[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]