
        Alaskans certainly recognize the potential of this
    technology. The University of Alaska held a stakeholder's
    meeting with nuclear experts in Anchorage just a couple weeks
    ago, and then our State Senate held a hearing on microreactors
    during their legislative session in Juneau just last week.
        As we pursue the future of nuclear energy, it is also
    important that we contend with the Federal Government's failure
    to meet its obligations for spent nuclear fuel. Solving that
    nuclear waste stalemate is a top priority of mine, again
    working with Senator Alexander and Senator Feinstein on this,
    but that is one of the reasons why Senators Alexander,
    Feinstein and myself are introducing today the Nuclear Waste
    Administration Act. Again, we look at how we can advance the
    nuclear opportunities that we have in this country, but if we
    haven't been able to deal with the waste side of it, we know
    that it is going to continue to be a struggle. So I look
    forward to working on that.
        Before I introduce the distinguished panel that we have in
    front of us today, I would like to turn to Senator Manchin for
    his opening remarks and then we will do introductions here.
        Senator Manchin.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. JOE MANCHIN III,
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA

        Senator Manchin. Thank you, Chairwoman Murkowski, and thank
    you for having this hearing on advanced nuclear technology
    development, and I want to thank all of our witnesses for being
    here today who will provide us with a comprehensive picture of
    what is needed to ensure that the U.S. is leading the nuclear
    technology race.
        In particular, I would like to thank Mr. McManus, who will
    provide us with the union workforce point of view, a valuable
    part of this conversation today.
        Over the past few months, I have met with several advanced
    energy industry innovators, including Bill Gates. Mr. Gates'
    investment in pursuing advanced nuclear to meet global energy
    needs is a reflection of the enormous potential that nuclear
    power can contribute to our energy future. The private sector
    has already spent about $1.3 billion on advanced reactor
    technology.
        I believe that the Federal Government must lead with the
    private sector, so I am very encouraged by this hearing today.
        Even though we don't have nuclear power in West Virginia, I
    am very proud to be a cosponsor of the bipartisan Nuclear
    Energy Leadership Act, NELA, which currently has 17 Senate
    cosponsors. The bipartisanship behind this bill demonstrates
    our shared values about energy policy. NELA provides a
    pragmatic pathway to finally build advanced nuclear
    demonstration projects, which is a critical step toward
    commercialization that we often struggle with.
        Nuclear power has provided nearly 20 percent of electricity
    generation in the U.S. over the past few decades and currently
    represents about 60 percent of America's carbon-free
    electricity.
        The U.S. had been a leader in nuclear, but in the past 20
    years our hold on that position has been slipping. Advanced
    nuclear commercialization could really change that.
        This technology holds the potential to advance other vital
    policy objectives in our nation's interest, including non-
    proliferation and national security, nuclear safety, energy
    security and economic growth and by maintaining our nuclear
    supply chain we can create and maintain high paying
    manufacturing jobs in the U.S. However, to ensure that nuclear
    energy continues to be a viable option, the Department of
    Energy, the national laboratories, universities, unions and
    private industry must all work together.
        The Department of Energy and our national laboratories play
    a central role in leading this effort. If the U.S. wants to
    lead in the global transition to a low-carbon economy, advanced
    nuclear is perhaps the key for leading beyond the electric
    sector and in the heavy industry sector.
        A big part of the carbon conversation that requires more
    attention is the manufacturing sector. Process heat for
    manufacturing chemicals, forest products, iron and steel,
    cement, plastics and rubber products and many other crucial
    products is a major producer of carbon emissions. These
    products require temperatures in the range of 100 degrees
    Celsius to as high as 900 degrees Celsius. Some of these
    temperatures can be reached using today's light water reactor
    technology, but if we are serious about decarbonizing our
    manufacturing sector, advanced nuclear technologies will be
    needed for higher temperature manufacturing.
        Advanced nuclear demonstration projects represent an
    extremely promising opportunity to bring together several
    sectors of the economy to see how nuclear power manufacturing
    technologies can all work together because if we are successful
    in commercializing this technology and bringing it to market
    first, we will be creating jobs right here in the United
    States.
        I know the unions can attest to the fact that the U.S. must
    have the best trained workers in the world, the most advanced
    technology and a superior research, development and
    demonstration nexus in order to maintain manufacturing jobs
    domestically. And as we move forward, we will constantly need
    to be in the lead to maintain jobs here in the United States.
        I am glad that we have union representation on this panel
    today to speak for the working person also. The skilled workers
    that Mark McManus represents are the ones that are actually
    going to be building the technologies we are talking about
    today. If we didn't have the most skilled workers in the world,
    we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now. And I
    think it is important that we spend some of this hearing
    talking about the importance of workforce training in growing
    manufacturing jobs here. Maintaining a skilled workforce is
    also a key to maintaining a current nuclear fleet. A single
    nuclear plant represents as many as 3,500 jobs.
        While today's hearing is focused on advanced reactors, we
    must also recognize the importance of investing in R&D funding
    in our existing nuclear fleet in order to improve the
    operations of these plants and maintain reliability throughout
    our electric sector. For if successful in our advanced nuclear
    efforts, we will lead the way in revolutionizing the large
    parts of the global economy.
        Countries will look to the U.S. for the best materials,
    technology and expertise. That means greater economic security
    and more high paying jobs. We face enormous challenges, but
    there are enormous opportunities here too.
        Once again, I would like to thank Chairman Murkowski for
    holding this incredibly important hearing. I look forward to
    further discussing these topics with each one of you today.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Manchin.
        And thanks to our witnesses for being with us. I think we
    are going to have a good discussion this morning, and I look
    forward to your contributions.
        I will begin with introductions. Dr. Peters, I am going to
    skip over you. We are going to allow my friend and colleague,
    Mr. Risch, to introduce you.
        But we are joined this morning by Dr. Ashley Finan, who is
    the Director of the Nuclear Innovation Alliance (NIA). It is
    good to have you here.
        Maria Korsnick is with us this morning, friend and strong
    fisherwoman, the CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), and
    we appreciate your contributions here this morning.
        Mr. McManus has just been spoken to by my friend here this
    morning. Why am I drawing a blank on your name, Senator
    Manchin?
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Manchin. It happens all the time.
        The Chairman. It is our Monday around here.
        Mr. McManus, as was indicated, is the President of the
    United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the United
    States and Canada. We do welcome your perspective this morning
    on behalf of labor. Thank you.
        We are also joined by the Honorable Jeffrey Merrifield, who
    previously served as a Commissioner on the Nuclear Regulatory
    Commission (NRC). He is joining us today as Partner and Energy
    Section Leader at Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw and Pitman. We are
    pleased to have you here.
        Senator Risch, I would invite you to introduce our first
    witness here, Dr. Peters.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO

        Senator Risch. Thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you for holding this
    important hearing regarding the U.S. global leadership in
    nuclear energy and the Nuclear Energy Leadership Act.
        Senator Manchin mentioned having met with Bill Gates. I
    think most of us on this Committee have. I think we all
    recognize Bill Gates is a real visionary. What he and his wife,
    Melinda, have done to, essentially, eliminate polio on the
    planet is nothing short of miraculous. He truly is a visionary.
    One of his visions involves bringing electricity to the billion
    people in the world, the ones that do not have it. He is
    exploring that and doing it the way he always does it, in a
    very commonsense, rational sort of way. He has some ideas, and
    I am sure you found it fun to bounce ideas around with him. It
    is important that as we talk about the U.S. global leadership
    on this issue that he be included in that.
        It is very appropriate that we have Dr. Peters with us here
    today. Dr. Peters, in recent years, has led the Idaho National
    Laboratory (INL). And when we are talking about world and
    global leadership in nuclear energy, it is really appropriate
    that the Idaho National Laboratory and its leader be here.
        Idaho is where it all started. The place where Dr. Peters'
    offices and his laboratory are is where the first electricity
    was generated with nuclear power. We still have the first three
    light bulbs that were lit by nuclear power in the history of
    the world. So when it comes to U.S. leadership, that is very
    important to us in Idaho.
        It has been a privilege working with Dr. Peters over these
    recent years. The Department of Energy has given the lab
    management performance grades of A in all recent years. And
    while Dr. Peters has been in charge of the lab, he also
    exploited the Idaho State Board of Education's buying authority
    to build two new buildings which is, kind of, a view for us for
    the future, the first having to do with cybersecurity and the
    second having to do with advanced computing which we believe
    the Idaho National Laboratory is well poised to lead in these
    areas also.
        In 2017 the INL restarted the TREAT reactor, and this
    reactor was restarted ahead of schedule and under budget.
    Congratulations, Dr. Peters.
        Dr. Peters serves as a Senior Advisor to Department of
    Energy on nuclear energy technologies and research and
    development programs and on nuclear waste policy which has been
    very important to us in Idaho over the years. With that, again,
    I want to underscore the fact that Dr. Peters is the right
    witness to have at this hearing.
        Thank you, Dr. Peters, for being here. Thank you to all of
    the witnesses.
        Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Risch.
        Having had the opportunity to go out and visit Idaho
    National Lab at your invitation and of our leaders there at our
    national labs, it is a trip that is well worth taking and
    really helps put into context all that we are dealing with, but
    all the innovation and just, really, the expertise that goes
    on. So thank you for that introduction.
        With that, Dr. Peters, why don't you begin?
        I would ask each of you to try to limit your comments to
    about five minutes. Your full statements will be included as
    part of the record, but we would like to begin the back and
    forth that we will be able to do once you have concluded your
    introductory statements.
        Dr. Peters, welcome.

       STATEMENT OF DR. MARK PETERS, LABORATORY DIRECTOR, IDAHO
                          NATIONAL LABORATORY

        Dr. Peters. Thank you. Good morning.
        Thank you, Senator Risch, for the kind introduction and all
    you do, your outstanding leadership, appreciate it very much.
        Chairwoman Murkowski, Ranking Member Manchin and members of
    the Committee, it's an honor and privilege to be with you here
    today. My name is Mark Peters, and I'm the Director of Idaho
    National Laboratory, or INL. I'm grateful for the opportunity
    to testify today on the Nuclear Energy Leadership Act, as
    you've already heard, better known as NELA. And I wanted to
    thank the bipartisan coalition that has sponsored this bill,
    many of whom are represented on this Committee and that also
    includes Senators Risch and Crapo from my home State of Idaho.
        I have submitted testimony for the record, and I will
    summarize it briefly here.
        The United States has for decades amassed an unsurpassed
    record of nuclear reactor safety, security, efficiency,
    reliability, resiliency, and powers nearly one-fifth of our
    nation's electricity system. It also produces, by far,
    America's largest percentage of low-carbon electricity. Nuclear
    energy is one of the most effective tools we have to combat the
    effects of climate change. Moreover, a strong nuclear energy
    industry is an important component in ensuring U.S. national
    security and stabilizes the U.S. power grid and is a major
    driver of the U.S. economy.
        In alignment with the goals of NELA, INL, in partnership
    with our national laboratories and universities, is working
    with the private sector to develop, demonstrate and ultimately
    deploy the next generation of nuclear reactors. The innovative
    design of small modular reactors promises to enhance safety,
    reduce cost and increase adaptability with renewable energy in
    our future energy system.
        Construction on the world's first small modular reactor
    could begin at the INL site in 2023. The new scale power
    reactor could begin producing electricity for the Utah
    Associated Municipal Power Systems utility in 2027.
        Meanwhile, some utilities and the U.S. Department of
    Defense are thinking even smaller. These 2- to 20-megawatt
    microreactors could provide electricity for military bases and
    remote communities among other applications. We are on track at
    INL to develop and demonstrate, in partnership with the Federal
    Government and private sector, a microreactor within the next
    five years.
        Recently, as you are well aware, Congress passed and the
    President passed into law two groundbreaking pieces of
    legislation relevant to nuclear energy.
        The Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act
    provides the regulatory framework needed to develop advanced
    reactors. The Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act, or
    NEICA, defines a science and innovation agenda and, among other
    things, calls for establishment of a National Reactor
    Innovation Center to support advanced reactor development and
    demonstration which we see centered at Idaho National
    Laboratory.
        NELA is the third leg of this stool and we strongly support
    the goals of this important legislation, and I want to
    summarize why.
        First, NELA calls for completion of two advanced nuclear
    reactor demonstration projects by the end of 2025 and from two
    to five additional operational advanced reactor designs by the
    end of 2035. We applaud those goals, recognizing they are
    aggressive because they will drive the necessary prioritization
    and strong sense of urgency that we must have. We do need to
    have a robust and transparent process with strong input and
    guidance from the private sector as we select the technologies
    and designs to be demonstrated, accounting for factors such as
    economics, technology maturity, potential markets and many
    other factors.
        Second, NELA, along with NEICA, includes authorization of a
    versatile, reactor-based fast neutron source, or what we call
    the Versatile Test Reactor, to support testing advanced fuels,
    materials, instrumentation and sensors. Consistent with NEICA,
    U.S. DOE has approved a Critical Decision 0 (CD-0) for the
    Versatile Test Reactor identifying the mission need and
    initiating work on conceptual design, management plans and
    further refined cost and schedule estimates.
        Third, NELA allows the Federal Government to partner with
    industry and demonstrate and deploy new nuclear energy
    technologies by authorizing long-term power purchase
    agreements.
        Fourth, NELA addresses a fuel supply issue that threatens
    to limit deployment of advanced reactors, that is, the need for
    high-assay, low-enriched uranium, better known as HALEU.
        Finally, NELA seeks to ensure that a highly skilled world-
    class workforce is available to enable the next generation of
    nuclear reactors. The universities are vital to this and the
    nation's broader nuclear energy mission.
        So in summary, as the nation's nuclear energy laboratory,
    INL feels a special responsibility to enable a nuclear energy
    future and move forward urgently to demonstrate advanced
    reactor technologies.
        I am optimistic we will succeed because of the innovation
    coming out of our labs, universities and the private sector. I
    am also optimistic because of the bipartisan support that we
    see for nuclear energy here in Washington and in states across
    the nation. And I am optimistic because the historic
    partnership between government and industry has laid the
    foundation for our success. We have done this before.
        Thank you for your attention to this important issue, and I
    look forward to answering your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Peters follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Dr. Peters, thank you very much.
        Dr. Finan, welcome to the Committee.

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

        Dr. Finan. Thank you.
        Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Manchin and
    distinguished members of this Committee, thank you for holding
    this hearing and for giving me the opportunity to testify.
        I am honored to be here today. My name is Ashley Finan, and
    I'm Executive Director of the Nuclear Innovation Alliance. The
    NIA is a non-profit think tank dedicated to supporting
    entrepreneurialism, accelerated innovation and
    commercialization of advanced nuclear energy to address global
    energy needs.
        In the United States and elsewhere dozens of innovative
    companies are pioneering advanced nuclear designs but take
    advantage of decades of technological progress and experience.
    Innovators are focusing on better meeting the needs of
    traditional markets through reduced costs as well as meeting
    the needs of new markets, including microgrids that power
    remote communities, secure power for critical infrastructure
    and grids with high penetration of renewable energy.
        The private sector-driven innovation that we are seeing
    today is sorely needed and long overdue, and it presents the
    United States with an opportunity to regain lost leadership in
    nuclear energy. U.S. nuclear energy leadership is important for
    geopolitical and environmental reasons. It can be restored, and
    the Nuclear Energy Leadership Act would help make that
    possible. My written testimony covers these topics in greater
    detail.
        Scholars predict we'll see major changes in energy
    geopolitics as we move toward a decarbonized energy system.
    Nuclear energy will have strategic import partly because it
    compels technological dependence that is more enduring than
    that of oil or gas. Nuclear plants in Hungary, Slovakia,
    Bulgaria and the Czech Republic that have lifetimes of 40 to 80
    years can only be fueled by a single Russian company.
        Some figures comparing nuclear to oil and gas markets are
    illustrative. Eighteen countries account for 90 percent global
    oil and gas supply with Saudi Arabia supplying 19 percent of
    internationally-traded crude oil and Russia supplying 20
    percent of gas as of 2016. By comparison, just six countries
    account for 90 percent of nuclear technology supply, and Russia
    is the supplier in 46 percent of nuclear technology agreements
    while the U.S. is a supplier in 10 percent.
        Past participation in nuclear markets gave the U.S.
    leverage in influencing global non-proliferation safety and
    security norms. If we are not a major supplier, we cede that
    influence.
        Last Wednesday the Nigerian Minister of Defense asked
    Russia to help Nigeria build pipelines, railways and nuclear
    power plants. This is just one example of what seems like
    weekly news of Russia's prominence.
        Russia and China are thinking and acting strategically.
    They have the capacity and the will to bundle generous
    financing with nuclear deals. Where the United States excels is
    in innovation. We have the best innovators, labs and private
    investors. Moving that innovation to commercialization provides
    us with an opportunity to compete if we complement it with
    supportive policy.
        As a non-emitting energy source, nuclear energy delivers
    cleaner, healthier air. To mitigate the consequences of climate
    change, we need to decarbonize global economies. Studies show
    that the most affordable pathways to deep decarbonization
    consistently include firm, low-carbon resources like nuclear
    energy and that our odds of success improve with a balanced
    portfolio that includes nuclear.
        We also know that nuclear can scale quickly. Based on
    nuclear energy, France achieved 80 percent electricity
    decarbonization in under two decades.
        Many are doubtful about our ability to develop the
    technology fast enough, but history counsels us to be more
    hopeful. We have not done this recently, but we have done this
    before.
        The Electric Power Research Institute found that the two
    types of reactors we operate here in the U.S. were fully
    commercialized in 15 years and 13 years, respectively. Working
    with private industry, the Atomic Energy Commission
    demonstrated about a dozen plants in as many years covering
    eight technologies for $4.3 billion, including 66 percent
    industry cost share. But we've learned a lot since then, and we
    can more effectively harness the power of the market on the
    private sector.
        A forthcoming report from my organization will suggest
    specific improvement approaches that would use insights from
    the NASA Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program,
    the program that helped elevate SpaceX to its current
    notoriety.
        The United States should redouble efforts to commercialize
    scalable, affordable and unparalleled nuclear power. We see the
    private sector pursuing bold ideas and they need government to
    join and support them with the spirit of the Atoms for Peace
    era but with the benefit of decades of advancement in
    technology and policy.
        NELA could do just that. NELA's goals are specific,
    measurable, ambitious and if they are coupled with private
    sector action and complementary policies, NELA's goals are
    achievable. The NIA supports the Nuclear Energy Leadership Act
    and applauds its cosponsors for their initiative and
    commitment.
        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 Dr. Finan follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Finan. I apologize for
    mispronouncing your name several times here this morning.
        [Laughter.]
        We will look forward to the specific----
        Senator Manchin. At least you didn't forget it.
        The Chairman. Yes, at least I didn't forget it, thank you,
    Senator Manchin.
        [Laughter.]
        We will look forward to those specific recommendations
    coming out of that report.
        My friend here--Ms. Korsnick, welcome to the Committee.

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

        Ms. Korsnick. Great, thank you.
        Thank you, Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Manchin and
    members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to
    appear before you today.
        I'm Maria Korsnick, President and CEO of the Nuclear Energy
    Institute with 33 years in commercial nuclear experience.
        I thank you for the continuing focus on nuclear energy and
    specifically, today, the next generation of nuclear, carbon-
    free power in America. I sincerely appreciate the overwhelming
    bipartisan support that we saw last Congress for the Nuclear
    Energy Innovation Capabilities Act as well as the Nuclear
    Energy Innovation and Modernization Act. Both of these will
    help ensure the United States remains a global leader of
    nuclear innovation.
        America's nuclear industry is at a crossroads. We urgently
    need tangible actions from Congress that it values nuclear,
    carbon-free power. This is not a partisan issue. Republicans
    and Democrats recognize that nuclear energy is a critical
    national asset to provide clean, reliable and affordable
    electricity to Americans. And yet, right now 12 nuclear
    reactors are slated for premature closure nationwide. If that
    happens, it will take offline enough electricity to power 8.6
    million homes. That's almost as many homes as in all of Alaska,
    West Virginia, Tennessee and Michigan and a massive quantity of
    clean, carbon-free energy. And remember, once a nuclear plant
    is shut down it can't be put back online. It's lost for good.
        Now is the time to preserve the existing fleet. Extend a
    plant's life span to 80 years through second license renewal
    applications and grow our nuclear energy fleet through new
    build. When America leads, we help set the global standards for
    safety, for preventing proliferation and we create hundreds of
    thousands of American jobs.
        But the fact is today we are ceding our global leadership
    in a technology that we invented. Right now, 55 reactors are
    under construction nationwide, excuse me, worldwide. Nearly two
    out of every three reactors are being built by either Russia or
    China. Failure to lead the next wave of global nuclear
    construction means significantly diminished ability to promote
    U.S. safety standards, operational excellence, non-
    proliferation and security norms around the world. Simply put,
    U.S. influence grows when we have a strong, civil nuclear
    industry.
        The Committee gets that. You understand that while the
    fleet of today is America's emission-free workhorse, the
    reactors of tomorrow will be even safer and more innovative.
    But to get there, we need help and help of this Committee. The
    bipartisan Nuclear Energy Leadership Act is a great start. NELA
    does many things. I'll focus on just a few.
        First, it authorizes the funding of nuclear reactor
    demonstration projects. The United States simply must build.
    Over the last three decades of the 20th century, the U.S. built
    113 commercial reactors. In the 20 years following those
    builds, we are on pace to complete only three more, one
    recently brought on in Tennessee and two nearing completion in
    Georgia. There are dozens of U.S. companies developing designs
    to meet the anticipated market needs. This is great news. But
    if we want to lead the world in nuclear technology, we need to
    build plants. The demonstrations authorized in NELA will be the
    catalyst to construct advanced reactor designs that the United
    States, not Russia, nor China, can offer the world to address
    climate change.
        Second, the bill calls for the Federal Government to
    establish a pilot program to enter into power purchase
    agreements with an advanced nuclear reactor. It extends the
    maximum length of these agreements from 10 to 40 years. These
    changes in the law will help ensure innovative, new reactors
    are built.
        Finally, the Committee understands many of these advanced
    reactor designs require high-assay, low-enriched uranium. In
    plain speech, the uranium of our current fleet is enriched to
    about 5 percent. Many advanced designs will need about 20
    percent.
        Our nation needs the capability to provide this fuel, and I
    appreciate the pragmatic approach that this bill takes to
    ensuring that the fuel will be made available when needed in
    the next few years.
        Of course, being a world leader in the management of
    nuclear fuel is important at all points in the nuclear value
    chain, and our nation's used fuel policy is an area where we
    need U.S. leadership and resolution. I sincerely appreciate the
    Senate's efforts to resolve this critical issue, and I remain
    committed to working with you.
        Nuclear, carbon-free power has always answered the call of
    this nation. It powers our homes, our businesses, our Navy. It
    enables deep space exploration. It solves medical challenges.
    It helps fund schools and essential services in local
    communities across our country. And as our focus on climate
    change becomes more intense, the nuclear industry provides a
    critical, carbon-free energy solution.
        I look forward to working with you to ensure that this
    American technology continues to provide these essential
    benefits. The future we need cannot happen without nuclear.
    Your help, your active support is urgently needed.
        Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Korsnick follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Korsnick, we appreciate that.
        Mr. McManus, welcome.

         STATEMENT OF MARK MCMANUS, GENERAL PRESIDENT, UNITED
     ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND
     PIPE FITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL-CIO

        Mr. McManus. Good morning, Chairman Murkowski, Ranking
    Member Manchin and members of the Committee. Thank you for the
    warm welcome.
        My name is Mark McManus, and I'm the General President of
    the United Association, or the UA, which represents America's
    union plumbers, pipefitters, welders, sprinkler fitters and
    HVAC service technicians. On behalf of more than 350,000 men
    and women members of the UA, I want to thank you for the
    opportunity to testify about the future of the U.S. nuclear
    power and the Nuclear Energy Leadership Act.
        Whether they're working on a job or volunteering in their
    communities, UA members, like most Americans, take a fact-
    based, commonsense approach to everyday problems. That is
    precisely the approach that this country needs when it comes to
    nuclear energy. Quite simply, any fact-based, commonsense
    approach to meeting our future energy needs while addressing
    climate change must include major investments in nuclear
    energy.
        It is well past time that we turned the page on any
    lingering irrational fears of carbon-free energy source that
    already provides 20 percent of our electricity and hasn't
    injured or killed a single person in more than a half a century
    we've consumed it.
        The truth is that nuclear energy is already safe, cost-
    effective, and reliable, and the development of advanced
    technologies made possible by NELA would make it even more so.
        In my view, the success of NELA and the nuclear industry
    depends not only on well-trained nuclear engineers and
    scientists, a focus of NELA, but also well-trained building
    trades craftspeople to build and maintain the nuclear
    facilities themselves. In fact, one of the major reasons for
    the industry's excellent safety record is the top-notch
    training of the UA and other craftspeople that work on nuclear
    facilities.
        We spare no expense when it comes to the skill
    developments. Through collectively bargained contributions to
    joint trust funds, the UA and our signatory employers invest
    over 220 million private, non-tax paying dollars each and every
    year in training. A sizable portion of this is devoted to the
    UA members working in the nuclear industry.
        Since the mid-'80s, the UA and other building trades unions
    have worked closely with the nuclear utilities to ensure that
    our members are trained to specific needs of the industry. I
    discuss this partnership further in my written testimony.
    Overall, it's been a great success.
        Project labor agreements, or PLAs, are another tool used by
    nuclear utilities to protect their investments and ensure
    safety and success on their projects. PLAs cover over 80
    percent of the U.S. reactors currently in operation and, as
    explained in my written testimony, they meet a number of
    critical needs for the utilities. The Federal Government would
    be well-served to protect its own investments by demanding PLAs
    on any projects made possible by NELA.
        Although the energy and the environmental benefits of
    investing in nuclear are appropriately front and center, the
    tremendous economic benefits generated by these investments
    should not be overlooked.
        For a real-time example of job-creating potential of
    nuclear power look no further than the ongoing work on two
    nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle in Georgia. At this very
    moment there are 7,000 workers on the project, and when
    construction reaches its peak that number will rise to 9,000
    workers. Senators, these are well-paying clean energy jobs
    Americans have been waiting for.
        Let me close by offering one last recommendation to the
    Committee. Don't stop at NELA. Nuclear energy has the potential
    to substantially improve our energy security, dramatically
    reduce our carbon footprint and deliver enormous benefits to
    our country. However, to fully realize that potential I believe
    we need to take a hard look at every reasonable opportunity to
    expand nuclear power. This includes encouraging the development
    of new plants and units through commonsense reforms to
    permitting and readily available loan guarantees. And it also
    includes taking action to prevent unnecessary or premature
    closure of existing plants and units.
        Thank you again for the invitation and the opportunity to
    testify.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. McManus follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. McManus.
        Mr. Merrifield, welcome.

     STATEMENT OF HON. JEFFREY S. MERRIFIELD, FORMER COMMISSIONER,
      U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, AND PARTNER AND ENERGY
          SECTION LEADER, PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP

        Mr. Merrifield. Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Manchin
    and members of the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here
    today.
        My name is Jeff Merrifield, and I'm testifying as a partner
    in the nuclear energy practice of Pillsbury Law, the world's
    oldest and largest nuclear firm. Additionally, I am Chairman of
    the Advanced Reactor Task Force for the Nuclear Industry
    Council, a member of the Board of ClearPath, and I am Chairman
    of E4 Carolinas, a 150-member energy association in North and
    South Carolina. I also advise Mark Peters with the GAIN
    program. That said, the comments today are my own.
        I'm pleased that the Committee supports the development of
    advanced nuclear reactors. My testimony will focus on S. 903,
    the Nuclear Energy Leadership Act, the state of the advanced
    nuclear industry and opportunities for U.S. nuclear exports.
        First, my punchline. I believe S. 903 is an excellent piece
    of legislation that will incentivize the development and
    deployment of advanced nuclear reactors in the United States
    and create a vibrant export market. It will enhance the ability
    of the U.S. to regain its leadership role in international
    nuclear commerce and will create thousands of lifelong, well-
    paying careers for blue- and white-collar workers.
        S. 903 will provide economical, safe, clean energy options
    and allow us to meet vitally important carbon reduction and
    energy security objectives.
        As it relates to Section 7 of the bill, the development of
    advanced reactors brings with it many benefits but the fuels
    used to operate these reactors will be of a greater variety in
    their form and composition. Most of these designs will use high
    enrichments of uranium, typically between 8 and 19.75 percent,
    otherwise known as HALEU. In comparison, the current reactors
    use uranium enriched between four and five percent.
        As domestic supplies of HALEU do not currently exist,
    appropriate sources of this material will need to be identified
    or created. This includes the means to enrich uranium as well
    as transport and manufacturing.
        The FY'19 Energy and Water Appropriations legislation
    helpfully included $20 million to begin processing used Navy
    spent fuel into HALEU. While important, the process the DOE is
    developing in Idaho may result in HALEU that contains residual
    radionuclides that may not be fully acceptable for some
    designs.
        Additionally, the Department of Energy intends to award a
    contract to Centrus Energy to construct a 16-centrifuge cascade
    by 2020 to produce a small amount of HALEU. In parallel, Urenco
    has indicated it's considering adding a HALEU cascade to its
    enrichment facility in New Mexico.
        While these steps are positive, Section 7 of the bill would
    set specific targets for DOE to make HALEU available, two
    metric tons by 2022 and ten metric tons by 2025. This provision
    is vitally needed to ensure that our advanced nuclear
    innovators are not held back by the inability of the market to
    timely supply this material.
        The power purchase agreement (PPA) language included in
    Sections 2 and 3 will serve as a catalyst for advanced
    reactors. These PPAs create a financeable funding stream to
    incentivize investors on both the debt and equity side. When
    combined with investment or production tax credits, these can
    be enormously helpful in spurring private capital investment.
        I strongly endorse Section 4 which authorizes a series of
    DOE advanced reactor demonstration projects. Under these
    provisions not fewer than two advanced reactor designs would be
    funded and completed by the end of 2025 and at least two and
    potentially five additional designs would be funded and
    completed by 2035.
        Section 4 would also allow the demonstration of non-
    traditional users of nuclear reactors, including petrochemical
    processing, water desalinization, industrial scale hydrogen as
    well as potential uses in mining and powering remote
    communities. All of these create significant opportunities for
    exports and job creation.
        I support the language included in Section 8 regarding the
    University Nuclear Leadership program and the funding it will
    provide for our nation's nuclear engineering programs.
        On a personal note, I'm very pleased today that you invited
    Mark McManus to testify. As you see, my oldest son, Graham
    Merrifield, is a member of the United Association and is a
    pipefitter apprentice in the Concord, North Carolina branch of
    Local 421 where he's aspiring to become a nuclear pipefitter
    and welder and hopes to build advanced reactors.
        Like their white-collar colleagues, the pipefitters,
    welders, electricians, plumbers and others who build and
    maintain nuclear plants are also an aging workforce. As this
    legislation continues to move swiftly toward adoption, I would
    urge the Committee to consider measures to ensure the steady
    supply of qualified technicians and craftspeople for this
    industry.
        In conclusion, the companies and people who are developing
    advanced nuclear reactors will enable the United States to
    regain a leading role in the international nuclear export
    market. S. 903 is an excellent step toward ensuring that the
    U.S. remains a leader in nuclear technologies, and I urge its
    prompt adoption by this Committee as well as the appropriations
    needed to make it a success.
        Thank you for allowing me to testify.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Merrifield follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, all, we appreciate that. I really
    appreciate the positive encouragement that you have given for
    NELA.
        I am going to ask a question, and this goes out to the
    whole panel here. You have all said, again, good, strong things
    about it. When you think about what we have done from a
    legislative perspective with the passage of NEICA and then the
    Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act, now we have
    NELA before us. What more needs to be done to really realize
    this nuclear renaissance that we talk about in, and again,
    these almost aspirational types of a reference?
        Contained within NELA we have some pretty ambitious goals
    with the direction to DOE to get the demonstration of two
    reactors by 2025 and the demonstration of at least two
    additional ones by 2035. The question to you all is, is what we
    are doing within this legislation sufficient to demonstrate the
    representative technologies, the breadth of the innovative
    advanced reactor concepts? What more do we need to be doing in
    order to get where, I believe, all of us are hopeful? I throw
    that out to any one of you.
        Mr. Merrifield? Go ahead and push your button.
        Mr. Merrifield. Senator, thank you very much.
        The Chairman. Yes.
        Mr. Merrifield. I'll take the first crack at that.
        As I said before, I strongly endorse this bill and I think
    this Committee, in this legislation, is doing a significant
    amount to really move the ball forward.
        That said, you asked what else could be done? A lot of it
    results in activities outside of the scope of this Committee's
    jurisdiction--appropriations. You know, the framework that you
    put into this bill is vitally important. We need to pass it but
    we need to provide the funding to allow those demonstration
    reactors to be built.
        The Chairman. So it is very important that Senator
    Alexander is here today.
        Mr. Merrifield. Very important that Senator Alexander is
    here.
        The other thing, I think, which is important are export
    tools, making sure that the EXIM Bank is fully brought up to
    speed and can use its resources to help in the export of these
    technologies is vital. The overseas OPEC that has now been
    reauthorized under the BUILD Act, it's very important that the
    limitations in that organization, that prohibit the use of
    their funding for U.S. nuclear exports, be removed. That is
    something that Congress really needs to take a look at.
        The Chairman. Dr. Peters?
        Dr. Peters. I agree with everything that Jeff alluded to.
        From an authorization perspective I think the three--NEICA,
    NEIMA and now NELA--cover the landscape as I mentioned. Also,
    appropriations needs to follow as Jeff already said.
        But I would also bring up--I think we've got to go do now.
    We've got to figure out, okay, so, it enables a public-private
    partnership but I think there's a lot of details that have to
    be worked out about what is the role of the government and what
    is the role of the private sector. And that's something--you've
    laid the authorization framework for that. I think now the
    agency, the department, the labs and the industry now need to
    go figure out what that looks like. And also, going and
    establishing the infrastructure to actually create the
    feedstock for high-assay, low-enriched uranium and actually
    fabricate fuel.
        So I would say you've done your job. Now appropriations
    follows and now the community needs to come together and go do
    it.
        The Chairman. Let me ask you, Dr. Peters. Your national lab
    is helping the Department of Energy work with DoD on the
    potential microreactor applications for military installations.
    This is something that we are looking at with great, great,
    great interest. Can you give me a little bit of update on how
    is this joint DOE/DoD program going and is there anything that
    we can do outside of passing NELA that would perhaps strengthen
    this partnership?
        Dr. Peters. Yeah, so DOE and DoD are actively
    communicating. DOE has appropriations from Energy and Water to
    work in the microreactor space. And so, that's being leveraged
    to work with DoD. I would say that it's working.
        DoD had gone out with a request for information. That's
    filed with an RFP. There's multiple companies that have
    expressed interest that are pursuing it.
        My lab and a couple other labs are actively involved with
    the proper controls and NDAs in place, working with a lot of
    those players. And every company that's pursuing the
    opportunity doesn't need the same thing, some need technical
    support, some need a site, some need fuel. So we're basically
    opening up our doors to whatever they need. But I would say
    it's moving along well. It always goes back to appropriations.
        The Chairman. Right.
        Dr. Peters. On the DoD side as well.
        The Chairman. Thank you for that.
        Let me turn to Senator Manchin.
        Senator Manchin. Dr. Peters, let's start with you again on
    this.
        My concern is, as far as the world is going to be, I think,
    turning more to nuclear for--it's the quickest way to be
    carbon-free--and then carbon capture, utilization which Dr.
    Birol has talked about.
        But my concern is with China and India and, as we
    commercialize this information, illicit proliferation may take
    place. I have reservations about how to best protect our
    intellectual properties as we do that. And as you know, we have
    had many concerns about that.
        I would like to see what your thoughts are on how we
    balance our security and non-proliferation interests, in
    particular, U.S. intellectual property (IP), while exporting
    our U.S. nuclear technology and materials as we move forward
    developing a carbon-free world?
        Dr. Peters. Yes, sir. Thank you, Senator.
        Well first, I would reemphasize the point that the way, an
    important way to establish U.S. leadership, and you heard that
    from Ashley, in particular, is that the ability to export U.S.
    technologies and know-how and regulatory framework and non-
    proliferation standards is an important part of our leadership.
    So, and it is a global market, as you know, so we're going to
    have to play in that global market. And to stay at the table,
    we have to be playing in that market.
        However, I totally agree and the labs are actively working
    with DOE as we speak to protect not just the nuclear space but
    more broadly, economic security, battery technology, you name
    it, computing technology. And so, we're actively putting
    controls in place, working with DOE, the labs and DOE, to make
    sure that we're protecting it properly. And that's something
    that's, again, a very urgent, very important need and we're
    taking it very seriously.
        But also, I would remind you also that the nuclear
    framework, the civil nuclear framework, is controlled very--by
    non-proliferation agreements we call 123 Agreements between
    countries. So if we're going to do business with a country, the
    U.S. does business with a country, it's controlled very
    strongly by those frameworks that we have in place with those
    countries.
        So, there's this, it's a fine line we have to walk, sir,
    but we have to play in the global market in order to be a
    leader.
        Senator Manchin. Thank you.
        Mr. McManus, if you can talk to me about, as we grow older,
    we have an awful lot of people in all types of industries that
    are retiring and I think that Mr. Merrifield spoke about that
    also. Do you think we're going to have a challenge as far as
    having a workforce that is capable of meeting the growth of the
    advanced nuclear industry? I am going to talk with Ms. Finan
    next about how the environmental communities are looking toward
    decarbonizing and using carbon capture, sequestration, knowing
    the world is going to be using more fossil and nuclear as a way
    to decarbonize.
        I am concerned about the workforce and if we are training
    them, having the ability to get up to speed quick enough to
    replace the projected retirements.
        Mr. McManus. Yeah, it's an excellent question, Senator. And
    I think the United Association is not immune from the baby
    boomer generation exiting all industries of the United States.
        I'm here to tell you proudly, we're 130 years old as of
    October. There's a lot of iconic businesses in America that
    haven't lasted 130 years, and right at this moment we have the
    largest workforce we've ever had in 130 years.
        We've been growing for the last five years. We have 353,965
    people growing at about 700 to 800 members a month. Active to
    retirees is a growing demographic that we look at through our
    pension funds, and we are continuing to lower the retiree to
    act. So we're a prosperous growing organization and that's due
    in part to national recruitment as well as our devotion to
    training, $220 million in private sector that I put in my
    public testimony that we spend on training.
        We are also moving into virtual reality, augmented reality.
    We're reaching out to nationwide groups: Skills America, Women
    in the Trades from the national building trades, national high
    school and career counselors, vo-techs, for-profit welding
    schools, the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts. So we are continuing
    to reach out to each and every avenue and competing against a
    lot of industries in the United States and worldwide of what we
    can do.
        But as we are sitting here right at this moment, we're
    meeting the needs. We have 1,500 UA members at Plant Vogtle
    which is a little bit of a remote spot in rural Georgia--
    Augusta, Georgia--and we've met every man power need that we
    need to make with commercial work and good work across the
    country as well too. So we have a very, very skilled workforce
    and a growing workforce.
        Senator Manchin. Great.
        Mr. Merrifield. Senator, if I can just add?
        Senator Manchin. Sure.
        Mr. Merrifield. I was a proud parent. My son went through
    the training program that Mike's folks have, and it was an
    excellent program. It really, they do a terrific job----
        Senator Manchin. The apprenticeship?
        Mr. Merrifield. ----of preparing people for
    apprenticeships.
        The other thing I would mention, you know, United also
    represents Canada and there are two major nuclear refurbishment
    programs in Canada at the Bruce and Darlington sites. The total
    of those two nuclear programs will be about $20 billion over
    the next ten years, and a significant number of folks from
    Mike's union will be involved in helping get those, keep those
    plants, nuclear plants online as well.
        Senator Manchin. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Alexander.
        Senator Alexander. Thanks, Madam Chairman, and thanks to
    you and Senator Manchin for your leadership in this area and so
    many different ways and your participation on the
    appropriations process where you are a member as well.
        You all have said, and I agree, if we don't do something
    soon nuclear power will not have a future in the United States.
    I was doing a little math, which I think I was pretty close,
    showing that nuclear is 60 percent of our carbon-free
    electricity, solar is 4, wind is 20. We know 12 reactors are
    closing. We would have to triple solar power and take up wind
    power by 50 percent to replace them.
        Or let's look at it another way. We've got only 6 of our
    90-plus reactors that have asked to extend for 20 more years.
    If half of them did for 20 more years, that would be the same
    thing as ten times the amount of solar power we have and
    doubling the wind power we have.
        So it is pretty clear that is not going to happen. If we
    don't have nuclear, we know what will happen is we will have to
    rely on fossil fuels. It will be coal or natural gas, period.
    Wind and solar cannot replace it.
        How do we know that? Well, we know other manufacturing
    countries in the world have had a similar experience. Germany
    cut in half its nuclear power, 25 to 12 percent. They had to
    replace it with coal and wind, and they have the highest
    electricity prices in the European Union which is not a good
    place to be if you are a manufacturing country in world
    competition and we are a manufacturing state in Tennessee. Or
    Japan, they have gone from 30 percent to 2 percent of their
    power nuclear. Their electricity prices are up 56 percent, and
    they are importing natural gas. So that is the problem, and the
    bill that Senator Murkowski is leading offers a solution.
        I proposed a new Manhattan Project for clean energy with
    ten grand challenges for the next five years which would double
    our energy research funding which is about $6 billion through
    the Office of Science in the Department of Energy. And among
    the various challenges, natural gas, carbon capture, better
    buildings, better batteries--greener buildings, I meant--
    electric vehicles, cheaper solar, fusion, advanced computing, I
    put advanced reactors first.
        So my question is a money question with a specific angle to
    it. How much are we talking about or who is going to tell us
    and when the kind of partnership that the Federal Government
    should engage in with the private sector to do that and
    wouldn't the long-term power purchase agreements be among the
    most important things we could do because we can, we are
    appropriating $100 million, $110 million I think, for advanced
    reactors, $100 million for small modular reactors?
        So getting that number up to a direct appropriation that
    would be enough to fund two to five new advanced reactors by
    2035 or one or two by five more years, is going to be a pretty
    heavy lift, except the long-term power purchase agreements by
    the government. Wouldn't that be the most useful way to
    encourage the private sector to spend a lot of money on
    advanced reactors? Mr. Peters or Ms. Korsnick?
        Ms. Korsnick. Yeah, I guess I'll start. Thank you, Senator,
    a good question and you're absolutely right with the statistics
    that you shared.
        And I agree with you that the long-term power purchase
    agreements are a significant encouragement to build. They
    provide that revenue certainty for somebody that's building a
    large project going from the 10-year to the 40-year provision.
    And quite frankly, that makes the business case. And so, I
    think it's a huge step forward to go with the power purchase
    agreement.
        Senator Alexander. Well, the legislation, proposed
    legislation, says one or more power purchase agreements. Would
    you think it might say two or more or three or more to be more
    specific or am I heading down the wrong track there?
        Ms. Korsnick. Yeah, the more the better.
        Senator Alexander. Anyone else?
        Dr. Peters. Yeah, I would say to that last point, I would
    say as many as there are demonstrations because to me the
    demonstrations all need to have the ability to go into a PPA, a
    power purchase agreement, because I do agree with you, it will
    enable it.
        Sir, as you well know, and I'm going to--each demonstration
    is in the small billions but that doesn't say it's all Federal
    Government outlay. The question that I raised earlier is the
    private sector and the public sector have to come together and
    come back to you with this is the model and this is cost
    estimate.
        And we've looked at this enough to know that it's in that--
    --
        Senator Alexander. I will conclude my comments because I am
    over time, but if we are spending $6 billion on energy research
    at the Department of Energy and advanced reactors and we are
    only spending $110 million on advanced reactors and $100
    million on small reactors, getting to the small billions per
    advanced reactor is a pretty heavy lift for direct federal
    appropriation.
        Dr. Peters. Yes, sir.
        Senator Alexander. So I am looking for a way for the long-
    term power purchase agreement to provide sufficient incentive
    to the private sector to spend more of the money so that we are
    being realistic about the amount of money that we can
    appropriate through our appropriations.
        Mr. Merrifield. Senator, just very briefly.
        I mean, I agree with Mark. I think it's got to be more than
    one. If you have just one, I think you get into the issue of
    the government picking winners and losers but I think a
    combination of government investment on a series of
    demonstration projects, on having the PPA program which is
    enormously valuable.
        And I would note, you know, the wind and solar industry
    benefit enormously from investment in production tax credits.
    Having those tools available as part of the overall portfolio
    of tools for the deployment of advanced reactors will bring the
    private capital necessary to get these plants built.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Alexander, very important
    questions here for purposes of where we are right now.
        Senator Heinrich.
        Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman.
        Mr. Merrifield, I want to go back to your testimony
    regarding Urenco USA. Obviously, that plant currently is the
    nation's only NRC-licensed commercial uranium enrichment
    facility. And you were talking about the need for HALEU. Do you
    think that Urenco's plant should be considered as a potential
    near-term option to provide HALEU for future advanced reactors?
        Mr. Merrifield. Certainly, it is among the places that
    should be used for that. They have the capability to expand
    their operations at that facility. Obviously, Urenco has a long
    and well-regarded role in providing enrichment services.
        I would note the bill also conceptualizes the need for
    meeting the U.S. Government needs for these high enrichment and
    high enriched fuels. That is a capability that Urenco would not
    be able to----
        Senator Heinrich. Sure.
        I am talking about specifically on the commercial market.
        Mr. Merrifield. Yeah, the commercial market, certainly that
    Urenco facility would be appropriate. I would note it would be
    important for the industry to have more than one source of that
    so it's not leaving us at risk.
        Senator Heinrich. Sure, right.
        Ms. Korsnick, can you elaborate a little more on the issue
    you raised regarding second license renewals and, in your view,
    what are the safety bounds for license renewals and does that
    require statutory change?
        Ms. Korsnick. So, second license renewals are in process
    right now. Some plants have put in an application to the
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission. They did so last year. So it's
    in process right now with the NRC. We expect in the next year
    or so for them to pass judgment on those applications. There
    are no scientific reasons----
        Senator Heinrich. Those are 20-year extensions, is that
    correct?
        Ms. Korsnick. That's correct.
        Senator Heinrich. Okay.
        Ms. Korsnick. And there's no road block for that, it
    doesn't seem.
        Senator Heinrich. And a number of----
        Mr. Merrifield. Senator?
        Senator Heinrich. Yes----
        Mr. Merrifield. I was just going to say, I was a
    Commissioner in the NRC.
        Senator Heinrich. ----I will let you jump in in just a
    second.
        You go ahead, and then I will add what I was going to add.
        Mr. Merrifield. I was just going to add, I was a
    Commissioner at the NRC when we did the first round of those
    license renewals. I think that there is no reason why virtually
    every U.S. reactor couldn't extend a further 20 years, and I
    think the NRC is putting in place a process and that could
    happen.
        Senator Heinrich. So that seems like an obvious place for
    where we could make a difference in terms of making sure we
    don't bring, take carbon-free energy offline.
        I had another question there and I have just lost it, I
    apologize.
        Ms. Korsnick. That's okay. Let me just add to your point.
        Senator Heinrich. Yes.
        Ms. Korsnick. Conceptually, that makes a lot of sense. But
    if plants right now are being threatened in the marketplace,
    that's what shut those down.
        Senator Heinrich. That was exactly where I was going to go
    into. So a number of those plants who would be up for those
    renewals have chosen not to do so.
        Ms. Korsnick. That's correct.
        Senator Heinrich. That is a cost issue from what I
    understand. That is what I want to bring up for all of you to,
    sort of, jump into here is that it seems to me that the
    elephant in the room here and the thing that we have not talked
    about and the math that we have not talked about is price, both
    the price to create a new unit, and we are seeing prices like
    $9 billion in Georgia for a unit, and the price per kilowatt-
    hour. If you are talking about $.10 to $.14 a kilowatt-hour and
    you have gas at $.05 a kilowatt-hour and you have wind and
    solar at $.03 a kilowatt-hour, how are we going to drive down
    these costs because that seems to me to be an absolutely
    essential part of this formula if we are going to build new
    nuclear reactors.
        Ms. Korsnick. Yeah, so I would agree with you.
        Obviously, we have to be able to create and build these
    plants in a cost-effective way. At the same token I would say
    that we have to look at the attributes that nuclear power is
    bringing to the marketplace to say that today those attributes
    are being provided for free.
        And that's why the market is not recognizing, nuclear has
    hit a perfect storm of very low gas prices, other generation
    types that have significant subsidies and also a low, load
    growth profile right now in the United States. And if you take
    carbon out of the question, to your point, there's other
    sources that can be provided at a lower source.
        Senator Heinrich. For starters, we might want to value
    carbon-free energy across the board and make sure that there is
    some market mechanism to do that.
        Ms. Korsnick. That's correct.
        Dr. Finan. Senator, could I speak to your----
        Senator Heinrich. Yes, absolutely.
        Dr. Finan. On the new builds, in particular, I think a lot
    of the advanced reactors are really trying to address this key
    question, how do we address cost?
        And we see two main approaches to reducing new build cost.
    We've come to understand that nuclear plants right now are mega
    projects----
        Senator Heinrich. Right.
        Dr. Finan. ----and mega projects are fundamentally
    vulnerable to delays.
        Senator Heinrich. And not scalable as you go down, not
    versus as you go up.
        Dr. Finan. Right, right. And there are just too many
    interdependencies. And so, you can either build up capacity to
    do mega projects and we've seen that elsewhere. Korea has a
    good capacity. We lost that in nuclear and we can work to
    rebuild that.
        Another approach is to try to avoid being a mega project.
    And that's what a lot of the advanced companies are really
    trying to do is to increase the manufacturing and decrease the
    construction onsite. And that will also make them more of a
    U.S. export because you can do that manufacturing in the United
    States, even if you're shipping it to Poland. Whereas, you're
    not going to export an entire construction team to Poland.
        So there are a lot of reasons to take that approach and
    those are two ways to address the upfront cost.
        Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Heinrich.
        Senator McSally.
        Senator McSally. Thank you, Chairwoman. I appreciate you
    having this important hearing today.
        The Palo Verde generating station in Arizona is the largest
    electricity generating plant of any source in the United States
    averaging 3.3 gigawatts. In three reactors, Palo Verde produces
    more than one-third of the electricity in my state. The plant
    provides carbon-free power to more than four million people
    across the Southwest including Phoenix, Tucson, Los Angeles,
    San Diego and more.
        According to Arizona Public Service, which is the main
    operator of Palo Verde, the amount of clean air power produced
    at this site has offset the emissions of nearly 484 million
    tons of carbon dioxide. That is the equivalent of taking 84
    million cars off the road for a year. To generate this much
    clean electricity from solar power you would need almost 200
    square miles of solar panels or roughly the land mass of the
    entire city of Scottsdale, Arizona.
        Now I am a strong supporter of solar and wind power but
    these technologies do have their limits, especially when it
    comes to meeting industrial power needs and providing
    electricity in adverse weather and at night, for example.
        But in addition to being an engineering marvel due to its
    size, Palo Verde is also remarkable for its water efficiency.
    In the heart of one of North America's largest and driest
    deserts, Palo Verde is the only nuclear power plant in the
    country not built near a large body of water. Instead, it
    recycles more than 20 billion gallons of wastewater from
    surrounding municipalities to cool the plant.
        Palo Verde has often led American nuclear power plants in
    efficiency, operating at 90 percent full capacity while
    providing competitively priced electricity.
        While much of the conversation today is focused on future
    technology and the promise of advanced nuclear reactors which
    we need, it is clear the nation's existing fleet of nuclear
    reactors, as many of you have talked about, play a critical
    role in providing safe, reliable, clean electricity to power
    our homes and our economy.
        So any serious conversation we have about carbon reduction
    goals needs to include robust support for our nation's existing
    nuclear power plants, in my view, as many of you have also
    shared.
        Combined with other renewables and more efficient use of
    natural gas and traditional fossil fuels, we really can have a
    leadership in a true all-of-the-above energy strategy which I
    support.
        I just wanted to lead in with that. We are very proud to
    have Palo Verde in Arizona.
        Ms. Korsnick, you talked about the existing fleet of
    nuclear power plants in your testimony and in other questions
    as a central part of our critical infrastructure needs. Can you
    expand on the importance of these large nuclear generating
    stations like Palo Verde and in meeting our current and our
    future energy needs?
        Ms. Korsnick. Absolutely. I'm very proud of the United
    States' nuclear fleet. Last year we operated at a 92 percent
    capacity factor, actually a little bit larger than that,
    capacity factor meaning operating as many hours as you can.
        But if you look over the last 15-plus years, the U.S. fleet
    has had a greater than 90 percent capacity factor. You don't
    get that way by being lucky. You get that way because we are
    very, very good and I would say, world's best, at operating
    nuclear power plants. And we've done that through really
    understanding operational excellence, rigorous training
    programs akin to the training programs that Mark McManus
    mentioned earlier. And we should be very proud of the
    operational excellence that we have here in the United States.
        That's why it's so important that we are involved in
    building these plants outside of the United States. These
    aren't just widgets. You don't just send them around. It's not
    just the hardware, it's the how do you operate these and to
    make sure that these are done with operational excellence.
        I used to be an operator. I worked in the control room. I'm
    very personally familiar with the training programs. It's very
    rigorous. Something we should be very proud of here in the
    United States.
        Mr. Merrifield. Senator, I would just add.
        Senator McSally. Yes.
        Mr. Merrifield. I agree, completely agree, with everything
    Maria just said.
        When I was an NRC Commissioner, I got a chance to go to
    over half of the world's 440 nuclear power plants. And I can
    attest I made multiple visits to Palo Verde. You have as fine a
    nuclear power plant in Arizona as anywhere around the world.
        Senator McSally. Amen. Thank you, sir.
        A lot of discussion today and often is about, obviously,
    reducing our carbon emissions and this has been part of the
    discussion already. You know, it is frustrating because, I
    mean, again, we support solar and wind but sometimes nuclear is
    just left out of the conversation by some people when they are
    thinking about clean energy.
        We had an out of state billionaire come into Arizona last
    year on an initiative trying to tell us exactly what kind of
    energy we needed and they conveniently left out nuclear as part
    of what the goals would have been.
        So can you talk about how important it is, as we are trying
    to meet carbon emissions, that nuclear is a part of that clean
    energy conversation? If anybody wants to jump in?
        Mr. Merrifield. Senator, you are spot-on in that regard. As
    was demonstrated, and I think Senator Alexander spoke of this,
    those countries like Germany which have taken nuclear assets
    offline have seen actually a spike in their carbon production.
        There is one thing I think is important though and this is
    coming from the energy organization in North Carolina and South
    Carolina of which I am a part. We believe in all-in. And I do
    believe that wind and solar, like you do, play a very important
    part there. I think for the purposes of the advanced reactors,
    which is a major focus of this hearing today, many of these are
    complementary.
        Senator McSally. Exactly.
        Mr. Merrifield. It's not nuclear or wind and solar. It's
    really how do those work together to provide the carbon-free
    energy that we need.
        Senator McSally. Exactly.
        Mr. Merrifield. And many of those designs going forward are
    designed to load follow, to work in a way which would be very
    well interconnected with wind and solar assets.
        Senator McSally. Exactly.
        Mr. Merrifield. So I think it is important for both going
    forward.
        Senator McSally. I totally agree. Thanks.
        I am out of time. I appreciate it.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator McSally.
        Senator King.
        Senator King. I apologize for not being here for the entire
    hearing. I was at an Armed Services Committee hearing, but has
    the word waste been mentioned in this conversation? I don't
    think it has.
        I just met with a group of young people. They are all for
    carbon-free energy. They are excited, but they are not excited
    about paying the price of our using electricity and leaving to
    them what to do with the waste.
        We have not met a 70-year promise in this country yet on
    nuclear waste. I have a high-level nuclear waste site in
    Westport Island, Maine, because when Maine Yankee closed, the
    Department of Energy breached its contractual obligation to
    take away that waste and do something with it. So that is my
    problem with this bill. I am not opposed to the technology of
    nuclear power. I am definitely in favor of carbon-free power. I
    think it can be an enormous boon to our economy and to our
    climate. But I just don't know how we have this discussion and
    not talk about this really significant problem that is not
    being addressed. And I am tired of passing burdens on to our
    children. I don't think that is what we are sent here to do.
        Mr. Commissioner?
        Mr. Merrifield. Senator, I look at this, I think we have a
    public policy problem. There are a variety of different
    technical methods to actually safely address long-term waste.
        Senator King. Yes, but they have not been implemented in 70
    years.
        Mr. Merrifield. Well, there are a variety of them. They are
    on the table right now.
        Now obviously, Congress will decide what it wants to do or
    not do relative to Yucca Mountain, but there are also waste
    facilities, intermediate waste facilities, proposed in New
    Mexico and Texas that can take that fuel off of the site. I
    mean, Yankee, and I have visited that beautiful site. There's
    also a technology called deep isolation that talks about
    using----
        Senator King. You are talking about future technologies and
    proposed projects.
        Mr. Merrifield. These are currently available.
        Senator King. We are talking about a bill here to promote
    nuclear power----
        Mr. Merrifield. Right.
        Senator King. ----without having solved that problem. I
    think we have it backward. Let's solve the waste problem and
    then talk about promoting nuclear power. What am I missing?
        Mr. Merrifield. Well Senator, those capabilities are
    available now.
        Senator King. They are not in place.
        Mr. Merrifield. It's been demonstrated in Finland where
    they are putting in a deep geologic repository in granite.
    Those technologies are demonstrated and capable.
        We have a public policy problem that Congress needs to
    address.
        Senator King. But we are not doing them. We are not doing
    them.
        Anybody else want to tackle this?
        Ms. Korsnick. Yeah, I mean, I would agree with you, we need
    a solution to the waste problem. It's not a technical problem.
    It's something that needs to be addressed in these halls, and I
    know that there are folks that are focused on doing that.
        At the same token, I think you have to look at the benefits
    that this technology provides. As an industry, we've
    contributed $40 billion to be a part of the solution to this
    waste issue. So we've contributed the money.
        Senator King. Oh, I agree, you have been--you have paid a
    lot of money that you have not gotten anything back for. The
    industry, Maine Yankee in Maine is, I don't know, $70 or $80
    million, a lot of money.
        I just think as part of this bill there ought to be a
    section that talks about solving the waste problem.
        Let's be clear. This bill, which I think is a good bill,
    will promote additional nuclear power. But it says nothing
    about solving this fundamental problem that has been with us
    for 70 years. This government has been promising the American
    people that they are going to solve this problem, and they
    haven't.
        So I don't----
        The Chairman. Senator King, I don't mean to interrupt on
    your time. I will give you more time here.
        But I did mention in my opening statement that the
    bipartisan measure that Senator Alexander and Senator Feinstein
    and I have been working on for several Congresses now that
    deals directly to the waste issue, we have introduced that
    today. We would encourage you to join us on that.
        But we do recognize----
        Senator King. Subject to reading it, the answer is yes.
        [Laughter.]
        The Chairman. Subject to reading it, of course, of course.
    That is what we always say.
        But I think that your point is clearly a fair one. What
    we're doing with NELA is focusing on that future for nuclear
    but we do recognize that we have this responsibility to address
    the waste side of it.
        Senator King. Thank you.
        The Chairman. We are proposing that in that separate
    legislation.
        Senator King. That is very helpful. Let me----
        The Chairman. I will give you back your 40 seconds.
        Senator King. No, it says a minute and 19. I got a
    dividend, I guess.
        I couldn't help but notice when you are talking about the
    long-term PPA, you are talking about a high capital cost, low
    operating cost and shorter-term contracts.
        I used to be in the hydro business. Almost all those same
    arguments apply to hydro. And we have not had much in the way
    of hydro development in the country, in part, because of short-
    term PPAs that cannot amortize the high capital cost. I just
    make that as an observation. I fully understand that business.
        One question, and this is a genuine question that I don't
    know the answer to. Operating costs, what is the comparative
    operating cost of a nuclear plant compared with gas, coal,
    hydro? I think that is a relevant question here. We know that
    it is relatively low, but I would like some figures, perhaps
    you can share some.
        Ms. Korsnick. Sure, we look as an average across the whole
    industry last year that operating cost was 3.1 cents a
    kilowatt-hour.
        Senator King. Okay, so that is the ongoing operating cost.
    Does that include fuel?
        Ms. Korsnick. Yes, that's capital fuel and O&M.
        Senator King. Oh, that's capital as well.
        I am talking about just O&M, obviously something less than
    3.1.
        Ms. Korsnick. That's correct.
        Senator King. Okay.
        Well, the other piece, of course, which we have talked
    about at some length, and I am out of time, is cost and that is
    what we really have to work on.
        I believe that we should be paying insurance policies for
    getting out of the fossil fuel business. The question is how
    high is the premium? And that is where this industry, I think,
    has a contribution to make, but a ways to go.
        Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you for introducing
    this bill.
        Mr. McManus. If I may, Madam Chairman?
        The Chairman. Mr. McManus.
        Mr. McManus. You know, I think the question--I never like
    to answer a question with a question. What is the cost of not
    doing anything on subsidizing or enhancing the nuclear fleet?
    If we have 20 percent of America's power and we pull that off
    the table, what's the cost of the climate change, to the young
    folks, saying that we may have this backward.
        I disagree on that. I think Congress, and sometimes it's
    hard to say this to Congress, we can do more than one thing at
    a time. I think we can work on the waste as we're not pulling
    off 98 more nuclear fleets.
        And then the economic cost as well is when up in Maine,
    Yankee Maine, when a nuclear facility comes offline and pulls
    on, it devastates communities. The economics that aren't
    measured is the local economics of the people, the workers, the
    auxiliary businesses that make up the communities that these
    fleets are there.
        If you talk to folks that are in communities with 98
    nuclear power plants, they like the nuclear power plants there.
    They like the economic engine that it brings to it.
        Thank you.
        Ms. Korsnick. Sir, if I could just answer your question? I
    pulled up my information. If you just look at the operational
    cost it's 1.97 cents a kilowatt-hour.
        Senator King. That is helpful, I appreciate it.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator King.
        Senator Cortez Masto.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. I appreciate the
    conversation today as well as with this bill.
        Let me just say, with all due respect, the bill that you
    talked about that you dropped earlier today still identifies
    Yucca Mountain as a site and does not give the State of Nevada
    consent-based siting. And that is why I disagree with it.
        If all the states were treated equally when we are looking
    at deep geologic storage, that is one thing but still we have,
    I think, a policy moving forward that is not based on sound
    science for the very reason that you said, a lot of these deep
    geologic sites are in granite. Yucca Mountain is not granite.
    It is volcanic.
        And so, but let me get to the question I think that my
    colleague also asked, this was a concern of mine. I think we
    should have been addressing this over the last 20 years is what
    do we do with this waste?
        And what I am hearing is that this legislation as it
    tackles advanced nuclear reactor technologies and, I think, Dr.
    Finan, you addressed this, is that part of the benefits of
    advanced nuclear reactor technologies is the reduction in
    nuclear waste. Can you address that specifically?
        Dr. Finan. Sure, I mean, I think that I want to just say
    that I appreciate the question and that the waste issue is
    really important. For nuclear to contribute to carbon
    reductions to the extent that it's capable, we have to address
    this waste issue.
        Advanced nuclear reactors can reduce the nuclear waste
    quantity and the length of time that it needs to be managed.
    But we will still need, ultimately, to come to a policy that
    has broad support and is sustainable because we've been
    managing waste for a long time. And I think that the nuclear
    industry actually manages its waste better than any other. We
    track it. We store it. We package it. We watch it. We keep
    track of it. I mean, it's really, we do a lot of managing. But
    we don't have a long-term strategy. So, I think it's time to
    take a hard look at our technological options and at our
    process and commit to finding a strategy.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Oh, I agree. I agree with that on the
    policy. And I think that is what we should have been doing the
    last 20 years. We have wasted time and money.
        But my question to you is this bill, and what I am told
    this bill's, this focus, this advanced nuclear reactor
    technology that we are all want to invest in and do the R&D and
    move toward, is to reduce, it has the benefit of reducing
    nuclear waste. Can you give me specifics on that and how it
    reduces it? I would open it up for anybody else as well to talk
    about it.
        Dr. Peters. To put it succinctly, the reason you go to the
    higher enrichment, we've talked about HALEU, high-assay, low-
    enriched uranium, you push the enrichments up, is partly
    because you want to go small, to even very small, but also
    because you can generate more unit energy per amount of fuel.
    So you're using less fuel to get the same amount of energy
    where you can generate more energy out of the fuel. So you're
    minimizing the amount of spent fuel that has to be managed.
        Some of the reactor technologies could also, in theory, if
    one chose, could actually use that material as fuel and even
    recycle the material.
        Ms. Korsnick. Yeah, I think that's really the point that
    we're making to you without going into a lot of, you know, sort
    of, nuclear engineering specifics.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Right.
        Ms. Korsnick. The kind of fuel that these units use that
    we're calling waste is really just transformed. It has taken
    what was U2-35 and it's made it something else. It's made it
    some into plutonium. It's made it some into U2-38. These
    advanced reactors, they use that kind of fuel.
        So really what we're creating is, what you call today as
    waste, is future nuclear fuel. And now we're building reactors
    that can use that future nuclear fuel.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
        My next question then is this Senate bill 903, this bill,
    is it focused specifically on incentivizing and supporting
    advanced nuclear technology or does the existing nuclear fleet
    that we have get to take advantage of some of the amendments
    and language in here like extending the purchase power
    agreements, the pilot projects? Does our existing fleet get to
    take advantage of Section 903 as well?
        Dr. Peters. This legislation is specifically focused on
    advanced reactors.
        Senator Cortez Masto. So what I am hearing right now is our
    existing fleet of nuclear reactors cannot benefit at all from
    Section 90, from the Senate bill 903?
        Ms. Korsnick. Well, I would just take one exception to
    that. The HALEU provision for this, there are some of the
    current fleet that would like to use some of the higher
    enrichment. What that allows them to do is operate a longer
    period of time which enables them to reduce some cost. So there
    is some benefit for them through the HALEU.
        Mr. Merrifield. Right. Maria is quite right in mentioning
    that. Lightbridge Corporation, along with Framatome, is
    developing a metallic fuel that would utilize HALEU in order to
    produce a fuel for the current fleet that would allow both
    higher utilization of those facilities. It may also allow them
    to increase their power to make them even more efficient. So in
    that regard, yeah, the bill does include language in here would
    be helpful in that regard.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Okay.
        Dr. Finan. And Senator, could I just add that extension of
    the Federal Power Purchase Agreement term can benefit all
    technologies? That's technology neutral, so it could benefit
    nuclear technologies. It could benefit geothermal, solar and
    wind. And I think that's an important aspect of the bill.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Thank you very much.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cortez Masto.
        And just to your point about our waste bill that has been
    referenced now a couple times and, again, I would urge you to
    look critically at it because our purpose, our intent in moving
    forward is to address a mechanism that will allow for a
    consent-based process for these consolidated storage
    facilities.
        It doesn't take Yucca off the table if it were to be
    determined that the folks there seek to endorse this. But our
    approach, and I am going to turn to Senator Alexander, we have
    both been working on this for so many years here, but again,
    where there is a recognition that we have to get started. We
    have been hung up for a long time on Yucca. You know that. We
    know that. But in the meantime, our approach has been to figure
    out how we can move forward, consent-based, and help address
    some of the stalemate that we have seen.
        Senator Alexander.
        Senator Alexander. If I could just take a couple of
    minutes.
        Starting with Senator King, the Murkowski bill which a
    number of us support, Senator Feinstein, others, has nothing to
    do with Yucca Mountain. What it does is it creates other sites.
    It authorizes interim storage sites which we have passed and
    approved in our energy and water appropriations bill with the
    consent of the Ranking Members of this Committee, two or three
    times now. It does the same thing with private sites which are
    probably the fastest way to get waste out of Maine or
    California or where ever else to another place.
        There are two applications for private sites in New Mexico
    and Texas. It authorizes a separate long-term site, a second,
    if you will, Yucca Mountain. But it does not do anything about
    Yucca Mountain. I would hope that both Senators would look
    carefully at the legislation.
        We can argue about Yucca Mountain, but this bill does not
    have anything to do with Yucca Mountain because it provides
    additional sites and the only reason we haven't--Senator King
    was asking wonderful questions about why all these technologies
    that are available haven't been used. It is our fault. It is
    the fault of the Congress over the last 35 years.
        We have not approved any of it because we have had a
    stalemate with the House of Representatives. We will pass our
    provision that says let's go forward with these alternative
    sites then the House says, we won't do that unless Yucca
    Mountain is included and we come to a stalemate.
        So I wanted to characterize Senator Murkowski's bill in
    that way in hopes that it would have broader support.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Can I ask a point of clarification
    because I have read the bill, and I appreciate you both being
    here as the sponsors of the bill and I am trying to understand
    as well.
        So the consent-based siting that is in there gives every
    state consent-based siting but Nevada over--because if Nevada
    is unhappy with consent-based siting, with respect to Yucca
    Mountain, we don't have that authority to stop it. We don't get
    that.
        Senator Alexander. It does not have anything to do with
    Yucca Mountain.
        Senator Cortez Masto. So Yucca Mountain is not in your bill
    at all?
        Senator Alexander. No.
        Senator Cortez Masto. It is taken out completely?
        The Chairman. It does not reference it.
        Senator Alexander. Yucca Mountain is not a part of the
    bill, correct?
        This is about additional sites other than Yucca Mountain.
    In fact, if you are opposed to Yucca Mountain, which I gather
    you are, I would encourage this bill because it creates other
    sites to take used nuclear fuel from Maine and California and
    have a place to put them.
        Senator Cortez Masto. The last, when it was dropped last
    time it had Yucca in it. So I appreciate it if Yucca is not in
    this time, I will absolutely take a look.
        So just for clarification, Nevada does have the ability to
    engage in consent-based siting as well like every other state?
        The Chairman. Like every other state.
        Senator Alexander. Madam Chairman, if I may say, this bill
    says nothing about Yucca Mountain.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Okay.
        Senator Alexander. It does not change the law. There's a
    30-, 40-year history of Nevada being involved in approving and
    not approving Yucca Mountain which I don't think it helps to
    get into today.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Yes, that is great to hear.
        Senator Alexander. We tried to avoid that. It leaves Yucca
    Mountain right where it is. I think we should have a vote on
    Yucca Mountain--and I will vote for it and you will vote
    against it--and we will see who has the most votes. But in the
    meantime, we ought to go forward.
        Senator Manchin. If I could say one thing.
        My understanding was this. Yucca will not be taken off the
    table, but Yucca will not be ahead of anything else until we
    get everyone else evaluated to Yucca's standard because so much
    effort has been toward Yucca over the years. So, it is where it
    is. People made up their mind.
        Senator Cortez Masto. So nothing is going to happen with
    Yucca until we survey every other site for deep geologic
    storage.
        Senator Manchin. That is my intention. That is what my
    understanding is.
        Senator Cortez Masto. And so, it will be on hold until we
    do the survey for every other potential opportunity?
        Senator Manchin. I think we should evaluate all the other
    sites that are on the table and other sites that should be
    evaluated before anything is moved forward, so Yucca just is
    not all by itself.
        The Chairman. Right.
        I am just reminded, Yucca is in law, if you will. We have
    some years back made that determination.
        It is not, certainly my intent, as one of the authors of
    this, that the State of Nevada is treated any differently when
    it comes to what we are looking to build out which is this
    consent-based storage. And so, Nevada would be treated the same
    there.
        We do not reference Yucca, but I think to your point, it
    may be inferred that Yucca is treated differently because of
    the existing law. So know that my intent is to make sure that
    what we are doing here is we are allowing for a process to move
    forward so we can address the waste issues. We have to resolve
    Yucca, one way or another.
        In the meantime, everything has been put on pause.
    Everything has been put on pause for decades now and we have
    not been able to do anything. We argue over Yucca, and we
    cannot get moving on anything else. So this is, kind of, an
    opportunity for us to get moving while we make a determination
    as to whether or not Yucca is in the future or not.
        Senator Alexander. Madam Chairman?
        The Chairman. Yes.
        Senator Alexander. If I could suggest, to eliminate any
    confusion about this bill that you sponsor and I cosponsor,
    maybe a hearing at some point----
        The Chairman. Yes.
        Senator Alexander. ----to make, on this topic, to make it
    clear the relationship this bill has to Yucca Mountain or not
    would be useful so we do not have confusion about it.
        The Chairman. Well, as I mentioned, we are just dropping
    this bill today. This will give everybody a chance to really,
    keenly eyeball it.
        I think Senator Alexander's suggestion is a good one. We
    all recognize that if there is going to be this vibrant future
    for nuclear, whether we are talking the more traditional
    existing or the advanced or the microreactors, we have to
    address waste. So know that this Committee is keenly focused on
    that.
        Now I am going to turn to Senator Cantwell, who has been
    living with it in her state for far too many years, and we know
    we have to address Hanford and the other sites.
        Senator Cantwell.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for
    that intro because as you and our other colleague who is
    leaving are both appropriators, I do want to remind us of the
    ongoing challenges of cleaning up nuclear waste at the Hanford
    site.
        I was just out there last week and saw some progress on
    low-level waste, but we clearly need to keep making progress
    and need a budget that reflects making milestones. So thank you
    for bringing that up.
        I wanted to ask the witnesses, if I could, kind of a
    twofold question, one on the front end of where we are today
    and one on the back end of where we need to go. The front end
    being what do we do on the IP side if the United States is
    going to continue to be a leader in the development of next
    generation technologies, what can we do to do IP protection on
    the national security side so that we are developing a market,
    not just for the United States, but for other countries? And
    you know, to me, if we are going to be an important player in
    this, we have to figure out how to get this IP protected and
    not have it used. So I want to ask that question.
        The back end question is what do we need to do on material
    sciences? We are doing a good job at PNNL on some aspects of
    this, but don't we need to do more on material sciences for
    various nuclear technology applications and what should we be
    doing?
        So I will throw that open to you.
        Mr. Merrifield. Senator, if I can first take a crack at the
    IP issue?
        And I certainly understand the concern of members of this
    Committee in that regard, you know, as an attorney and one that
    counsels many advanced reactor developers, we're not, on my
    client's behalf, we aren't seeing a lot of issues with the
    current structure of intellectual property here in the United
    States. I think we're a little bit cautious that they're not--
    recognizing that there are issues of enforcement and issues of
    national security and the whole issue of theft of some of the
    technology. Westinghouse is obviously in the minds of many.
        We have an existing structure in the United States that's
    actually working quite well, and to tighten down intellectual
    property further could hinder the ability of U.S. companies to
    export these technologies and would only allow the Chinese, the
    Russians and others to take a larger share of the marketplace.
        Senator Cantwell. Well, some exports are getting shut down
    now, so, that is why I am asking. We have to figure out how to
    accomplish being a player in next generation technology and
    protecting its IP.
        Dr. Peters. Yeah, Senator Cantwell, Senator Manchin asked
    us a somewhat similar question earlier and from the labs'
    perspective, I am at Idaho National Laboratory, but the labs
    are all working with the Department of Energy right now on that
    exact question about how to make sure we're protecting the wide
    spectrum of energy technologies, recognizing that it's a global
    market. And if the U.S. is going to lead, we're going to have
    to plan that global market, as Jeff alludes to, but also making
    sure we have the proper controls in place, particularly as
    technologies get closer to market.
        Basic science probably needs to be more open, very basic
    science, but then when you get closer to technologies that go
    to market, we need to have more controls. And we're actively
    working with DOE on how to figure out how to protect the U.S.
    interests in that space.
        Senator Cantwell. What else do we have to do that we are
    identifying that DOE's role would be?
        Dr. Peters. I would encourage the Congress to understand
    better what DOE is doing, because DOE is very actively working
    with the labs and the universities in this space as we speak.
    The lab directors are personally all involved in the
    conversations.
        So I would say before Congress----
        Senator Cantwell. My guess is we know detection because
    that is why we have been able to detect that it has been used
    for other purposes, but now we have shut down markets. So we
    have to figure out how to--I am just pointing out we are going
    to have this discussion----
        Dr. Peters. Yes.
        Senator Cantwell. ----and we think that international
    market is a big place. We have to figure out, like in every
    aspect of intellectual property, how we are going to make sure
    it is protected.
        Dr. Peters. Yes. And I was just trying to make the point
    that it's already being taken seriously. So, I think a good
    conversation would be helpful.
        Senator Cantwell. With DOE?
        Dr. Peters. Yes.
        Senator Cantwell. Great.
        And then what about, yes, on the----
        Dr. Peters. If it's okay, I'll say on for material science,
    if that's okay.
        Senator Cantwell. We like northwest labs.
        Dr. Peters. Yeah, yeah, right and they're a close
    collaborator in the nuclear space with us.
        So a lot of these advanced systems, really, it's about
    materials. It's about advanced fuels, new kinds of fuels. It's
    about new kinds of structural materials that can last longer.
        And so, there's a lot of science that's going into, the
    labs and universities are doing a lot the foundational science
    that will enable those advanced materials. So, that's using all
    the user facilities at the laboratories, the computer
    capability, the laboratories, across the board. So, yeah, I
    would say it's all about materials. And so, the labs have a
    really, really key role.
        Senator Cantwell. Do we need more investment there or
    targeting these applications?
        Dr. Peters. I think we need more focused investment to make
    sure that we're getting--and that's, sort of, what NELA is
    about, right--focused investment to get to demonstrations. I
    don't think this needs to be a broad sort of scientific
    sandbox, if I may, but a very focused investment in the right
    materials.
        Mr. Merrifield. Senator, in terms of investment, one thing
    I would add and I agree with Mark. When you look at the cost of
    building any of these power plants, about half of the cost is
    associated with action in the engineering and construction. So
    as we're looking at trying to move these forward, advanced
    construction is also an area of investment that we really need
    to be thinking about.
        Senator Cantwell. Okay, thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
        I appreciate the conversation this morning. I think it has
    been good, it has been helpful as we look to the attributes of
    NELA and how we can continue to build on some of the
    legislation that we have introduced and passed previously.
        It is also a good reminder to us that we must address the
    issue of the nuclear waste end of it and how we are able to do
    that. We are going to need the help and the cooperation of
    others as we are talking about the technologies of the future.
    We also have to realize that we have a legacy of the past that
    must be addressed. So we have a lot to work on within this
    Committee.
        I will tell you, I get really excited about the prospects
    for leadership here in this country again when it comes to
    nuclear. Several of you have mentioned that the one thing that
    we do best here is on the innovation side. It is moving forward
    with these technologies.
        I love the idea that not only are we going to be moving us
    in a direction that will help us from an emissions perspective,
    but also this is exportable, this technology, the manufacturing
    that we would be capable of. This can help us not only from the
    jobs perspective which you point out, Mr. McManus, but again,
    as we deal with other countries that are also looking for those
    solutions.
        I was in Vietnam over this past recess and you have a
    country there that their economy is just booming and they are
    seeking those cleaner energy, those lower emission solutions.
    It was really interesting that as they talked about
    incorporating more wind and solar and were eyeing the prospects
    of LNG, their reality is that they are continuing to
    aggressively use coal and that nuclear is not part of their
    conversation. How we can help change that view and that
    perspective, I think, comes with the technology.
        I am really excited about the opportunity for the small,
    small, the microreactors. We have opportunities in a state like
    mine where it is not only remote, it is really, really remote.
    And yet, these are areas where there is potential for access of
    certain minerals that are going to be key to our nation's,
    just, stability when it comes to being able to access rare
    earths and certain critical minerals. But if you can't get
    power to them beyond diesel power generation, it is pretty darn
    expensive, to make this mine work. So I look at the application
    of microreactors for that purpose as extraordinarily important.
        I am excited about what we can do with the application for
    creating hydrogen or desalination of water. I think that that
    is something that, particularly as we look up north on the
    North Slope and how, again, you are going to need water for
    your various applications in the oil and gas industry up there.
    How about powering it with zero emission technology that allows
    for you to desalinate your water and process things cleaner and
    just more efficient?
        So I am excited about that. I think that we are moving in
    the right direction. And it is through leadership that we see
    from so many of you and the organizations that you represent.
    We greatly appreciate the work of our national labs in this
    space.
        But when we are talking about how we lead in energy
    innovation, when we are talking about our potential within the
    nuclear space, I thank you for what you are contributing to it.
        We are going to work on moving NELA. Help us with that. It
    is a good, strong, bipartisan bill but around here legislating
    seems to get harder and harder every day but we have
    demonstrated out of this Committee that we have great capacity
    for that and know that that is exactly what we intend to do.
        With that, I thank those of you who have come and provided
    such good, strong testimony.
        The Committee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m. the hearing was adjourned.]

                          APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]