[Senate Hearing 116-270]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 116-270
HEARING TO EXAMINE A DISCUSSION DRAFT
BILL, S. 4897, THE AMERICAN NUCLEAR INFRA-
STRUCTURE ACT OF 2020
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
AUGUST 5, 2020
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
41-427 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware,
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia Ranking Member
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
MIKE BRAUN, Indiana BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
ROGER WICKER, Mississippi CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JONI ERNST, Iowa TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
Richard M. Russell, Majority Staff Director
Mary Frances Repko, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
AUGUST 5, 2020
OPENING STATEMENTS
Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming...... 1
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware.. 3
Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode
Island......................................................... 6
WITNESSES
Roma, Amy, Founding Member, Nuclear Energy and National Security
Coalition, Atlantic Council; Partner, Hogan Lovells............ 7
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Barrasso......................................... 21
Senator Whitehouse....................................... 32
Senator Van Hollen....................................... 33
Goranson, William Paul, President, Uranium Producers of America;
Chief Operating Officer, Energy Fuels Resources, Inc........... 35
Prepared statement........................................... 37
Responses to additional questions from Senator Barrasso...... 45
Response to an additional question from Senator Sanders...... 48
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Whitehouse....................................... 49
Senator Van Hollen....................................... 50
Cohen, Armond, Executive Director, Clean Air Task Force.......... 54
Prepared statement........................................... 56
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Barrasso......................................... 74
Senator Sanders.......................................... 77
Senator Whitehouse....................................... 79
Senator Van Hollen....................................... 82
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Discussion Draft S. 4897, the ``American Nuclear Infrastructure
Act of 2020''.................................................. 160
Discussion Draft Titled ``American Nuclear Infrastructure Act of
2020''; Section-by-Section..................................... 208
HEARING TO EXAMINE A DISCUSSION DRAFT BILL, S. 4897, THE AMERICAN
NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE ACT OF 2020
----------
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 5, 2020
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The Committee, met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Barrasso, Carper, Capito, Cramer, Braun,
Rounds, Sullivan, Ernst, Cardin, Whitehouse, Booker, and Van
Hollen.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Good morning. I call this hearing to
order.
Clean, reliable nuclear energy is a cornerstone of
America's energy infrastructure. Nuclear provides over half of
our Nation's emission-free power. Today's nuclear reactors can
run up to 2 full years without needing to be refueled.
America's nuclear engineers and scientists also support our
national security. Nuclear energy powers our Navy's aircraft
carriers and our submarines. Nuclear technology is fundamental
to meeting our energy, environmental, economic, and national
security goals.
Since America's first nuclear engineers worked on the
Manhattan Project to win World War II, the United States has
led the world in developing new nuclear technologies. For the
last 75 years, our nuclear energy industry has been the world's
leader in safety as well as performance. We must ensure that
our leadership endures.
The draft bill we are discussing today, the American
Nuclear Infrastructure Act of 2020, will do just that. The
legislation will ensure we maintain the United States'
historical position as the global nuclear energy leader.
Our foreign competitors, specifically China and Russia,
seek to undermine America's nuclear industry for their own
advantage.
President Trump's recent Nuclear Fuel Working Group Report
unequivocally states that Russia weaponizes its energy supplies
to advance their strategic goals. I agree with this assessment.
Time and again, Vladimir Putin has used energy as a
geopolitical weapon.
It is well documented that Russians have withheld its vast
natural gas supplies to bully energy dependent foreign
neighbors to achieve their geopolitical aims. Even in the
United States, Russia has been deliberately trying to dump
uranium into our energy markets. This undercuts American
uranium production, and it drives our American companies out of
business.
The Administration report describes the dire situation
facing our Nation's uranium producers. America is on the brink
of finding ourselves completely reliant on foreign uranium to
power our homes and our businesses.
Wyoming is the leading uranium producer in the United
States. Production is down significantly. The Energy
Information Administration recently reported that last year's
American uranium production was at an all time low. It is
dangerous, and we must reverse this trend.
The draft legislation establishes a uranium reserve to
receive and revive and strengthen our uranium production.
American mined uranium would fill the reserve. The material
would be available in the event of a supply disruption.
This strengthens our energy security, and it preserves
critical uranium mining jobs around the country. If we lose our
ability to mine uranium, it would take a generation to rebuild
it. Establishing a uranium reserve preserves good jobs and
protects our national security. It is a win-win situation.
I applaud the Trump administration for their efforts to
protect our uranium industry. I support the Department of
Commerce's actions to extend an agreement to limit how much
Russian uranium can enter the United States.
If those efforts succeed, Congress will establish those
Russian importation caps into law. If we fail, it will lead
efforts to set the needed caps in law.
The draft legislation takes other important steps to
maintain America's leadership on nuclear energy. The bill
directs the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to coordinate with
foreign nuclear regulators to enable the safe use of innovative
nuclear designs.
The draft builds on Nuclear Energy Innovation and
Modernization, an act that we have gone on, which is authorized
by members of this Committee to expand nuclear energy to
advance nuclear technologies.
The draft legislation also modernizes environmental
permitting requirements to address the needs of new
technologies. The bill identifies regulatory barriers that
limit the safe deployment of new nuclear technologies.
These new technologies are capable of radically reducing
carbon emissions. It is time to remove regulatory roadblocks
for the next generation of nuclear reactors.
This discussion draft would preserve America's existing
nuclear power plants by authorizing temporary, targeted
financial credits to reactors at risk for closing. It will help
develop advanced fuels needed to power cutting edge reactors.
The draft will also help reduce construction costs to build
advanced nuclear reactors.
Finally, it reauthorizes critical training programs to
bolster our nuclear work force.
The American Nuclear Infrastructure Act is a blueprint to
revitalize our nuclear energy industry. I would like to thank
Senators Whitehouse and Booker and Crapo and Carper for working
with me on this draft. The policies in this draft legislation
will keep the United States on track to remain the undisputed
international nuclear energy leader for the next 25 years.
I would now like to turn to Ranking Member Carper for his
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, thanks so much for holding
today's hearing.
To our witnesses, the two that are here live and in person,
we welcome you.
To the witness who joins us from afar, thank you for doing
that.
Mr. Chairman, as the United States continues to battle a
deadly respiratory pandemic that has tragically claimed the
lives now of more than 159,000 Americans, emerging evidence
continues to show that people living in places with greater,
longer term exposure to air pollution are experiencing far
worse health outcomes. So at a time when breathing clean air is
paramount to public health and quality of life, it is only
appropriate that we talk about the potential for nuclear power.
Today, nuclear power is our Nation's largest source of
clean, reliable, carbon-free energy. That is why when I think
about nuclear power, I think about clean air.
I also think about economic opportunity and the potential
we have as a Nation to lead the world in advanced nuclear
technologies. In fact, there was a time not long ago when the
United States did lead the world in nuclear manufacturing,
nuclear construction, nuclear production.
By supporting the next generation of advanced nuclear
technologies that are being developed here at home,
technologies that are safer, that produce less spent fuel, that
are cheaper to build and to operate, and that provide good
paying manufacturing, construction, and operating jobs for
Americans, the U.S. can lead the world again.
I believe that Congress, and this Committee in particular,
have an important role to play in ensuring that our Nation
invests wisely in nuclear energy while maintaining our focus on
safety to ensure cleaner air for our people and this planet we
call home.
That is why, in the last Congress, I was proud to work with
you, Mr. Chairman, and with a number of our colleagues on this
Committee and off this Committee to enact the Nuclear Energy
Innovation and Modernization Act, known as NEIMA. Among many
things, NEIMA directs the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to
develop a new framework to accept and process license
applications for advanced nuclear technologies.
These changes are already being implemented at the NRC
today, resulting in greater efficiency, greater transparency in
the licensing process. With NEIMA, we are moving closer than
ever before to making advanced nuclear power a reality in this
country, and we are doing so without jeopardizing safety.
The draft legislation before us today represents the
Chairman's efforts to build on NEIMA's success, and it attempts
to move us even closer to that reality.
A number of us on this Committee, and that certainly
includes me, share our Chairman's enthusiasm for supporting
advanced nuclear technologies. Let me be clear in saying that I
support the broader goal of what this legislation aims to
achieve.
That being said, I would be remiss if I didn't hasten to
add that I have several serious reservations with the
legislation as it is currently drafted, and I suspect that some
of our colleagues, both on and off this Committee, share
several of those reservations.
Let me just mention a couple of them here this morning. I
am particularly concerned with the additional changes to the
permitting process, which I believe could result in unintended
adverse consequences for environmental quality, for public
safety, and for public health.
We only recently made a number of necessary changes to the
NRC's regulatory structure for advanced nuclear technologies
through NEIMA. I fear that making additional, unwarranted
changes at this time could seriously disrupt the regulatory
process in a way that threatens the safety reviews of these new
technologies.
We have seen the damage that nuclear power can inflict if
proper safety precautions are not in place, are not kept up to
date, or are not followed. Safety has been and must always
remain a top priority in the operation of nuclear reactors, and
oftentimes, regularly conducting these safety reviews is a
critical part of ensuring the safety that we all seek.
It is also critically important that the NRC remains the
world's gold standard of nuclear regulatory agencies. I believe
we all agree that a strong, independent NRC is essential to
ensuring a safe nuclear industry.
A safe nuclear industry is essential to ensuring public
confidence, and maintaining public confidence in this vital
industry is absolutely essential to ensuring that nuclear power
can continue to play the vital role that it plays in this
country, and I believe, around the world.
If we want to lead the world in advanced nuclear
technologies, and I believe that many of us do, we must be
careful, very careful, not to jeopardize the still promising
future of the nuclear industry by further streamlining safety
regulations, largely for the sake of streamlining.
Colleagues, if we do not proceed with genuine caution on
this front, shortcuts on safety will do more to harm this
industry in the long run, not help it.
I am not going to dwell on this this morning, but I also
have several concerns about the Environmental Protection
Agency's incentive program for the existing nuclear industry
that is included in this bill, especially in light of the
recent cuts to EPA's budget.
We need to keep in mind that the proposed Federal budget
for fiscal year 2021 calls for cutting EPA's budget by 27
percent, a reduction of $2.4 billion from the appropriation we
enacted for the current fiscal year. By creating this new
program at EPA without new funding, we run the risk of asking
the agency to do even more with, quite possibly, far fewer
resources.
With those cautionary notes in mind, Mr. Chairman, let me
thank you again for holding today's hearing. I appreciate very
much the opportunity to discuss those concerns further with you
and our colleagues and our witnesses, both today and in the
days to come.
I also appreciate the opportunity for us to focus, as well,
today, on the potential that nuclear power still holds for our
country, and what it can still mean for our air quality, our
economy, and our global competitiveness.
When it comes to nuclear power, we have a real opportunity
here. If we are smart about it, we will seize the opportunity,
and we will do so without foregoing safety.
And if we are smart about it, we will enable our country to
reap the economic, the environmental, and public health
benefits that flow from realizing that opportunity. America
will be a world leader in nuclear energy once again, while
helping to make Planet Earth a safer, healthier home for us
all.
I am going to stop my prepared remarks there, Mr. Chairman.
I can't leave this hearing today without expressing my
dismay at the news that a couple of utilities in this country
have been, apparently, caught bribing two States to implement
State programs to support this industry. One of those is in, I
think it is in maybe in Illinois, ComEd, a subsidiary of Exelon
was charged, I think, $200 million by the Federal Government
for bribery in Illinois. First Energy is involved in a $60
million bribery case in Ohio.
In addition to that, we have the new construction of the
AP1000 reactors in the Georgia Vogtle site that continue to
face billions of dollars in overruns, in costs, in years of
delays.
I have been wearing a special mask this week, and it is a
mask of my favorite baseball team. How a kid born in West
Virginia, grew up in Virginia, went to Ohio State, could end up
as a lifelong Detroit Tigers fan is a long story, but I am.
The Tigers are not playing this week; they are supposed to
be having a four game series, I think, with the Cardinals. That
series has been canceled because six of the Cardinals came down
with the coronavirus. About a half-dozen of the folks who work
in the clubhouse came down as well. They canceled the series.
This past weekend, on Sunday, there was a very special
game. The Tigers played Cincinnati. Cincinnati walked off to a
three-nothing lead, I think, in the third inning, and the
Tigers brought in a young relief pitcher named Tyler Alexander
that most people in this country, even in Detroit, had never
heard of. Tyler Alexander struck out the first nine batters he
faced.
That has never happened but maybe once in the history of
baseball. Nine. That day, he brought his best, very best, to
the mound and to the game, and we need to bring our very best
to this game.
This is not a game; this is serious business. I will just
say to the industry itself whose efforts we support and have
for years, you have got to bring your best game. You have got
to bring your very best game, as well.
Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much, Senator
Carper, for your continued leadership on this and so many other
topics related to this Committee.
I also want to thank Senator Whitehouse for his significant
involvement in putting this draft together, and I ask and
invite Senator Whitehouse, if you would like to say a few
words.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Whitehouse. I would be delighted to, Chairman.
Let me thank you for the way you have had this Committee
work in a really good, bipartisan fashion, both on the Nuclear
Energy Innovation Capabilities Act, which is the collaboration
bill between the national labs and the industry and academia,
and also on the Nuclear Innovation and Modernization Act, which
put together a new regulatory framework to solve what I said
was the problem of, how do you get a Tesla through regulatory
procedure that requires the testing of its carburetor.
By analogy, we have to change the regulatory framework for
nuclear innovation to adapt to the fact that these are going to
be innovations. Both have passed, both are underway, both are
successful, and I appreciate it very much.
I think that two of the big issues we need to address here,
one is, how do you deal with the fact that the nuclear energy
industry is financially burdened by the fact that it doesn't
get compensated for the carbon-free nature of its power? It
makes no damn sense to shut down a safely operating nuclear
plant to open up a gas fired plant that actually costs more,
but gets away with actually costing more because the carbon
differential doesn't factor into the equation.
This bill works in that space in ways that I think are very
helpful, very close to what we did on 45Q. We also have this
problem of spent fuel, nuclear waste, for which we have no
solution.
Some people say we are going to put it in Nevada. Good luck
with that. I don't think so. I don't think we have a solution.
As we steer nuclear innovation forward, I want to make sure
that we make it a really important strategic priority to have
that innovation focus on the potential, the Holy Grail, of
dealing with that terrible burden of spent fuel and actually
turning that burden into an asset.
Senator Braun is here; he comes with a business
perspective. If we were a company, that spent fuel would be a
liability on our books, and every single member of that board
of that company would be saying, Oh, my God, how do we get that
liability off our books?
If we have a million dollar liability, we have a $999,000
incentive to get it off your books. But it just sits there, and
this bill actually creates some incentives and some reporting
to kind of get it onto America's books so we pay attention.
So, I thank the Chairman for both of those. We have work to
do before I can fully support this bill on the environmental
review side, on what we call streamlining, and with respect to
foreign investment. That is what is keeping me from being on
this bill at this point, but I think the Chairman and the
members of the Committee know that I have been a good partner
on these issues, have worked in good faith and in good
bipartisan spirit.
I expect that we are going to get there on this bill as
well. I pledge that I will work as hard as I can to make sure
that we do get there.
And I thank you, and I want to give a particular shout out
to Armond Cohen, one of our witnesses today. You may not
notice, but many, many, many, many years ago, my first job as a
new kid in the Rhode Island Attorney General's Office was the
job nobody else wanted. You are the last one in, you get public
utility regulation.
Armond Cohen and I and Mary Kilmarks, now not with us any
longer, and a few others, worked together, and in Rhode Island,
we made the first conservation based electric rates in the
United States of America.
With our little utility, Narragansett Electric, which is
now a part of the great national grid empire, and with a
wonderful start, Armond's work in that was super important, and
we have this long, long, long tradition. So it is really
wonderful for me to see him in this Committee hearing after all
those many years of good work, now multiple decades ago.
I think we started something with those conservation based
rates, and they are all over the country now.
Thank you, Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much, Senator
Whitehouse, for your continued partnership. You really have
been a good faith partner with us and an honest broker. We
appreciate your commitment, too, and I believe we will get to
that same point that we are all aiming for.
We will now hear from our witnesses. We have Ms. Amy Roma,
who is here, Founding Member of Atlantic Council's Nuclear
Energy and National Security Coalition.
We have Mr. Paul Goranson, who is the President of Uranium
Producers of America.
And as Senator Whitehouse just said, Mr. Armond Cohen, who
is the Executive Director of the Clean Air Task Force, and Mr.
Cohen is joining us remotely via Webex from Boston.
I would like to remind the witnesses that your full written
testimony will be made part of the official hearing record
today. Please keep your statements to 5 minutes so we that may
have time for questions. I look forward to the testimony.
Ms. Roma, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF AMY ROMA, FOUNDING MEMBER, NUCLEAR ENERGY AND
NATIONAL SECURITY COALITION, ATLANTIC COUNCIL; PARTNER, HOGAN
LOVELLS
Ms. Roma. Thank you.
Good morning. My name is Amy Roma, and I am a founding
member of the Nuclear Energy and National Security Coalition at
the Atlantic Council and a nuclear regulatory lawyer at Hogan
Lovells. Thank you for the opportunity to testify at this
hearing in support of the draft, American Nuclear
Infrastructure Act of 2020, or ANIA, for short. My testimony
today represents only my views and observations.
ANIA is a great step forward for ensuring that U.S. nuclear
capabilities will be preserved and expanded, providing America
with clean and reliable energy, tens of thousands of jobs, and
billions of dollars in foreign trade opportunities for U.S.
companies, while protecting U.S. interests.
In 1954, at the dawn of nuclear power, President Eisenhower
delivered his famous ``Atoms for Peace'' speech, offering to
share U.S. nuclear energy technology with other nations who
committed not to develop nuclear weapons.
This program resulted in three important economic and
national security objectives. One, it prevented the spread of
nuclear weapons; two, it made the U.S. a leader in nuclear
power, ensuring that the U.S. maintained dominance in nuclear
safety and security, nuclear technology development, and
nuclear trade; and three, it ensured the U.S. benefited from
the geopolitical relationship that goes with such significant
assistance with a foreign country's power supply.
President Eisenhower's historic move has paid dividends for
decades, and the U.S. was well positioned as a global leader in
commercial nuclear power as well as safety and non-
proliferation.
While the U.S. still leads the world with the biggest
nuclear power program and 95 reactors providing 20 percent of
the U.S.'s electricity and the best run plants, we have seen
our international roles sharply decline, replaced largely by
Russia, with China close behind, who have identified building
nuclear power plants and nuclear trade as national priorities,
promoted by the highest levels of government and backed by
state financing and state owned enterprises.
Russia now dominates nuclear power plant construction
around the world, using it as a tool to exert foreign influence
and reap significant economic benefits.
With $133 billion in orders for nuclear reactor exports,
nuclear energy is also a component of China's ``Belt and Road''
initiative, with China estimating it would build as many as 30
foreign reactors by 2030, with an estimated value of $145
billion. China further estimates that capturing just 20 percent
of the ``Belt and Road'' market could create 5 million Chinese
jobs.
The U.S. nuclear power industry competing against foreign
governments for new projects has quickly been sidelined on the
foreign stage with no orders for new reactors abroad.
While we have ceded the mantle at the moment, we have a
chance to regain it when it comes to the next generation of
nuclear technology, such as advanced reactors. ANIA will close
the gap between U.S. potential and execution of these
technologies, further supported by actions to preserve the
operating nuclear fleet and support nuclear infrastructure.
While there are many helpful provisions in ANIA, I would
like to specifically note two examples and explain how they
could help. One, the environmental review provisions set forth
in Section 201; and two, the investment by allies provision set
forth in Section 304.
To the first example, over the years, the National
Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, has brought forth immense
environmental health and safety benefits. Nonetheless, both
sides of the aisle have recognized that NEPA reviews can be
lengthy and create delays, all driving up project costs without
making environmental reviews any better.
By regulation, NEPA reviews should be concise, clear, and
to the point. But when implemented at the agency level, the
concise and clear elements often get lost. With no change in
the law, NRC modern environmental reviews for new reactors can
be a thousand pages longer than they were with the last wave of
nuclear power plant construction for projects with less
environmental impact.
While the NRC has spent significant energy in the last few
years trying to right size its safety focused technical reviews
of advanced reactors, it has paid little attention to applying
a right size practical approach to environmental reviews.
Importantly, ANIA asks the NRC to do just that: Evaluate and
consider how to conduct its reviews more effectively,
leveraging existing resources, lessons learned, and evaluating
the ways the reviews can be improved.
To the second example, ANIA offers a refreshing revisit to
the cold war era foreign owners restriction in the Atomic
Energy Act, which was implemented at a time when U.S. policy
focused on closely guarding nuclear technology without the
national security safeguards we have in place today. Notably,
it was implemented before the Committee on Foreign Investment
in the United States, or CFIUS, was established, which now
polices significant foreign investment into the U.S. nuclear
industry.
While it is unclear whether the foreign ownership
restriction ever served any national security benefit, it has
been very problematic in recent years when applied to the NRC,
resulting in projects being canceled, impeding investment,
creating huge regulatory uncertainty, and costing billions of
dollars to the commercial U.S. nuclear power industry.
The NRC unsuccessfully requested that Congress remove this
restriction 20 years ago, and recently, this Committee received
a letter from 10 former NRC commissioners, again urging
Congress to remove this restriction.
ANIA would amend this restriction to permit investment by
certain U.S. allies, while the investment would still be
subject to a CFIUS review, and the NRC's own non-inimicality
finding, to ensure it does not harm U.S. interests. This is a
simple change, but it can open the door to significant
investment in this industry.
Thank you. I am happy to discuss these or other provisions
of ANIA or answer any other questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Roma follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you so much for you
testimony. It was very thoughtful, and we look forward to
getting to questions in a few moments.
I would now like to welcome Mr. Paul Goranson this morning.
In addition to serving as the president of the Uranium
Producers of America, he is currently the Chief Operating
Officer for Energy Fuels. It owns two uranium production
facilities in Wyoming.
He has lived in Wyoming for many years. He is the past
president of chemical resources based in Cheyenne, also lived
in Casper, and I am delighted to have you here, my friend.
Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM PAUL GORANSON, PRESIDENT, URANIUM
PRODUCERS OF AMERICA; CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, ENERGY FUELS
RESOURCES, INC.
Mr. Goranson. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper.
Thank you for holding this hearing on the American Nuclear
Infrastructure Act of 2020.
I am the President of the Uranium Producers of America, a
trade association representing the domestic uranium mining and
conversion industry. I am also the Chief Operating Officer for
Energy Fuels Resources, and I have worked in the U.S. uranium
industry for over 30 years.
The UPA strongly supports this bill, which will help
reclaim America's leadership in global nuclear markets.
As I started my career, the U.S. led the world in uranium
production, employing over 20,000 workers, supplying almost all
our own nuclear fuel, and we were a net exporter of uranium.
Today, commercial reactors in the U.S. import more than 90
percent of annual demand, and less than 1 percent of the
uranium they use is mined in the United States. This has left
the domestic production on the brink of collapse.
Earlier this year, the multi-agency Nuclear Fuel Working
Group recommended immediate government actions to address the
predatory market tactics of the state owned uranium
enterprises.
U.S. mine production in 2019 was the lowest since 1949. The
U.S. mined only a fraction of uranium needed to fuel even one
of our 95 commercial nuclear reactors.
Employment is at all time low, we are almost entirely
dependent on imported uranium, and we rely heavily on strategic
competitors to sell us uranium. Uranium imports from the former
Soviet Union, Russia, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan represent
almost half the fuel used by America's nuclear reactor fleet.
Let me be clear: We have a more than ample uranium supply
in the U.S. We have over 40 million pounds annually of licensed
and partially licensed capacity, almost enough to fuel
America's entire commercial nuclear fleet.
When normal market forces are in play, U.S. mines are cost
competitive globally. We have abundant high quality uranium
resources for the future.
The challenge today for any free market uranium company,
whether it is in the U.S., Canada, or Australia, is that we are
not competing with other free market companies; we are
competing with governments that seek to use energy as political
capital. State owned enterprises are not price sensitive.
When global prices plummeted a decade ago, free market
companies were forced to reduce production and lay off workers,
while Russia, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan increased their
production, drove down prices, and took control of global
supply chains.
The potential expiration of the Russian Suspension
Agreement at the end of 2020 will only hasten the demise of the
U.S. industry. The agreement already guarantees Russia 20
percent of the U.S. market, but Russia has already contracted
to increase imports significantly, should the agreement expire.
The UPA strongly supports the Commerce Department's effort
to extend RSA with protections for the domestic industry, as
well as legislation to codify more restrictive limits on
Russian uranium.
We appreciate the support of Chairman Barrasso in leading a
bipartisan effort to rein in Russian uranium imports.
It is not just Russia; China is increasingly dumping
underpriced uranium in the global markets. Data from the
Departments of Energy and Commerce show that tens of millions
of dollars' worth of Chinese uranium has entered the U.S.
reactors in recent years. The U.S. must immediately take bold
action to reserve a domestic supply chain for nuclear fuel in
the United States.
The UPA strongly supports the draft American Nuclear
Infrastructure Act. Section 402 would codify the Nuclear Fuel
Working Group's proposal to establish a strategic uranium
reserve. This reserve would ensure domestic uranium supply in
the event of market disruption and reduce our reliance on state
owned enterprises.
The Department of Energy's fiscal year 2021 budget requests
$150 million for the uranium reserve, a modest investment,
considering it will preserve the nuclear fuel cycle in the
U.S., instead of ceding it to Russia, China, and their allies.
The UPA also supports the U.S. nuclear fleet, our Nation's
largest source of carbon-free baseload power. Section 301 of
the draft bill would provide financial incentives to prevent
the premature shutdown of nuclear power facilities.
We appreciate the draft's recognition that such facilities
should be buying American uranium. We look forward to working
with the Committee to strengthen this requirement and ensure
that nuclear power facilities receiving taxpayer funds procure
U.S. mined and converted uranium.
Also, codifying the recent MOU signed by the EPA and NRC
would further strengthen the legislation by providing
certainty, robust, effective regulation of the in situ uranium
recovery industry.
Thank you again, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper,
and members of the Committee. I look forward to your questions
and working with the Committee to address these important
issues.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Goranson follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you so much for your
testimony.
We will get to questions in a few moments, but first, we
will go ahead to Boston, where Mr. Armond Cohen, Executive
Director of the Clean Air Task Force, is joining us via Webex.
Mr. Cohen, welcome to the Committee, and please proceed.
STATEMENT OF ARMOND COHEN,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CLEAN AIR TASK FORCE
Mr. Cohen. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for letting me participate remotely.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Carper, members of the
Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to engage this morning.
I want to especially thank Senator Whitehouse for his
acknowledgement of our past work together, forging an agreement
among consumers, environmentalists, and industry around what
was then a very novel approach to conservation in the utility
sector.
I think that is an interesting model for what we can do on
nuclear. The challenges are different than they were when
Senator Whitehouse and I worked together years ago, but I think
that the process could be the same. I think there is a huge
center of gravity around moving this option forward.
So, as an environmentalist and a climate change fighter,
why am I here? Because managing climate change is just a huge
challenge. We have to achieve deep reductions in carbon
emissions by mid-century.
It is not just electricity, which we usually focus on, but
it is the rest of the system, which is 75 percent of total
consumption, from transport, industry, and building heat.
All of the work that we have done and that many other
groups have done has suggested that we need to maximize our
options to achieve success. So we support rapid expansion of
renewables, like wind and solar, development of other renewable
resources like advanced geothermal as well as nuclear energy
and carbon capture and storage, which can help complement the
suite of zero-carbon resources.
Nuclear energy has some distinct contributions to make to
this if we can get it right. First of all, it is where most of
our current zero-carbon electricity comes from, as was noted by
the Chairman at the outset.
Its major advantage, maybe its first major advantage, is
that it is always on. Having an always on, always available,
zero-carbon source to complement variable renewables that are
weather dependent, most studies have shown, can substantially
reduce the cost of a zero-carbon grid by reducing the need for
redundant renewable capacity and expensive storage.
Second, it is very power dense, a lot of energy per square
kilometer. Minimizing infrastructure footprints can be a key
asset because infrastructure is not easy to build, and we need
to increase our total amount of carbon-free energy at about 5
to 10 times the rate that we ever have historically.
Finally, because of its power density, it is also quickly
scalable, at least when we are able to build standardized
designs. For example, France substantially decarbonized its
grid in 15 years, mainly with nuclear.
Nuclear also has some distinct advantages regarding its
ability to produce zero-carbon hydrogen, which we may get to
later, which will be necessary for the things we can't
electrify.
But if we are going to replicate those past successes, we
are going to need to make a lot of changes in the way we do
nuclear, reducing costs, and improving delivery times. Some of
this can be done with existing light water technology, but some
of the advanced reactor designs will provide some distinct
advantages in terms of lower costs, ability to standardize,
faster to go from order to operation, lower material inputs,
and so forth.
With that in mind, there is a lot to like in this draft
bill that would advance those objectives. I will mention a few.
First of all, we very much like the notion of incentives
for continued operation of the existing fleet. That will keep
carbon out of the atmosphere during our transition and keep the
infrastructure in place to build on.
Second, getting the NRC to think ahead on permitting for
non-electric applications in places like the industrial sector
and other novel applications. We like the provisions that allow
for more international cooperation with trusted allies in the
areas of harmonized licensing and joint investment and domestic
plants, front running the regulatory issues related to use in
advanced manufacturing, and so on. We provided staff with
detailed comments to refine and enhance some of these
provisions.
Before I close, though, I do want to echo Senator Carper in
expressing our concern regarding the Section 201 and 203 permit
and streamlining provisions. Our view is that the NRC currently
has a very strong mandate from the Nuclear Energy and
Innovation Modernization Act, as well as the environmental
review provisions of the Fixing America's Surface
Transportation Act of 2015, which streamlined environmental
review. We think those provisions should be given a chance to
work before we contemplate other major efforts in this area.
I agree with previous comments that nothing could be more
damaging to a relaunch of this industry than a perception that
environmental safeguards have been specially trimmed. Nuclear
energy can be safe, but it also has to be perceived to be safe,
and maintaining strong environmental permitting review would be
important to public confidence.
There are several other provisions in this draft which I
have noted in my testimony which I believe may be unnecessary
or counterproductive, and we can get into that, but that was
the major one.
That said, we applaud the efforts of the Chairman, Ranking
Member, and other members of this effort to move forward with
modernization of this important technology to make it relevant
to the extremely daunting challenge of managing climate change.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cohen follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you so much, Mr. Cohen, and
as you stated, we are working together collaboratively. I
appreciate your comments; they are very helpful.
As Senator Whitehouse talked about, we are a bipartisan
Committee in our efforts here. We want to make sure we get the
best results.
As Senator Carper said, we need to make sure that we bring
our best game today and every day. So thank you for the
comments to all three of you.
We will start with questions.
I would like to start with you, Mr. Goranson. We know
American uranium production is right now at an all time low.
This has had a devastating impact on production, certainly in
our home State of Wyoming. To revitalize the nuclear fuel
supply chain, the Department of Energy is proposing
establishing a national uranium reserve. The discussion draft
legislation follows through on that proposal.
Will you please describe how this strategic reserve will
help preserve the Nation's nuclear fuel supply?
Mr. Goranson. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso. The U.S.
uranium industry is faced with a situation where, over the last
several years of declining commercial purchases, it has led to
an industry that is on the verge of collapse.
The uranium reserve would provide the U.S. Government with
a backstop to support this industry in this vital piece of the
industrial base, in order to preserve it and maintain a skilled
work force, as well as maintaining the infrastructure necessary
to produce uranium.
It would also provide for a domestic basis in case we have
supply disruptions from our foreign imports, as well as a means
for supporting any future national security and also energy
security needs for the country.
Senator Barrasso. On this Committee, we have members of the
Foreign Relations Committee. We have the Chairman of the Armed
Services Committee.
So I wanted to just ask you, Mr. Goranson, about Russia.
Russia has weaponized its energy supplies; all of us are well
aware, in terms of their efforts to advance their strategic
interest. With regard to uranium, in Russia, they tend to
manipulate the market by flooding America with cheap uranium to
undercut out Nation's producers.
The Commerce Department right now is working to extend
existing caps that limit the import into the United States of
Russian uranium. If the caps are allowed to expire, Russia
could have unlimited access to our uranium market. So I am
leading efforts to make sure that doesn't happen.
Could you explain to the Committee why it is so important
that we establish limits on how much Russian uranium comes into
the country, and do it by law?
Mr. Goranson. Chairman Barrasso, thank you. As you know,
the Russian Suspension Agreement has been in effect since the
early 1990s. It is in place, and it has gone through several
sets of reviews where the Commerce Department has determined
without that suspension agreement, the Russians will dump
uranium on the market. That is harmful for our domestic
industry and for our national security.
As we go forward, looking forward to the Commerce
Department's efforts to renegotiate the suspension agreement
and extend it, we know one thing, that the Russian government
we are dealing with today is not the same Russian government we
were dealing with in 1992 or around that period.
It is important, in my perspective, to see legislation to
codify those terms on the Russian Suspension Agreement to
assure that it shows that the U.S. Government, the whole U.S.
Government, supports this vital piece of protection of our
domestic industry, but also to keep from becoming extremely
reliant on a strategic competitor.
Senator Barrasso. Ms. Roma, we talked earlier, and Senator
Whitehouse did as well, on modernizing the regulatory approach.
So tomorrow's advanced nuclear reactors, they are going to be
smaller, safer than today's designs. They will also have a
reduced environmental impact while they are generating clean
energy.
The draft bill that we are working on requires the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission to examine its environmental review
process, and then identify opportunities to update outdated
environmental requirements.
What aspects, Ms. Roma, of environmental reviews must we
update to enable the safe deployment of these new technologies?
Ms. Roma. Well, there is a whole handful that I can think
of, but just a few off the top of my head.
The NRC can examine the use of generic environmental impact
statements to address issues that are common across several
different advanced reactor designs, such as the use of high
SALAU fuel, or other common issues that would enable a
subsequent site specific license to incorporate by reference
that earlier analysis, and streamline the NRC's subsequent
review of a site specific application.
Another area that the NRC could look to is reevaluating the
presumption that advanced reactors necessarily require an
environmental impact statement.
The one thing that I would note is that the NRC requires an
environmental impact statement for power reactors, which have
traditionally been large scale, light water nuclear reactors.
But it doesn't require an environmental impact statement
necessarily for smaller reactors, such as commercial non-power
reactors, which tend to be 10 megawatts or less.
A lot of the designs that we are looking at in the advanced
reactor designs are micro-reactors, so they would fall within
that window. The only difference between the existing
regulations for commercial non-power reactors and for power
reactors is power requires EIS. So one thing that they could
look at is that as well.
Another way that they could streamline is looking at co-
located facilities and the alternative siting analysis that you
need to do.
Oftentimes, new reactors are located at the same site as an
existing reactor. Yet, under the NEPA methodology as
implemented by the NRC, there is a very significant, in depth
analysis of putting that reactor at another location that would
be a greenfield site, for example, that needs to be analyzed,
where the NRC staff flies out and looks at all these other
sites, when it is just going to come back to putting it at the
exact same site as the existing nuclear power plant.
So there are a number of areas that the NRC could
streamline and improve efficiencies. But the one thing that I
would note is that, I actually thought, I understand and I hear
the concerns that people are raising about doing a less in
depth environmental review.
But I don't actually see that in the draft legislation. The
draft legislation asks the NRC to look at ways that it can do
the review more efficiently by looking at lessons learned and
other areas that it can do a better review, not a less in depth
review.
I just want to go back to the earlier comment that I made
in my opening remarks. Longer doesn't mean better. The NRC, for
the Fermi 3 environmental impact statement, the NRC wrote 2,200
pages. That is a lot of writing, not a lot of analysis.
So I think that the NRC can look at ways where it is not
necessarily making very long environmental reviews, but doing
better environmental reviews, that would be better for
everybody.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Ms. Roma.
Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Again, our thanks to our witnesses, those who are really
here, and those who wish they were here.
I want to start off with a question or two to Mr. Cohen if
I could. Less than 2 years ago, Congress passed, as you know,
the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act, which made
significant changes to the NRC's budget structure and to the
NRC's regulatory framework for advanced nuclear reactors.
This law's significant changes include caps on NRC's
budget, which phase down over time, and restrictions on the
amount of money that the NRC can charge industry. The budget
caps are expected to ratchet down starting, I believe, this
coming fiscal year. But I am already hearing reports that the
NRC's budget may be too low to meet its existing workload.
In February of this year, the NRC Inspector General
surveyed 2,800 NRC staff to assess NRC's safety culture. The IG
reported that 64 percent of the surveyed NRC employees said
they were worried about the NRC's budget and what it might mean
for the NRC's future.
My question for you, Mr. Cohen, have you heard similar
concerns about the pending NRC budget cuts, and how important
is it for the NRC to have the funding necessary to successfully
fulfill its mission? Please proceed.
Mr. Cohen. Right, thank you. Yes, Senator Carper, we do
share that concern. We have heard both from employees at the
NRC as well as some of the advanced reactor developers, who are
concerned about constraints. Obviously, the developers are
interested in getting things moved through as quickly as
possible.
We are concerned about the funding flows. Again, it goes
back to the question of credibility and the ability of NRC to
do its job, which is really critical to getting this industry
back in business at scale. So we do share that concern.
In my testimony, I suggested that the caps that were put in
place in the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act be
revisited and removed, or at least that the ratchet that starts
at 30 percent, I believe, of the 2021-2022 request at least be
frozen there and not be reduced further.
We are extremely concerned about understaffing at the
agency. It can always be more efficient. I know that Chairman
Svinicki is working very diligently to improve efficiency at
the NRC. But we think overly restrictive funding is not going
to help the cause.
Senator Carper. OK, thank you. I have one more question for
you, and then a question for Ms. Roma.
My second question for you, Mr. Cohen, deals with NEIMA and
[indiscernible] and advanced nuclear framework. In your written
testimony regarding the draft American Nuclear Infrastructure
Act, you state that, ``This bill proposes some alterations to
environmental permitting that this committee must reconsider.
These provisions are not necessary and could even be damaging
to the future of the advanced nuclear industry.''
My question is, Mr. Cohen, can you further discuss for us
why you believe the streamlining provisions in the Chairman's
draft legislation could be damaging to the advanced nuclear
industry?
Mr. Cohen. Thank you. As I said in my opening remarks,
Senator Carper, I think the major concern is that this industry
needs not only to be safe, but to be perceived as safe. I think
at least among the nuclear critics, there is already a view
that the modernization that was undertaken in the Modernization
Act that moves the agency to a more risk informed, performance
based licensing approach is already a step, I guess from their
standpoint, it is a step in the wrong direction; from our
standpoint, it is a step in the right direction, to move from a
prescriptive, burdensome, sort of widget based review to
something that is more like looking at the whole safety case.
We already have, I believe, a good framework in place to move
things forward faster.
Then there is the FAST Act, or the Federal permitting, the
Surface Transportation Act Amendments of 2015, that further
provide environmental permitting streamlining. These are very
significant provisions that apply to the NRC already.
There is a lead agency, there has to be a plan, all the
agencies have to coordinate, there is a fixed schedule, you
can't deviate from that schedule without extraordinary
circumstances.
It expands the agency's ability to provide categorical
exclusions, which the NRC could do. It establishes a Federal
permitting improvement steering council, which can make further
streamlining initiatives. And then it restricts judicial review
of NEPA related reviews. It is a very substantial streamlining,
again, not universally supported, but nonetheless, it is law.
My answer really is that with these two major efforts to
clear the way and expedite environmental and safety review
already in place, our view is that should be given a chance to
work out. If we have problems down the road, then we will talk
about those problems.
I just should say, I am a cofounder of the Nuclear
Innovation Alliance, which is an alliance of environmental
organizations, academic groups, and developers. I can tell you
that this is not what I am hearing that is priority No. 1 for
the advanced reactor sector, or even priority No. 2.
I think that while there might be some perceived gain, I
believe that the negative consequences of yet a third major
reform on top of the previous two could undermine confidence in
the integrity of the permitting process.
That is an issue of perception. I think we can argue the
merits, but I think at least at a level of perception, this
would be a bad move at this time when we are trying to get the
industry back on its feet.
Senator Carper. OK, thanks very much for those thoughtful
comments.
Mr. Chairman, when we come back for a second round, I have
one follow up with Ms. Roma and maybe Mr. Cohen on clean
hydrogen production at reactor sites, which I think is quite
promising.
Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Carper.
Right now, we have Senator Capito joining us remotely.
Senator Capito.
Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank our witness panel today.
Ms. Roma and Mr. Cohen, I have been working in a bipartisan
fashion, particularly with Senator Whitehouse, on the Clean
Industrial Technology Act, which is to promote the
decarbonization of industries that inherently create greenhouse
gas emissions, like steel production. Nuclear energy is
primarily viewed by the public in terms of power generation.
So, your testimonies touched on nuclear technologies may be
applied to industrial non-electric purposes, such as generating
heat for use at a chemical facility, or hydrogen
fractionization, or desalinization. Section 204 of the American
Nuclear Infrastructure Act explicitly directs the NRC to review
potential regulatory barriers to such deployments.
In your opinion, is the NRC currently equipped to review
those applications for deployment of nuclear technologies
outside of the spaces of power generation and medical research
reactors, and what obstacles do you think they might face in
that regulatory space?
Ms. Roma, I will go to you first.
Ms. Roma. Thank you. That is a wonderful question.
The NRC is well equipped to probably handle a commercial,
non-power reactor design that is similar to a research reactor
that has already been deployed in the United States. So that
would be a smaller version of a light water reactor design.
They have an existing guidance document that applies to
that. They are looking at them now and applying them to the
medical isotope community that is looking at getting licenses.
I think if you look at how the NRC regulations would apply
to the non-power uses with advanced reactors, I think that that
is an area that the NRC should further evaluate to do a gap
analysis of where its regulations may fall short, or what
guidance may need to be examined.
I am just going to give a quick example. I was working with
a medical isotope client that was looking at preparing a
commercial, non-power reactor application. So really, a first
of a kind type application.
One of the things that we rolled up our sleeves and
realized, is how many times the NRC makes a distinction between
a power reactor and a non-power reactor that doesn't really
have a regulatory necessity.
The NRC just implemented a regulation thinking that, Well,
the only types of reactors that would do this are large scale,
light water, nuclear power reactors. So they put the word power
in there.
For example, a medical isotope production facility building
a commercial non-power reactor can't apply for a combined
operating license. It needs to submit a separate application
for a construction permit, and then another application later
for an operating license.
Just looking at the regulations and evaluating ways that
there could be unintended consequences from the ways that the
NRC worded their regulations at the time of the rulemaking I
think would be helpful to ensuring when those applications come
in, the NRC is prepared to evaluate them.
Senator Capito. I am going to skip Mr. Cohen. She gave a
very good answer there, very complete answer there, because I
want to get a chance to get a last question in.
There was an article in the Wall Street Journal yesterday,
you can probably see the headline here, Saudi Arabia, With
China's Help, Expands Its Nuclear Program. My question is, as
you read through the article, you couldn't distinguish what the
actual usage was going to be for the help that they are getting
from China. Is it power, is it a weapons program? A lot of
unanswered questions there.
I guess my question is, where do you see, since these
reactors last for maybe a hundred years, this relationship of
Saudi Arabia and China in the nuclear space, do you feel that
is an issue? How are you all looking at that?
Mr. Cohen, I will go with you first. I am going to ask
everybody that question.
Mr. Cohen. Senator Capito, we don't necessarily focus as
much on the geopolitics of nuclear as some of the economic
issues. But yes, I think it is a concern, and I would just flip
that around and say, China is going to do what it is going to
do. It has a mercantile model of export, often at below cost
just for strategic reasons.
We are not going to do anything about that. I think we need
a better mouse trap, and we need to be talking to our allies.
An example is what we did in the United Emirates in
collaboration with the Korean institutions to build a western,
or at least an OECD originated reactor, and under sort of
western standards, with western non-proliferation agreements
and so forth.
So I think our view is that the only way to win this one is
to really come with a very robust, cost effective product, but
also bring along the kinds of things that are in this bill in
terms of international coordination of licensing. The Chinese
will do what they do, and we may not win every commission. But
we are not in the running right now.
Senator Capito. Right. Thank you.
Mr. Goranson, do you have a comment on that?
Mr. Goranson. Senator Capito, yes, I do. As you have
mentioned in your question, is that once a nuclear power plant
is built into another country, that creates basically a hundred
year relationship between those two entities.
This is another case for, as I mentioned in my testimony,
as that where countries like China can use this to leverage
foreign policy objectives. The Saudis have been a traditional
ally of the United States for quite some time, but bringing the
Chinese in and giving them this opportunity to be able to have
such a critical part of their infrastructure under their
control could create some challenges in our foreign policy as
we move forward in the future with our foreign policy
objectives.
As far as an answer as to how to resolve that, I am not an
expert in foreign policy myself. But I will say that this is
another example of why we need to be cognizant of these state
owned enterprises where they can go in and use the leverage of
their government to be able to compete.
The U.S. companies did try to compete for that nuclear
technology in Saudi Arabia and also other nuclear fuel supply
as well. As you can see, the state owned enterprises have an
edge over the United States.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Ms. Roma, do you have a comment on that?
Ms. Roma. I do. Thank you, Senator. To answer your question
directly, does this concern me? Yes, it does concern me that
China is providing nuclear technology and services for Saudi
Arabia.
I think it gets back to the crux of my testimony that
underscores the importance of the U.S. asserting global
leadership so that we can ensure that we have the highest level
of safety and nuclear non-proliferation standards in place.
To echo the statements of the other panelists, particularly
Mr. Cohen, what can we do about it? Well, right now, not much.
We are not well positioned to compete against China,
particularly in areas like Saudi Arabia, because we don't know
if they want to build any of our plants.
That is why it is the importance of implementing the
provisions of ANIA and ensuring that we can get out in front,
particularly on these emerging technologies where the U.S.
currently has the global lead in advanced reactors and in
fusion facilities as well. We are going to lose the next
generation of lead that we have because we are not going to be
able to get our act together in time to compete against Russian
and China.
Senator Capito. Right, and as we repeated, these are
generational decisions that are being made, so thank you all
very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Capito.
Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me thank all of our witnesses for their testimonies.
This is a really important hearing.
In Maryland, nuclear power is very important, as it is
around our country. We have two nuclear reactors located at
Calvert Cliffs. They produce about 20 percent of our State's
electricity needs, and 55 percent of our carbon-free
electricity needs. It is an important source of energy in the
State of Maryland, and of course, in our country.
I want to just underscore the point that Senator Carper
made earlier with Mr. Cohen, and that is, I am proud of the
work force of NRC located in the State of Maryland,
headquartered in the State of Maryland. They are understaffed,
and they are losing a lot of their expertise.
So I think the budget support here is an important part of
what we do in regard to modernizing our nuclear energy fleet,
as well as preserving our aging fleet.
Senator Barrasso, you are absolutely right. This is an
issue that has brought our Committee together. We have worked
in a bipartisan manner in order to advance nuclear energy in
this country. I am proud to be part of that team.
I know your bill was introduced as a way to advance our
mutual efforts. You hear that we have concerns in regard to the
environmental aspects, and in regard to the traditional role of
the NRC. So we look forward to working together to try to come
to grips with the differences so that we can continue to
advance this issue in the best tradition of our Committee.
Your bill deals with several aspects, including how we deal
with advanced nuclear reactors, but also what do we do in
regard to our existing nuclear fleet.
Senator Cramer and I have introduced a different approach
dealing with our fleet, in that it provides an investment tax
credit of 30 percent so that we can maintain our current
nuclear fleet.
The challenge today is the cost of energy. As we know, it
has fluctuated, declined, and it has made nuclear power much
more challenging. The tax codes were developed at different
times, giving certain incentives to other forms of energy that
the nuclear industry does not enjoy.
My question to the panel is, how critical is it for us to
deal with the economics of the pricing of energy as influenced
by the policies of our own country in the tax code and
elsewhere that could affect the ability to have economical
nuclear modernization done for energy?
Mr. Cohen. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to take a swing
at that, if you would permit.
Senator Cardin, I agree with your statement of the problem.
Basically, the bogey right now in the market is low cost
natural gas, and we know that several, many units are not able
to compete with that carbon emitting fuel.
The academic answer is that we need some sort of carbon
policy that would level the playing field. That is happening in
some States, but it is anyone's guess as to when that might
happen federally, so we are really dealing with second best
solutions.
CATF has been very active in States like New Jersey to
enact provisions that would do much like what your bill did to
recognize the value of the carbon-free energy from the nuclear
units and enact a sort of a per unit or per kilowatt-hour
payment.
That is the reason we support the section of this draft
that would provide for a Federal version of that. It is,
frankly, catch as catch can as you go around to the States.
As the opening anecdote suggested about Illinois and Ohio,
there is often mischief that can occur when some of those deals
are done. So I think a very transparent Federal support
mechanism for existing nuclear units to run makes a lot of
sense.
The questions of where the money comes from is, of course,
important, but the design that we see in the draft is
fundamentally sound. Our only comment there is that we would--
the draft as written doesn't really put a cap on that payment.
There should be some reasonable upper cap on the payment. You
don't want to have something completely that is out of whack,
with say, the value of the carbon avoided.
We recommended actually using as a possible benchmark the
2.5 cents per kilowatt-hour subsidy for wind that is currently
in the production tax credit.
It has to be transparent; the public needs to understand
that someone is reviewing these numbers, and we are not just
giving out goodies without making sure that they are needed.
Finally we recommend that we defer caps on roll, because
EPA is not really an economic regulator, and they may not be as
competent to review the numbers.
Anyway, Senator Cardin, that is a long answer, but
fundamentally, we support this kind of Federal intervention
because we think doing this State by State is going to be a
very long process, and we are probably going to lose a lot of
carbon-free energy in that process.
Senator Cardin. I would just comment that there are
different ways to do it, different opportunities in Congress.
Sometimes we have the opportunity through the tax codes,
sometimes through appropriation and legislation.
So I think I have to recognize there is an imbalance right
now of carbon. I support that, I think that makes sense, but we
have to look at what it is feasible to level the playing field
so that nuclear power can compete, and therefore investments
will be made in its modernization.
Mr. Chairman, I don't have a clock in front of me, I don't
know if I have used my time, but if either of the other two
witnesses want to respond, I would appreciate their views on
this.
Ms. Roma. Thank you. I agree with the sentiments that Mr.
Cohen just expressed.
I think that moving this to the Federal level from the
State level would ensure some consistency. I think it provides
much needed support that recognizes the carbon-free benefits
that nuclear power provides that it is currently not
compensated for. There are probably a number of different ways
that that support could happen, whether it is a production tax
credit or through this EPA measure that is set forth in ANIA.
Senator Cardin. Thank you.
Mr. Goranson. Senator Cardin, I will add that with respect
to--from my perspective, if we go back and look at the
President's Nuclear Fuel Working Group Report, in that report
it also states, one of the important portions of part of that
is to value what nuclear power brings to its generating, that
is, the clean air side of it, the baseload, the 24/7 power, is
vital to maintaining a strong economy as well as vital to
supporting our Nation's growth and place in the world.
So that is why the UPA has taken such a strong support for
Section 301, which provides some of that support.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the witnesses.
Senator Barrasso. Thanks, Senator Cardin.
Senator Cramer.
Senator Cramer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks to all of our panelists. I have been sitting here
the entire time listening to every single word from my
colleagues on both sides and all of the witnesses.
First of all, I am encouraged by it. Second of all, I
continue to ask the question, how did we let this happen? How
in the world did America ever allow its superiority in this
realm slip away? Not just slip away, but we acquiesced it to
our most dangerous adversaries. I think we need to get it back
before it is too late.
One of the thoughts that has come to mind as I have been
listening to some of this, Ms. Roma, when you were talking
about the stockpiles or the reserves--whenever I bring up
reserve to people, there are people that will say, Oh, but we
have several years of reserves. We don't really need to worry
about that.
Then I think about the state owned competitors that we
have, who are run by emperors for life. Maybe you could just
speak to the long game if you will, the importance of this, not
just in the near future, but the consequence if we don't stop
the bleeding soon.
Ms. Roma. The question that you asked, how did this happen,
is something that I have studied extensively for my entire 17
year career in this field.
I think that there are a lot of different factors that went
into it. But one of the things that strikes me is that there
seems to be a lot of complacency. There seems to be just an
acceptance within the industry that we are the best, and of
course, everybody wants the best, and we operate the best
plants. So, by golly, we can build the best plants and design
the best plants, and the rest of the world will want our
plants.
That happened in the last generation of build. But then the
U.S. stopped building, and other countries continued to build.
Countries like China are fairly newer to nuclear, and now
they are doing lots of building, and so is Russia. They
recognize, probably because of the integration of their state
owned enterprises with their government, that if we can export
this technology and embed ourselves in critical infrastructure
in foreign countries, then we have the ability to exert our
geopolitical influence.
I don't think that the United States was looking at it with
that holistic a viewpoint. So I think that is where we are now,
and we just need to accept that fact. One of the best
advantages that we have is we continue to operate the most
efficient fleet and the largest nuclear fleet in the world. We
need to continue to do that in order for other countries to
want our input and our advice on what are the safety standards,
what are the nonproliferation standards, what are the
technology best practices, what are the operational best
practices that we should implement.
If we don't operate as many nuclear power plants as we do,
and we don't operate them as well as we do, they will stop
asking us.
The second aspect is, right now, the United States, through
our incredible universities and our national labs, we are at
the forefront of advanced reactor development. We have numbers
and numbers of advanced reactor initiatives. We have numbers of
fusion companies that are looking at building demonstration
facilities and commercially deploying their technologies. They
are struggling to do that in the current climate that we have.
So anything that we can do to help the NRC do a more
efficient review, to put accountability on them for how much
money it costs to do a review for a reactor design, and making
sure that the resources they spend are achieving the objectives
that they intend for it to achieve, such as in its
environmental reviews, those are all good things, and those all
better position us to be able to help with developing programs
around the world.
Senator Cramer. This is so fascinating. I going to skip all
my rate design stuff. I am a former regulator, nerd, but you
just touched on something that I think is really, really
critical. I think this is applicable to lots of things that we
do in the United States.
I mean, China and Russia have taken our invention of
hypersonic missiles, for example, and they are running with it
while we are catching up. So often we do this.
I would rather export our excellence than import their
mediocrity every time. But both of you have talked about--but
all of you have talked about the supply chain. The supply chain
that I worry the most about compromising is the intellectual
supply chain. We are going to wake up one day, and nobody--to
your point about the expertise, it is not going to be available
because the opportunities weren't available.
Maybe in the remaining moments, you could speak to that,
sir.
Mr. Goranson. Senator Cramer, yes, I can. You are right.
What we see here is our critical talent, what I consider one of
the most key parts of our industry. I can speak from the
uranium industry that, over the last few years, we have seen a
lot of people come in through the domestic uranium industry,
new hires, people right out of college.
Unfortunately because of our competition with these state
owned enterprises, as recently as last April, I actually had to
go tell talented, experienced people that their services were
no longer needed because of market conditions created by our
current situation.
Unfortunately, since 2013, I have learned that that story
doesn't get easier by experience. I have had to do it several
times. It has been a decline that has been very dramatic and
very marked.
What is important, I see, is that we have to keep the
talent, we have to keep the people. If we don't have--speaking
from the uranium mining perspective, there is no school of
uranium mining you can go to. It is a skill set and an industry
that is unique amongst the different extractive industries
simply because we deal with uranium.
So we have to have trained people. We want to do it safely;
we want to be doing it in an environmentally protective manner.
That means we have to have smart people who understand our
regulations and understand how we do things on a regular basis
to not only produce uranium, but also do it safely and
efficiently.
Senator Cramer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am well over my time, but maybe in another round I will
ask Mr. Cohen about some rate design things. I think
reliability, for example, dispatchability has value that should
be recognized in rates as well as the environmental pieces of
it.
So with that, thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thanks, Chairman.
Just to nail down a few things that I think are well
established in this hearing, there is value to the carbon-free
nature of electric generation that does not create carbon
emissions. Does anybody disagree with that proposition, or is
that agreed?
Mr. Goranson. Agreed.
Senator Whitehouse. Agreed. And the nuclear industry is now
ordinarily not compensated for that value. Does anybody
disagree with that statement?
Agreed, OK.
And finally, the effect of that failure to compensate the
industry for that value creates what an economist would call a
market distortion. Does anybody disagree with that? So that is
our situation. We have a market distortion that hurts the
nuclear industry because it is not compensated for one of the
assets of its power.
Correct? Yes, yes, yes? OK, good.
I think off of that platform, we have got a lot of
opportunity to build here in bipartisan fashion. I would like
to drill down now a little bit into the question of nuclear
waste storage. That, I think everybody will agree, creates
cost, creates hazard, creates danger. It is a liability in an
economic sense to have nuclear waste stockpiled at our
facilities. Correct?
So there is value to finding a way to solve that problem.
The question that I have is, as we embark on nuclear
innovation, how can we make sure that the innovators see the
value of that?
Because if that is not on the table, then what you are
going to see is a nuclear innovator who will say, I am going to
put my money, my expertise, and my backing behind this power
that costs 99 cents because it is cheaper than this other power
that costs a dollar and one cent. They will save the two cent
difference.
But if the dollar and one cent used the nuclear waste
stockpile, that is a huge value to America and to society. And
a little bit like our problem with the market distortion of not
pricing carbon, not pricing the value of drawing down on
nuclear waste stockpile and turning it into a positive use, I
think risks create on a smaller scale the exact same economic
distortion.
So let me ask Mr. Cohen first, since he is coming
electronically, am I right that that is a problem? Is that
something we should continue to work on to find an economic
solution, so that the direction of innovation is not distorted
away from the value of solving, at least to some degree, the
nuclear waste stockpile problem?
Mr. Cohen. Yes, and Senator Whitehouse, I absolutely agree
with your approach. I applaud the provision of this draft that
would actually require an annual report to Congress to quantify
that liability and describe some of the opportunity. Yes, we do
need to think about nuclear waste, spent fuel, as a potential
asset.
The first thing we can do though, I think, is sort out the
issue of the repository. It doesn't need to be first, but it
should at least proceed in parallel. Regardless of reuse of
spent fuel, there will be a residual amount, probably a
significant amount, that will need to be dealt with and
isolated for many, many years.
Senator Whitehouse. Yes, that is a separate and larger
issue. I am trying to focus on the innovation direction piece,
here.
Ms. Roma.
Ms. Roma. I agree that it is important to consider the
spent fuel considerations for innovation.
Two points, just to add. One, a number of the advanced
reactor technologies that are under development embed in their
commercial case the spent fuel consideration. Having sat
through investor meetings with private equity and venture
capitalists looking at investing in them, one of the first
questions they say is, well, what about the waste?
Senator Whitehouse. Yes.
Ms. Roma. And so a lot of them are looking at, can we use
spent fuel, can we use natural uranium, so we don't have high
level nuclear waste on the back end coming out? So, it is
embedded in a number of these designs, but not all of them.
Senator Whitehouse. Yes. If you are a utility buying, then
you have this incentive. If you are not, then you don't, and so
it is not a complete market response, it is only in those
specific cases, correct?
Ms. Roma. No. For any advanced reactor designer, who aren't
necessarily looking at just selling to utilities, they actually
consider it in their design because they have to go and sell
this to customers, and customers are like, Well, what about the
spent fuel?
Senator Whitehouse. And some of them will be utilities?
Ms. Roma. Yes. Some of the will be utilities. Some of them
won't be.
Some of them are intended to be foreign countries that have
no nuclear power programs right now and won't be able to handle
the nuclear waste. So that is why they are trying to consider
it as part of their commercial case. But some of this is pie in
the sky technology advances that they are hoping to implement,
and they haven't yet.
But to your second point about innovation, refer back to my
earlier comments that we are at the forefront of advanced
fission and fusion technology development.
America is a great innovator. When it has the support it
needs, it can do leaps and bounds. So I would urge everybody to
consider any financial support for innovation for spent fuel,
ways to handle spent fuel.
Senator Whitehouse. My time is up, so let me interject
here, ask Mr. Goranson if he wants to add something, to add it
as a question for the record, since my time is up.
But I do want to say, as somebody who has watched this for
a while, there have been times when our leadership in this
space has left a lot to be desired. There have been times when
our innovation has not been so great.
A lot of our existing reactor fleet is big, cludgy,
complicated, non-standardized, inefficient, not great design by
anybody's standards.
I believe that is because they were built in a cost-plus
environment, in which the utilities figured, spend everything
you can get away with, because you are going to earn a return
on equity on whatever you can legitimately put into this thing.
That is not a path to innovation.
Now, I think we are on a much stronger path to innovation.
But I think we have got to be candid and clear that America has
not always been a great and successful innovator in this space.
There has been a lot of cludgy stuff that got built, and there
have been a lot of failures as a result.
So let's make sure innovation really works.
Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Braun.
Senator Braun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have been here a
year and a half, and in the general context of what we are
talking about, I have always been interested in the
environment.
I think Sheldon's comments on finally starting to quantify
these external costs makes a lot of sense.
We started the Climate Caucus here in the Senate less than
a year ago, and I probably worked as hard on it, maybe not
quite as much as trying to reform healthcare. The healthcare
industry is fighting everything that we are trying to do. It
does not want to reform itself.
My observation has been across the different parts of
energy, from agriculture to power generation, transportation,
and more broadly than that, technology, finance, they are
interested in being part of the solution.
So I think my frustration is that we have got something
that does not emit carbon dioxide. But it seems like we have
got a large gulf between light water, the current fleet, which
seems to be operating fairly safely across the world, at least,
recently. How do we get from where we are to where we need to
be by 2050?
The first question would be for Ms. Roma. What can we glean
from what France has done, to where they are now, I think,
close to 80 percent of their power generation? What have they
done that we haven't, and is it just that they are taking the
risk?
Please comment on that, and then I have a question for Mr.
Cohen.
Ms. Roma. France, I believe, gets about 80 percent of its
power from nuclear power. It did that because it needed energy
security and independence, and it figured if it builds all
these nuclear power plants, then it controlled its own power,
and didn't rely on other countries for its power. That is how
they got to where they are.
We had a lot more alternatives, and we had a lot more
natural resources in the United States, and so we have a more
diverse energy portfolio.
Senator Braun. Is there anything we can learn from them
specifically since they have put so many eggs in one basket?
Will they try to migrate from light water to advanced
technology to kind of hedge their safety bets over time?
Ms. Roma. I am not sure if they are going to migrate to
advanced reactors. They are considering it, but they already
get so much power from their operating fleet, which can operate
for decades without having to develop a new technology.
One of the lessons that we could look to for France is how
they handle spent fuel, how to reduce its volume and size and
storage.
Senator Braun. Thank you.
Mr. Cohen, in a more general sense, how do you see that
interplay between our existing fleet and advanced technology,
nuclear technology? What is your vision of where that can go
between now and 2050? Because to me, it looks like it is the
one bird in the hand that we have.
I think we are already running into maybe bottlenecks as it
relates to solar and wind, and it has got other disadvantages.
Kind of give me your vision there of how you see that reliance
on our current fleet, and advanced nuclear technology, and what
percentage it would be of total energy generation by 2050.
Mr. Cohen. Well, if we don't get busy, it is going to be a
very diminishing share, I am afraid.
Just going back to your previous question, Senator Braun,
the secret to the French nuclear program was standardization,
basically, settling on a design and building the same thing
over and over again with the same people. We never did that in
the United States. We actually had increasing costs rather than
declining costs, as France was able to do.
So the key is getting back to that world where you are not
building one off big units that have to be built mostly onsite.
I think my answer to you is basically for the near term, in
the next 10 years, we should be doing more export of
conventional reactors. That is the kind that are being built
right now in United Emirates.
But innovation really offers us a number of opportunities
to reduce material inputs to these units, making them much more
manufacturable, much more standardizable, if that is a word.
When we can get into that mass production mode, we are going to
have a much better shot at scaling.
So that is where the innovation is really important, and
that is a long discussion about what specifically needs to
happen in the R&D space.
But fundamentally, my view is that we do need a different
kind of business model and probably technology model to get to
the scale that we need to do in the time that we have.
Senator Braun. Thank you. That makes sense, and I think
that we can learn a lot from what we see works elsewhere if we
want to hit the target by 2050.
Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Senator Booker.
Senator Booker. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and to
Ranking Member Carper, as well.
I just want to say some introductory comments at the top,
that I share the bipartisan remarks that have been said at the
beginning. It is been an honor to work on this legislation. I
have seen this as a space of urgency since I came to the
Senate.
But we have, as Senator Whitehouse put it, terrible market
distortions that undermine the value and the important part of
our energy blend that nuclear is.
In fact, it not only has an important role, I think it has
a critical role as we transition as a Nation to net-zero carbon
emissions as quickly as possible. If we are going to avoid the
worse impacts of possible climate change, nuclear has got to be
a critical part of that.
It also has a national security issue as had already been
said in this hearing of the challenges that we see from foreign
adversaries that have taken our singular positioning in this
kind of energy away from us as they have charged to embrace
this while we have gotten entangled in a lot of things that
undermine nuclear energy.
I believe there are two really critical sets of policies
that the Federal Government should be focused on now if we are
going to move forward. That is first, we need to enact policies
to prevent the existing fleet that we have of reactors from
shutting down permanently, and our existing fleet of reactors
that do provide that majority of carbon-free electricity that
is currently generated, losing these plants would be a massive
step backward that we cannot afford to take in the fight
against climate change.
Second, we need to enact policies that facilitate the
development of next generation advanced reactors. This is a
discussion at this hearing which I think is of such urgency.
Advanced nuclear reactors have the potential to be even safer,
more economical, generate less waste than existing reactors.
That is why I am so proud to be a part of the bipartisan
work we have done in this Committee in recent years related to
nuclear energy. I really believe that with the incorporation of
some of the feedback that Senator Whitehouse and myself have,
as well as from stakeholders, we can now really craft this
important piece of legislation and move it forward out of
Committee in a very bipartisan manner.
I just want to ask really briefly in the 2 and a half
minutes I have left, for Armond Cohen.
Mr. Cohen, can you just explain why the Clean Air Task
Force believes that it is important to have nuclear energy as a
part of that mix as we try to de-carbonize our electricity
generation as quickly as possible?
Mr. Cohen. Certainly. If we are going to get to zero by
mid-century, you do the math, and you say, we have to basically
build carbon-free energy at 5 to 10 times the rate that we ever
have in the past. Those numbers are really daunting.
If we just rely on one source, as good as solar and wind
are, and we support massive expansion of those resources, we
are racing against time. We believe that nuclear could provide
a lot of clean power very fast.
I gave the example of France earlier. If we could get to
that kind of trajectory, we could provide a very significant
chunk. So it is all about scale and time for us, nuclear being
a very power dense resource. That is why we think it needs to
be in the running, but we have a way to go to get there.
Senator Booker. We have talked a lot about electricity
generation, and of course the important role it has. But can
you also talk about sort of the non-electric purposes,
industrial applications, productions of zero-carbon fuels, such
as hydrogen? Can you explain why it is important from a climate
change perspective to focus on these elements of application of
[indiscernible] through our [indiscernible]?
Mr. Cohen. Right. It is important, Senator, to recognize
that electricity is only 25 percent of total, final energy
consumption in the United States and the world. The other 75
percent is basically molecules that get burned right now. It is
oil and gas, fundamentally.
So, if we dealt with electricity, that would be great, but
then we have industry and transport and building heat and all
kinds of other applications. So we need a zero-carbon fuel to
substitute for those molecules and for the things we can't
electrify. We are going to lose 75 percent of the game if we
don't have that.
Nuclear is uniquely suited, for reasons we go into in the
testimony, for that hydrogen production in particular, because
we can supplement the electrolysis with high temperature steam,
and so forth. It is very power dense, can scale quickly. That
is why we need to think about non-electric applications of
nuclear.
Senator Booker. Ms. Roma, really quick, if I could just ask
my question, could you explain real quickly, again, this
international perspective is so urgent. Why is it important
from a non-proliferation perspective for this legislation to
facilitate the U.S. exercising more of a leadership role
internationally related to advanced nuclear energy?
Ms. Roma. One of the best tools that we have in our non-
proliferation toolbox is exporting nuclear technology because
with that can come the U.S. standards that go with that
technology about how it can be used and where it can be used.
I will just give you an example. If you have a U.S. origin
nuclear reactor, even if it goes to another country, and they
further develop it, and then they try to export it to a third
country, U.S. standards go with that technology all the way.
Including what it can be used for and where it can go, making
sure that the country that is the recipient of that technology
has signed onto the highest level of nuclear non-proliferation
agreements. If we don't have our hands in that technology, we
don't really control where it goes or what somebody does with
it.
To go back to Mr. Cohen's comment earlier about China and
Saudi Arabia, does it concern us? Yes. Can we do anything about
it? No, because what they are doing is perfectly legal, subject
to the international agreements that they have committed to.
So we lose our ability to have that voice in the
development of technologies and how those technologies are used
and where they can go.
Senator Booker. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, again, I am just
really grateful to be a part of this partnership with you all
to try to advance what I consider utterly urgent for national
security reasons, for the planetary challenges we have in
climate change and more. This is an exciting area, and I hope
we can continue to make strides together in a bipartisan way.
Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you so much, Senator Booker, for
your leadership on this. I agree with you entirely.
You might not have heard my opening remarks, but I made
reference specifically to your good work in helping in our
efforts here, so thanks so much, Senator Booker.
Senator Van Hollen.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Carper, and to the witnesses today.
I also share and believe much of the views that were
expressed by my colleague, Senator Booker, during his
questioning.
I do want to follow up with the last issue he raised with
respect to nuclear non-proliferation. While I support the
development of advanced nuclear reactors as part of our own
energy mix and also would support exporting that technology,
the export of that technology has to come with that important
caveat that it is consistent with our nuclear non-proliferation
goals. There are some aspects of advanced nuclear reactors that
could increase the risks of proliferation with the development
of the paleo, the more highly enriched uranium, and also as
part of the reprocessing efforts, the plutonium.
So let me start with Mr. Cohen. Mr. Cohen, do you agree
that we have to address those additional risks? What kinds of
measures do you think we should put in place?
Mr. Cohen. Yes, I agree, Senator, we do have to be mindful
of that issue. I think the specific opportunities here and
challenges are first of all, as was mentioned, if we are in the
game, we have a better control over what the product is and how
it is deployed. If we are not in the game, we don't, and our
adversaries will set the rules.
Second is that specifically, the bill contemplates
international harmonization and coordination of licensing. I
think that can be expanded to include international cooperation
over non-proliferation.
Third point is that some of these designs actually may pose
less proliferation risk than more. For example, many of them
are much more efficient, so it means that the amount of fissile
material involved is lower.
Finally, as we discussed earlier, there are a lot of
opportunities for R&D on the back end of the fuel cycle. There
is no such thing as a completely proliferation resistant
reactor, let's just be honest, but there are many steps we
could take as part of this innovation process to ensure that we
have got as tight a rein on that problem as we possibly can.
Senator Van Hollen. Well, I fully agree with you, that we
should encourage and incentivize the companies that are
developing these advanced reactors to build in, to the maximum
extent feasible, those protections against non-proliferation.
Would you agree that we could address that issue with an
amendment to this draft proposal that would say that countries
that are receiving these advanced reactors should implement the
additional protocol of the IAEA?
As you know, over 150 countries have signed that. It seems
to be a basic protection that we could take to protect our non-
proliferation efforts. Could you comment on that?
Mr. Cohen. Senator, I am not the staff non-proliferation
expert. I would prefer to get back to you in writing, but that
is the general direction of our program, is to try and
socialize all of the newcomer countries into the existing
international framework.
Senator Van Hollen. Ms. Roma, can you comment on that? You
mentioned in your remarks the importance of protecting against
nuclear proliferation. Can you talk about writing in a
requirement that recipient countries agree to the additional
protocol with the IAEA?
Ms. Roma. Senator, I am going to have to look into that and
get back to you in writing. Namely, I would just want to
evaluate more closely the existing framework that we have with
our Section 123 agreements and our Part 810 process, and the
restrictions and considerations that go with that to see what
additional protections a write in like that would afford. I
just need to look at it more closely.
Senator Van Hollen. Sure. Well, the gold standard, which is
what we have been applying in many of our recent agreements,
would require recipient countries to sign the additional
protocol with the IAEA to have that enhanced protection against
nuclear proliferation.
Thank you for your comments. I look forward to your written
responses.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you and the
Ranking Member to address that aspect of this. Again, I am a
proponent of nuclear energy as part of the mix, so long as we
maximize the safety component, including the safeguarding
against nuclear proliferation to the extent that we can. I
think the IAEA additional protocol has been an important
measure that we should ensure that people are complying with.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Van Hollen, for your
continued leadership and interest in this important topic.
Senator Carper, I know you had a few additional questions.
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. It has been an
important, and I think in many respects, a fascinating hearing.
We are grateful to you, Mr. Chairman, for holding it, to our
staffs for helping to put it together, and to our witnesses for
being here with us today.
A long time ago, I was a naval flight officer living in
California, and stationed at a base about halfway between San
Francisco and San Jose right off of Route 101. It was called
Moffett Field Naval Air Station. We shared half of that base
with NASA, a big NASA installation on the other half of our
base.
I was back visiting Moffett field, happened to be at
Mountain View, visiting a technology company years later, and I
revisited Moffett Field. It is no longer a naval air station,
but NASA is still there.
I happened to visit a facility actually using one of the
buildings on the Moffett Field side, where they were doing some
NASA experiments. They were trying to figure out how to create
electricity on Mars. It was a NASA funded operation, which led
to the development of a company now called Bloom Energy, which
is headquartered not too far from Moffett Field in California.
A tropical storm roared up the East Coast yesterday,
leaving a lot of wreckage and mayhem in its path. We almost
never have tornadoes in Delaware. We did yesterday, and the
weather forecasters tell us, the meteorologists tell us it is
not going to be the last hurricane that is going to come visit
us this summer. There will be plenty more, and we are going to
lose power during those hurricanes, as we did yesterday in
Delaware and other parts of our country.
There is a company now that is headquartered in California,
but they actually have a considerable manufacturing facility in
what used to be our Chrysler plant in the south side of the
University of Delaware. It is called Bloom Energy, and they
take hydrogen from natural gas, and they turn it into
electricity. Yesterday, when the electricity went out in a
number of places up and down the East Coast, they were able to
restore the electricity right away by using these bloom boxes.
Bloom boxes.
It would be great if somehow, the hydrogen that is used in
conjunction with fuel cells in these bloom boxes, it would be
great if the hydrogen could be clean hydrogen, and not just
come from carbon sources, like natural gas. I understand, I
think one of you actually mentioned in your testimony, actually
mentioned something about clean hydrogen production at reactor
sites.
I am sitting here thinking, is there a way to not only
create through these bloom boxes, electricity for, could be a
housing development, could be for a hospital, it could be a
shopping center, is what they were using them for all over this
country and around the world now.
But the bloom boxes could be an even more environmentally
friendly source of electrical energy in this country if we
could somehow come up with a clean hydrogen source, and nuclear
power plants might somehow play a role in that.
Ms. Roma, would you just respond to that? Is that a pipe
dream? Is that something that is realistic? I would welcome
your thoughts, along with Mr. Cohen.
Ms. Roma. No, I don't think it is a pipe dream, Senator, I
think it is realistic. I think a lot of the non-power
applications of advanced reactors are truly remarkable, from
medical isotope reduction to water desalinization to heat
processes, anything that you need to burn carbons for,
hopefully can be replaced with advanced reactors. That is why I
am in this field and excited about it.
Senator Carper. Same question, Mr. Cohen, do you have any
thoughts on clean hydrogen production from the nuclear power
industry?
Mr. Cohen. Yes, Senator Carper, definitely not a pipe
dream. In fact, the Department of Energy right now has four
demonstrations with four separate U.S. power companies to do
precisely that, to test out a use of nuclear for electrolysis.
As I mentioned earlier, the advanced reactors might even be
better at doing that because they have higher heat, which will
make the electrolysis process more efficient. So a lot of folks
are chasing that right now. It should be part of the innovation
process.
Our recommendation, although it is not--this Committee
doesn't have jurisdiction over the DOE R&D budget, but we are
separately developing proposals to really put that whole effort
of nuclear to hydrogen on fast forward.
Senator Carper. That is great.
Mr. Goranson, I don't want to pass you by if you have
something you would like to add on this, you are welcome, and
thank you.
Mr. Goranson. With respect to using nuclear power as a
source of clean hydrogen generation, I think from my
perspective I think it is an ideal way to do it. In fact, I was
thinking here while you were raising it, it was raised by a
science fiction writer 20 years ago, about doing that. To see
some work being done right now to make it come to reality is, I
think, it is an important thing to do.
Senator Carper. Good. Thanks for that.
Mr. Chairman, I was handed a note by Lauren, who is sitting
right behind me. The note says, France is reducing its
dependency on nuclear power. Its goal is to reduce that
dependency from 80 percent to maybe 50 percent by 2035,
investing in renewables, and that is all well and good, and we
commend them for going reliance on renewables.
We are seeing a growing reliance on renewable here, too,
and we are seeing a dropping reliance on nuclear, which is
concerning to a lot of us, Democrats, Republicans, and
Independents, for a variety of reasons that we have discussed
here today.
The nuclear industry, as I said earlier, has to bring their
A game to work every day, and in several instances that I have
described earlier, they haven't, and I have been very
disappointed with that.
Having said that, there is still a lot of potential here,
and it is important for us to seize the day. I look forward to
working with you and our colleagues that are here and those
that aren't to achieve that.
This won't surprise you, Mr. Chairman, but before this
hearing ends, I want to ask for unanimous consent to submit for
the record some statements from groups who have a real interest
in these issues, too.
And with that, our thanks to the witnesses, great to see
you all, and thanks to our staff for helping us to pull all
this together. Thank you. We look forward to following up with
you.
Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you, Senator Carper. Without
objection, those are submitted for the record.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. I also have some unanimous consent
requests for items for the record. One is my August 3rd, 2020,
op-ed entitled ``The Future of Nuclear Energy Is American''; a
July 17th article from the Energy Information Administration
entitled ``U.S. Uranium Production Fell to an All-Time Annual
Low in 2019''; a July 2020 report from the Columbia Center of
Global Energy Policy entitled ``Strengthening Nuclear Energy
Cooperation Between the United States and Its Allies''; and a
letter from the Nuclear Energy Institute supporting the draft
American Nuclear Infrastructure Act of 2020.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. I want to thank all of you, Ms. Roma, Mr.
Goranson, Mr. Cohen, thank you so much for being here today.
Other members of the Committee, and you saw a number of
members came and left, some of them may submit additional
questions for you to answer in writing, and we ask that you
please respond as quickly with thorough answers as you could.
As a result, the hearing record will remain open for 2
weeks.
We are so very grateful you would take the time to be with
us and to share your knowledge and your expertise.
With that, I want to just thank you once again for your
time and your testimony, and the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:52 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]