[Senate Hearing 117-464]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                       S. Hrg. 117-464

                            HUFF NOMINATION

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                                   to

    CONSIDER THE NOMINATION OF DR. KATHRYN HUFF TO BE AN ASSISTANT 
                  SECRETARY OF ENERGY (NUCLEAR ENERGY)

                               __________

                             MARCH 17, 2022

                               __________


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

        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
               COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia, Chairman
RON WYDEN, Oregon                    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington           JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             MIKE LEE, Utah
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico          STEVE DAINES, Montana
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine            JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada       JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
MARK KELLY, Arizona                  BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, Colorado       CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi
                                     ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas

                      Renae Black, Staff Director
                      Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
             Richard M. Russell, Republican Staff Director
              Matthew H. Leggett, Republican Chief Counsel
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                   Page
Manchin III, Hon. Joe, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from West 
  Virginia.......................................................     1
Barrasso, Hon. John, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from 
  Wyoming........................................................     2

                                WITNESS

Huff, Dr. Kathryn, nominated to be an Assistant Secretary of 
  Energy (Nuclear Energy)........................................     4

          ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

American Nuclear Society:
    Letter for the Record........................................    50
Barrasso, Hon. John:
    Opening Statement............................................     2
    Wall Street Journal article entitled ``In Chernobyl, Trapped 
      Staff Work at Russian Gunpoint''...........................    12
Huff, Dr. Kathryn:
    Opening Statement............................................     4
    Written Testimony............................................     6
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................    33
Ladyman, Jack:
    Letter for the Record........................................    51
Manchin III, Hon. Joe:
    Opening Statement............................................     1
U.S. Chamber of Commerce:
    Letter for the Record........................................    52

 
                            HUFF NOMINATION

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 2022

                                       U.S. Senate,
                 Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in 
Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joe Manchin 
III, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.



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

    The Chairman. The Committee meets today to consider the 
pending nomination of Dr. Kathryn Huff to be the Assistant 
Secretary of Energy for Nuclear Energy. Dr. Huff has been with 
the Department of Energy since last May, serving as the 
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy. In 
that capacity, she performed the duties of the Assistant 
Secretary on an acting basis for nearly ten months. And she has 
performed those duties well. I have already had the opportunity 
to work with her. She has briefed me on Ukraine's nuclear 
reactors, and I have seen her commitment to the mission of the 
Office of Nuclear Energy and have benefited from her extensive 
knowledge of nuclear issues. So I am delighted to welcome Dr. 
Huff to the Committee this morning. And I am grateful that she 
has set aside her promising academic career to serve in this 
important public position.
    Nearly 70 years ago, President Eisenhower addressed the 
United Nations on what became known as ``Atoms for Peace.'' 
After reviewing the deadly threat that the nuclear arms race 
posed to ``not only the peace but the very life of the world,'' 
President Eisenhower called upon the nations of the world to 
strip the atom of ``its military casing and adapt it to the 
arts of peace.'' He sought to apply nuclear power ``to provide 
abundant electrical energy'' to the world to serve, in his 
words, ``the needs, rather than the fears of the world.'' 
Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace speech opened the door to our 
nuclear power program and our support for nuclear power 
programs in dozens of other nations throughout the world. On 
the one hand, our nuclear power program has been an amazing 
success. Nuclear power generates roughly 20 percent of the 
nation's electricity--cleanly, safely, affordably, and 
reliably. But on the other hand, our nuclear program is in 
decline, and has been for some time. After peaking ten years 
ago with 104 operating reactors, our nuclear fleet is now down 
to 93 operating reactors. Most reactors are over 40 years old. 
Only two nuclear power plants have been built and come online 
since the Three Mile Island accident over 40 years ago, and 
only two more are still under construction.
    Nuclear power plants cost too much and take too long to 
build. The existing technology is too demanding and too 
unforgiving. We still haven't found the solution to the nuclear 
waste problem, but we cannot afford to give up on nuclear 
power. We cannot meet our climate goals and meet our energy 
needs without it. We cannot afford to eliminate our existing 
fleet of nuclear reactors. But they will not last forever, and 
must be replaced by new, safer, and more affordable reactor 
designs.
    It will be Dr. Huff's job to help preserve the existing 
fleet of nuclear power plants and keep them operating as long 
as they safely can, but also to develop and deploy the next 
generation of advanced reactor technologies needed to power the 
nation well into the 21st century. And if that is not enough, 
we will look to her to help find a solution to the nuclear 
waste problem, which has defied solutions for over 60 years. 
That is not too much to ask for, Dr. Huff. As I said at the 
outset, I have worked with Dr. Huff, and I believe that she is 
truly up to the task. So I want to welcome her and thank you 
for being here this morning and for your willingness to serve 
in this important position. I look forward to learning more 
about your background, your views, priorities, and more 
importantly, the status of the nuclear reactors in Ukraine, and 
I look forward to supporting you. Thank you.
    Now we will turn to my friend, Senator Barrasso.

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

    Senator Barrasso. Well, thanks so much, Mr. Chairman. Thank 
you for calling this nomination hearing, and I do concur with 
your statement as well as your assessment of Dr. Huff. Dr. 
Huff, great to see you again. Welcome to the Committee. You 
have been nominated to serve as Assistant Secretary for Nuclear 
Energy at the Department of Energy. Congratulations. I really 
enjoyed our conversation last October during Nuclear Science 
Week.
    Dr. Huff appears to be very well qualified for this 
position, holds a Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering. Before joining 
the Department, Dr. Huff was an assistant professor in the 
Department of Nuclear Plasma and Radiological Engineering at 
the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Dr. Huff has 
also worked at the Argonne Idaho Laboratory and the Los Alamos 
National Labs. So I look forward to hearing more about her 
views, as you do, Mr. Chairman, on how the Department can make 
America energy dominant again.
    Nuclear technology is essential to meeting America's 
energy, environmental, and our national security objectives. We 
need to be looking for opportunities to expand our use of 
nuclear energy. Innovation, to me, will always be the key to 
reestablishing America's global leadership in this sector. If 
confirmed, Dr. Huff will lead this effort as well. The Office 
of Nuclear Energy oversees the Federal Government's efforts to 
develop nuclear energy technology. The office also plays an 
important role in informing the public about nuclear 
technology. Now, more than ever, we need well-qualified 
leadership in place at the Office of Nuclear Energy. Russia's 
unprovoked invasion of Ukraine was followed by its assault on 
Ukraine's nuclear facilities. The assault has generated 
significant public concern about the safety of Ukraine's 
reactors at a time of war. Russia's aggression reemphasizes our 
government's need for nuclear experts who must understand 
highly technical issues and must be capable of explaining them 
to the public. This is an important job requirement for the 
Assistant Secretary of Nuclear Energy. So I hope Dr. Huff can 
give us insight today on the conditions of Ukraine's nuclear 
reactors as we get into the questions and answers.
    Last week, President Biden followed the lead of Congress 
and finally banned the imports of Russian oil, Russian natural 
gas, and coal, but he did not ban the imports of Russian 
uranium to the United States. Russia is our third largest 
supplier of uranium, meeting 16 percent of U.S. demand. I 
believe we need to eliminate our dependence on Russian uranium, 
and I introduced legislation earlier this week to do just that. 
We also need to jump-start American uranium production. This 
includes mining, conversion, and enrichment services. In 
December 2020, Congress gave the Department $75 million to 
establish a strategic uranium reserve. The Department of Energy 
has yet to purchase uranium from U.S. producers, and I believe 
we need that action now. If confirmed, Dr. Huff's first order 
of business should be to work with the Department's National 
Nuclear Security Administration to accelerate these purchases.
    We also need immediate attention to develop an American 
supply of high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU). This is the 
fuel needed for advanced nuclear reactors like TerraPower's 
Natrium reactor, which will be built in my home State of 
Wyoming. It is also needed for X-energy's advanced reactor in 
Senator Cantwell's home State of Washington. There are only two 
sources of high-assay low-enriched uranium in the world--Russia 
and the U.S. Department of Energy. We cannot allow America's 
advanced reactor developers to be dependent on Russia. So I 
intend to introduce legislation to first, ensure the Department 
is taking the steps necessary to establish domestic enrichment, 
and second, to make DOE-produced high-assay low-enriched 
uranium available. It is the only way to avoid dependence on 
Russia.
    Dr. Huff, if you are confirmed, I hope we can work together 
on this legislation. I look forward to hearing your testimony 
today.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    The rules of the Committee, which apply to all nominees, 
require they be sworn in connection with their testimony. So if 
you would please rise, stand, and raise your right hand.
    Doctor, do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are 
about to give to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 
the truth, so help you God?
    Dr. Huff. I do.
    The Chairman. Be seated.
    Before you begin your statement, I will ask three questions 
asked to each nominee before this Committee.
    Will you be available to appear before this Committee and 
other Congressional committees to represent the Department's 
position and respond to issues of concern to the Congress?
    Dr. Huff. Yes.
    The Chairman. Are you aware of any personal holdings, 
investments, or interests that could constitute a conflict of 
interest or create the appearance of such a conflict should you 
be confirmed and assume the office to which you have been 
nominated by the President?
    Dr. Huff. Yes. I am sorry--no.
    [Laughter.]
    Dr. Huff. I wasn't listening. No.
    The Chairman. There we go.
    Are you involved, or do you have any assets held in a blind 
trust?
    Dr. Huff. No.
    The Chairman. Thank you. You are now recognized to make 
your opening statement, Doctor.

   OPENING STATEMENT OF DR. KATHRYN HUFF, NOMINATED TO BE AN 
         ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF ENERGY (NUCLEAR ENERGY)

    Dr. Huff. Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member Barrasso, 
distinguished members of the Committee, it is an honor and a 
privilege to appear before you as the nominee for Assistant 
Secretary of the Office of Nuclear Energy. I am grateful to 
President Biden and Secretary Granholm for trusting me with 
this important role. I also want to thank my family, friends, 
mentors, and colleagues for their support, especially my 
husband, Strom, twin sister, Allison and parents, Diane and 
Harold. I am deeply honored by the opportunity to lead the 
Office of Nuclear Energy. Nuclear power critically underpins a 
safe, secure, and sustainable global energy future, and this 
office underpins nuclear energy.
    I would like to share a few thoughts about the background 
and experiences that have prepared me for this position. I was 
born and raised in rural Texas. At 16, I was fortunate to be 
admitted to the Texas Academy of Mathematics and Science, where 
I had the opportunity to begin college early at the University 
of North Texas. This qualified me for my first summer job as an 
undergraduate researcher at the Los Alamos Neutron Science 
Center. There, I fell in love with nuclear physics, neutron 
science, scientific computing, and nuclear energy. 
Subsequently, I received a bachelor's degree in physics at the 
University of Chicago, where I conducted research in both 
cosmological astrophysics and soft condensed matter physics. 
Thereafter, I received my Ph.D. in nuclear engineering from the 
University of Wisconsin-Madison. My dissertation work, 
conducted during a fellowship with Argonne National Laboratory, 
resulted in a thermal and hydrologic model of spent nuclear 
fuel disposal system performance and generic geologic media.
    With my Ph.D. in hand, I became a postdoctoral fellow at 
the University of California-Berkeley in both the Nuclear 
Science and Security Consortium and the Berkeley Institute for 
Data Science. In those roles, I leveraged advanced scientific 
computing techniques to contribute to reactor design, predict 
reactor accident evolution, and analyze nuclear fuel cycles. 
Finally, as a professor at the University of Illinois, I 
established the Advanced Reactors and Fuel Cycles research 
group that develops open-source software, advanced 
computational models, and repeatable, extensible simulations. 
Two national American Nuclear Society awards have accordingly 
recognized my leadership in reproducible scientific computing 
and the adoption of open-sourced software in the broader 
nuclear engineering community.
    I was honored to be appointed to serve in the Department of 
Energy's Nuclear Energy office as its Principal Deputy 
Assistant Secretary in May of 2021. In that role I had the 
opportunity to lead DOE-NE efforts in multiple high-priority 
activities, including the restart of a consent-based siting 
process for an interim spent nuclear fuel storage facility, 
implementation of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, such as 
the Civil Nuclear Credit program, and a recent report on the 
nuclear energy supply chain. I have also contributed to the 
bold vision of a transition to nuclear power in locations and 
communities around the country, including retiring coal plant 
sites.
    Finally, in the last few weeks of my role as a Senior 
Advisor in the Office of the Secretary, I have been tightly 
engaged in the interagency response to Russia's invasion of 
Ukraine. With the passage of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law 
and current events, it is a pivotal time for the Office of 
Nuclear Energy. If I have the privilege of being confirmed and 
leading the NE Office, my priorities and decisions will be 
informed by science and with a clear understanding of the 
importance of nuclear energy and ensuring that our energy 
systems are reliable, secure, and sustainable. To meet our 
domestic energy needs and rebuild U.S. leadership globally, I 
will prioritize activities to preserve the existing fleet of 
nuclear power plants, deploy advanced reactor technologies, and 
sustainably manage spent nuclear fuel as well as work with our 
international partners to support technological transfer and 
American innovation.
    As an applied energy research, development, and 
demonstration organization, DOE-NE enables innovation, supports 
unique research infrastructure, and solves cross-cutting 
challenges facing the nuclear energy sector. And this is also 
true for applications beyond electricity, including hydrogen 
production, desalination, and other industrial applications in 
the United States and abroad. NE invests in RD&D that the 
private sector or other non-governmental stakeholders are 
unable or unwilling to perform alone due to uncertainty, cost, 
scale, or timeframes. The United States pioneered the 
development of nuclear power to produce electricity in the late 
1940's. Since then, U.S. leadership in nuclear energy 
technology has given us the benefit of clean, reliable 
electricity for seven decades. It will be my honor to help the 
United States bolster and reclaim its global leadership in 
nuclear energy.
    Thank you again for this opportunity to speak before you 
today. I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Huff follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    The Chairman. Thank you, Doctor. And now we will start our 
questions, and I will begin.
    My first question, Doctor, is, the U.S. and other nations 
are highly dependent on Russian uranium conversion and 
enrichment capabilities. The Russian state-owned company, 
Rosatom, represents approximately 41 percent of global 
conversion capacity and 52 percent of global enrichment 
capacity. The sanctions on Rosatom could pose challenges to our 
domestic fleet as well as our allies who depend on nuclear 
power for their energy independence. I believe that it is 
critical for our national security to build out our conversion 
and enrichment infrastructure to meet the needs of our domestic 
reactor fleet.
    So my question is, do you believe that we should invest 
heavily in building out our conversion enrichment 
infrastructure to eliminate our dependence on Russia for 
nuclear, and can we do it fast enough to meet our demands?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you, Senator.
    I completely agree that it is really prescient, and the 
Russian invasion of Ukraine puts into stark contrast the 
importance of our energy security. I completely agree that we 
need to build out capacity for a western alternative to the 
Russian component of the uranium market, including conversion 
and enrichment capacity. I do believe that a solution to the 
current fleet's needs for uranium, as well as high-assay low-
enriched uranium for our advanced reactor fleet can be solved 
with sufficient support from appropriations and a direction 
from DOE.
    The Chairman. Do you believe that we need a ten-year 
nuclear production tax credit to ensure that these reactors do 
not shut down prematurely?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you, Senator.
    I think the provision in the Build Back Better Act that 
includes a production tax credit is an excellent idea and could 
certainly help with keeping our existing plants open and 
inspiring new plants to come on board.
    The Chairman. Where do we have the ability to get in, or 
get back into this operation quickly and be able to do it 
efficiently?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you, Senator.
    There are a lot of opportunities. We have a restarting 
conversion facility in Metropolis, Illinois--ConverDyn--that 
can support the existing fleet. We have a pilot project in 
Piketon, Ohio to support enrichment, and we have lots of 
existing nuclear power plants that could be helped by the Civil 
Nuclear Credit Program to stay online. We also have the 
Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program and the NuScale Carbon 
Free Power Project, which are standing up the next generation.
    The Chairman. As nuclear waste becomes one of the greatest 
challenges we have for our nuclear dependency and the need that 
we have for nuclear reactors, do you have any ideas on that or 
any desires that you would have that might be able to give us a 
pathway forward to take care of our nuclear waste?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you, Senator.
    It is certainly the case that in order for nuclear energy 
to be truly sustainable, we must solve the waste challenge, and 
among the first actions that I took in my position as the 
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary was to restart our 
consent-based siting process for an interim storage facility. 
With the support of Congress, we do have a consent-based siting 
process that has begun with a request for information from the 
public. Through that process, I expect that the grassroots 
opinions of all the stakeholders in the country can help us to 
formulate a strategy for our spent nuclear fuel that satisfies 
the needs of our country and identifies hosts that are both 
willing, able, and interested to support the hosting of such a 
facility.
    The Chairman. Why has the challenge become so great in 
America, yet, when you look at what France is doing, and how 
does France handle its nuclear waste, since they have more 
nuclear reactors, I think, than about any other country?
    Dr. Huff. That is right. The majority of France's 
electricity comes from nuclear power and they have, for a very 
long time, recycled some of their spent nuclear fuel in order 
to reuse some of the remaining energy in their existing 
reactors. And that has reduced the volume as well as the 
lifetime of their final disposal challenge.
    The Chairman. We do not operate that way?
    Dr. Huff. We do not currently operate that way, no.
    The Chairman. Would our reactors be able to do that?
    Dr. Huff. Many new reactors can support this, as well as 
our current fleet, if a reprocessing strategy were set up in 
the United States.
    The Chairman. Would that be a government mandate, or can 
that be a decision by the commercial fleet?
    Dr. Huff. I think in the way that our current nuclear 
energy industry runs, it is appropriate for a commercial entity 
to consider this, but at this time, the United States DOE is 
not encouraging commercial reprocessing, but we are working in 
our fuel cycle technologies research and development division 
to find new ways to understand the economics and feasibility of 
these processes.
    The Chairman. If it is working somewhere else, and it is 
proven it is effective, why isn't the DOE considering this?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you for your question, Senator.
    I also am very interested in advanced nuclear fuel cycles. 
My research group, as a professor, explored many of them, and 
there are a lot of nuances with regard to spent nuclear fuel 
recycling and reprocessing, and in particular, in the context 
of nuclear nonproliferation and the security of those nuclear 
materials. At this time, we are doing our very best to identify 
the research and development that will make it economically 
feasible for a solely commercial entity to consider 
reprocessing. However, state-sponsored programs like in France, 
where the federal government owns part of the energy utility--
it makes it a different economic scenario for those 
reprocessing strategies and it allows them to do very long-term 
planning, also with regard to their spent nuclear fuel without 
the threat of changes in the economy or even in government.
    The Chairman. Well, I do look forward to working further 
with you on this and learning more about it, too.
    With that, we will go to Senator Barrasso.
    Senator Barrasso. Well, thanks so much, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Huff, last week President Biden followed the lead of 
Congress and banned imports of Russian oil, Russian natural 
gas, and coal. But he did not ban imports of Russian uranium to 
the United States. Russia is our third largest supplier of 
uranium, meeting about 16 percent of U.S. demand. Every dollar 
we give to the Russian state, I believe, supports the murders 
in Ukraine. Do you anticipate that this Administration will 
also ban imports of Russian uranium?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you, Senator.
    If such a ban were in place, it is our role in DOE to 
ensure that there is a commercial, viable supply to ensure that 
there is a continuous operation for our nuclear plants, and you 
know, I, too, would agree that this, the Russian aggression 
really highlights the need for ensuring that we can onshore 
those capabilities.
    Senator Barrasso. Do you know when you would expect the 
Administration to maybe make a decision with respect to Russian 
uranium?
    Dr. Huff. No, sir.
    Senator Barrasso. As you just said--our ability to onshore 
those capabilities. In the United States, we have 93 operating 
commercial reactors. The reactors almost completely rely on 
imports of uranium. Our commercial reactors import nearly half 
the uranium from Russia and its allies, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, 
you well know this. So do you believe uranium produced here in 
the U.S., whether in private, state, or federal lands really 
can play that critical role in weaning our commercial reactors 
off of Russian and foreign uranium?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you, Senator.
    I think it is critically important that we wean ourselves 
off of unstable, untrustworthy sources of our critical fuels, 
including uranium.
    Senator Barrasso. Great.
    You know, in December of 2020, this Congress gave the 
Department of Energy $75 million to establish a strategic 
uranium reserve. The Department has yet to purchase any uranium 
for the reserve. Do you know if the Department plans to 
accelerate its purchases of uranium, and if not, why not?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you, Senator.
    Those $75 million were appropriated to the National Nuclear 
Security Administration. I, if confirmed, will work with them 
to accelerate the process to order requests for proposals 
regarding that uranium reserve.
    Senator Barrasso. With regard to this high-assay low-
enriched uranium that we know is so critical for that next 
stage of nuclear reactors, currently there are only two sources 
of high-assay low-enriched uranium--Russia and the Department 
of Energy. Unless the Department acts swiftly, our advanced 
reactors will be dependent on Russia. Senator Cantwell is here. 
We are dealing with one reactor in Washington State, the other 
in Wyoming. This is important to both of us. We just cannot 
become dependent on Russia for that next stage of nuclear 
energy development. Do you know if the Department is willing to 
produce high-assay low-enriched uranium and make it available 
to our advanced reactors? And if so, what steps are you taking 
to ensure that both TerraPower, and X-energy in Washington 
State, have the fuel that we need?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you, Senator.
    It will be a challenge. Establishing a commercial supply of 
HALEU in the U.S. is really critical for these two reactors, as 
well as the reactors that will follow on their heels. In order 
for those two demonstrations to be a true success, they will 
need to commercialize more broadly, and I am so grateful for 
your two states for being really in the lead of this vision 
that we have for these reactors. You know, in Fiscal Year 2023, 
the Department proposes to make available small quantities of 
high-assay low-enriched uranium through limited DOE 
inventories. And we are already supporting the private sector 
in establishing an enrichment capability in Piketon, Ohio 
through their demo.
    In order to ensure robust, U.S. commercial supply chain 
capabilities, it is going to involve enrichment capabilities to 
expand, as well as investigating the opportunities for DOE 
material, including recovery and down-blending potentially of 
materials stored at Y-12 at Savannah River and completing 
construction of that enrichment demonstration in Piketon.
    Senator Barrasso. So a few years ago, Westinghouse entered 
into an agreement to fuel Ukraine's nuclear reactors--these are 
all Russian-built reactors, now using American fuel. As we look 
to wean Europe off Russian energy, are there additional 
opportunities for our U.S. companies to provide fuel for 
Russian-built reactors?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you, Senator.
    And that relationship between Westinghouse and the 
Ukrainian reactor fleet is a really good example of the 
decades-long relationships that nuclear energy can create as we 
cooperate on the international scale. And those Westinghouse-
fueled reactors in Ukraine are at incredible risk right now. It 
is a great concern and it does provide an opportunity for 
American companies to fuel those reactors, to support them with 
maintenance guidance, to contract with those companies and 
other nations to ensure their safe operations and to bring 
those reactors, sometimes, up to Western safety standards.
    Senator Barrasso. Let me ask you one final question because 
you mentioned risk. There was a headline, Wall Street Journal, 
front page yesterday, ``In Chernobyl , Trapped Staff Work at 
Russian Gunpoint.'' It was yesterday's front page, Wall Street 
Journal.
    [The article referred to follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Barrasso. The article explains that Chernobyl's 
technicians and support staff have been working non-stop since 
February 23. It goes on to say the workers are suffering from 
extreme fatigue, dizziness, nausea, headaches--terrible 
headaches, it said. What can you tell us about the current 
status of Chernobyl and Ukraine's other nuclear reactors?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you, Senator.
    This is a very serious situation with regard to 
humanitarian issues around Chernobyl--operators and staff, as 
well as a nuclear safety issue. It is reckless to conduct any 
military activity in the vicinity of a peaceful nuclear 
facility. In the context of Chernobyl, as you know, in the 
early moments of the invasion, Russian forces moving through 
that exclusion zone kicked up some radiological material, but 
ultimately it was localized, it was kept fairly low. We monitor 
that in our emergency operations center in DOE and it has since 
died down, but the remaining concern is that during that 
invasion, those individuals operating the Chernobyl shut-down 
reactor and its spent fuel pools have been trapped since then. 
It is of the utmost importance that any nuclear facility be 
managed by well-rested, well-fed, well-cared-for individuals. 
And it is critically important to me that we pursue an 
international strategy to hold each other accountable in the 
context of these peaceful nuclear facilities during a conflict.
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    And now we have Senator Cantwell.
    Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Nuclear energy has a long history, obviously, in the State 
of Washington. Today, we have over 12,000 nuclear skilled 
scientists, engineers, and craft workers in our state. The 
Columbia Basin, Washington State University campuses, and the 
tri-cities offer bachelor's, master's and Ph.D.s in nuclear-
related fields, and we have various apprentice programs, not to 
mention the Pacific Northwest Lab that conducts over $400 
million in nuclear-related R&D each year. So I wanted to ask 
you, Dr. Huff, a couple of questions.
    Obviously, turning specifically to the Advanced Reactor 
Demonstration Program at DOE, we are excited to see, as my 
colleague, Senator Barrasso mentioned, investments in various 
states to look at this. The Department received $80 million 
each under the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program, but to 
see these projects through completion, we need firm support 
from DOE and Congress to deliver on the funding request in a 
consistent way. So I want to make sure--how integral do you 
think this funding is? Can you commit to this Committee that 
you believe that this program should get funded and supported?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you, Senator Cantwell, and in particular 
for the leadership of Washington in this endeavor to prove 
American innovation. I am excited to say I actually will be 
visiting that facility next week in my role as Senior Advisor 
to the Secretary. I am looking forward to seeing the site on 
which this reactor will be built.
    I absolutely agree with you that funding, and particularly 
consistent funding for this program, is absolutely essential. 
The two Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program demos were 
mostly fully appropriated through the Bipartisan Infrastructure 
Law under the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations and in the 
Office of Nuclear Energy with our previous appropriations and 
future small appropriations requests--hope to be able to fund 
those in a consistent manner. It will require some continuous 
appropriations over the next few years to supplement that major 
bill provision, but we expect that they will make great 
progress with the oversight we are standing up, the support we 
are giving those projects, and the commitment to these two 
crown jewels in our portfolio. So absolutely, Senator.
    Senator Cantwell. Okay, great. I like the last part, 
absolutely. So I just wanted to get to a short yes----
    Dr. Huff. I'm sorry.
    Senator Cantwell [continuing]. That you support the 
program, just because, you know, it is going to test us on the 
appropriation side, but I think it is well worth it.
    Senator Barrasso also mentioned this HALEU issue and I 
agree with him. I do not want to be dependent on the Russians 
for this. And so, what are we going to do to diversify and take 
high-assay low-enriched uranium and figure out what to do with 
the spent fuel side? What are your thoughts there?
    Dr. Huff. Yes, so through our HALEU Availability Program, 
already supported by appropriations in the previous year, and 
in our future requests will be support for standing up the 
HALEU Availability Program in alignment with the responses that 
we have now received from the request for information that we 
released early this year. Those responses are really 
informative about how to design a program to encourage 
commercial operation of high-assay low-enriched uranium, and we 
look forward to being able to stand up that program very soon.
    Additionally, I will say, you know, in the context of spent 
nuclear fuel around advanced reactors, we are restarting the 
consent-based siting process for interim storage for commercial 
fleet fuel as well as considering the future of our integrated 
waste management system. And for advanced reactors, of course, 
they are not under the standard contract, and so continued 
conversations with the advanced reactor developers in the 
United States will need to identify the appropriate legal 
framework in which they fit into our bigger plan for the rest 
of the commercial spent nuclear fuel----
    Senator Cantwell. Well, since you brought that up twice.
    Dr. Huff. Yes.
    Senator Cantwell. And since I spend a great deal of my 
political time trying to get resource funding for Hanford 
cleanup, which is not really a state responsibility, it is a 
national responsibility. And as the footprint across Savannah 
River and other places has shrunk, I find sometimes less of a 
coalition than used to exist. It used to be that the Lamar and 
Savannah River and all these people would be like, ``yes, we 
need this budget.'' Now, people just--it is more down to 
Hanford, but nonetheless, we need to clean it up, and so that 
makes that very challenging.
    I do think, since you have brought this up twice now, I 
know it is not really your portfolio. I personally believe you 
should separate defense from commercial waste. I think you are 
going to get to an answer faster for a big chunk of the 
process. I am not saying do not ever deal with commercial. I am 
just saying that, you know, we could make some very rapid 
decisions about the defense waste cleanup that I would think 
would help this process.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Barrasso [presiding]. Thank you very much, Senator 
Cantwell.
    Senator Lee.
    Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Huff, in 2019, American uranium production fell to its 
lowest level since 1949. Now, unfortunately, that means that 
Russia and Russian-allied countries provide around 46 percent 
of our uranium. Despite that alarming statistic, the Biden 
Administration recently failed to include uranium on its list 
of critical minerals. This worries me. Do you think this level 
of reliance on nefarious sources could pose a serious strategic 
risk to the United States?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you, Senator. Yes.
    Senator Lee. Do you think the U.S. would be better served, 
strategically speaking, by adding uranium to the list of 
critical minerals?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you, Senator.
    I do definitely agree that uranium is an incredibly 
important material and the list of critical minerals has, as 
you noted, been changed to not include fuel minerals, and so 
therefore, uranium is not included. In the Department of 
Energy, we have the authority to consider a lot of supply chain 
issues, and that includes critical materials, which is a 
distinct category from critical minerals, and the Secretary has 
some authority to consider materials, particularly fuel 
materials that are important regardless of their 
categorization. And I would say, that is where we are and there 
is no question in my mind that we will continue to focus on 
uranium as an incredibly important fuel, much like we do with 
all the other fuels, and yes, Senator, thank you for this.
    Senator Lee. Thank you.
    What additional steps do you think we ought to be taking in 
order to secure a domestic fuel cycle for uranium?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you for this concern. I think, you know, 
there are a number of clear, forward-moving steps. The first is 
that, you know, as we look toward replacing the vacuum that 
Russia will leave in exiting the market for uranium, both for 
the existing fleet and the potential future fleet, it will be 
very important that we have a source of raw uranium that is 
mined and milled from a stable nation, either here domestically 
or elsewhere--perhaps our allies in Canada or elsewhere. 
Second, a conversion facility expansion. Right now, we have one 
conversion facility in the United States and it is restarting. 
This is in Metropolis, Illinois at the ConverDyn facility. You 
know, if one wanted to expand our conversion capacity, you 
know, it will have to be more than that, and it currently is 
only restarting because of this uranium economic situation that 
you described earlier. It could potentially be incentivized, 
and other entities could be incentivized to restart our 
conversion capability rapidly as long as there is a signal from 
the Federal Government and from the industry.
    Then, enrichment capability is the final piece, and we have 
a demo in Piketon, Ohio, but with that and the HALEU 
Availability Program, it will not get us to the space that we 
need on its own. We need an aggressive, forward-moving 
appropriation targeted toward a plan for availability of both 
low-enriched uranium and high-assay low-enriched uranium in 
order to support our existing and our future fleets.
    Senator Lee. Great.
    By the way, on the fuel minerals point, there is a 
provision in the Energy Act of 2020 that allows for the 
inclusion in the list of these minerals any additional item 
that might be suggested by any other agency. And so, there is a 
way to deal with this under that. And I do think it should have 
been included.
    I just met with the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems 
group, UAMPS as we call them back home, whose small modular 
reactor project is making tremendous progress. I am hopeful 
that with efforts like those at the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission to create a generic EIS, we will be able to quickly 
and safely deploy much more reliable nuclear energy. What other 
regulatory updates do you think might help clear the path for 
clean, reliable nuclear energy?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you, Senator.
    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is the gold standard in 
the world for nuclear safety and security. And I am confident 
that over the last many years they have been improving their 
processes with a focus on our next generation nuclear reactors. 
And I think the NuScale project is an excellent example. They 
currently hold in their hands a design certification that they 
have been able to take to other nations. One of my first trips 
was to Romania, and in Romania they are very interested in 
purchasing a NuScale reactor. They might even be the first. And 
I think the NRC has demonstrated the beginning of what is 
certain to be good applications toward advanced reactor 
certification.
    Senator Lee. Thank you very much.
    The Chairman [presiding]. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Cortez Masto.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Huff, welcome. Thank you for talking with me yesterday. 
And let me ask you this, and we talked about this--if there is 
anything that the failed Yucca Mountain project has taught us, 
it is that a consent-based approach is a necessary path forward 
to solve our nation's dilemma of finding a final repository for 
nuclear waste. And consent must be at the center of any 
conversation related to the storage of high-level waste.
    So my first question to you is, are you committed to 
effectively incorporating input from states as you and the 
Department move forward with consent-based siting?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you, Senator.
    I really appreciated our conversation and previous 
conversations with your staff around this topic. I appreciate 
your support for the consent-based siting approach. And yes, 
ma'am, I absolutely do believe that we will be incorporating 
lots of state engagement. We have already received lots of 
responses from our request for information, and it is going to 
be, hopefully, very productive creating a program.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, and I was just going to 
ask you to elaborate on the approach. Talk a little bit about 
the RFI and what you are doing right now, or what DOE is doing.
    Dr. Huff. Thank you, ma'am. I am happy to do so. We put 
together an approach that is phased, deliberate, and starts 
with a request for information, which has already been 
published, opened. We shared in multiple webinars with the 
public and lots of stakeholders. It is now closed, and the 
staff and Office of Nuclear Energy are actively assessing all 
of the responses we received, integrating them and summarizing 
them. A summary report of those responses will be forthcoming 
and it will also inform the way that we move forward. And while 
we have a sort of general idea of how we intend to move forward 
with the consent-based siting process, both with regard to our 
international partner successes and looking toward our past 
failures, we are looking forward to being able to incorporate 
all that into the forward-moving plan, the next steps of which 
will likely be to release a funding opportunity announcement to 
support communities that are interested in learning more about 
the consent-based siting process, their potential roles in 
interim storage facility siting, and really anything having to 
do with spent nuclear fuel.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
    We also talked about this--in 2018, the previous 
administration had secretly shipped a shipment of plutonium 
intended for weapons production to Nevada to be stored at the 
Nevada National Security Site. I, along with the State of 
Nevada, reached an agreement with DOE to have this plutonium 
removed as soon as possible. So can you talk a little bit about 
whether DOE is on schedule to conform to the settlement 
agreement with the State of Nevada?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you, ma'am. I will assure you that I 
checked this morning with the National Nuclear Security 
Administration, which is responsible for that movement and that 
agreement, and they assured me that they are currently meeting 
milestones and are on time with regard to the agreement that 
they have made.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. And I appreciate your 
comments earlier too about how we address surplus plutonium in 
this country.
    Let me jump to one final thing. We only have so much time. 
There has been a lot of talk about advanced reactors and 
nuclear technology that has potential for our country. And some 
experts have raised concerns over the push for advanced nuclear 
reactor technology, noting that the U.S. is lacking 
consideration for the back end of the fuel cycle. So in 
layman's terms, can you please describe the waste implications 
of the new advanced reactors and how that will affect the 
search for a solution to the waste disposal?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you, ma'am. It is definitely a top-of-mind 
for our Fuel Cycles Office within the Office of Nuclear Energy 
as well as the Waste Disposition Office within the Office of 
Nuclear Energy to ensure that all commercial reactors have a 
spent nuclear fuel solution. And our research over the last 
many decades has predicted the future forms of fuel. Advanced 
reactors can reduce the volume of fuel, and some of them can 
reduce the lifetime of the fuel that, you know, the lifetime of 
the required management of that fuel. And we are working to 
ensure that there are generic solutions to packaging and 
transportation as well as disposal toward those fuels that can 
incorporate all of the needs.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Doctor, thank you. Thank 
you again for taking the time with me. Thank you for your 
willingness to serve.
    Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Now we have Senator Cassidy.
    Senator Cassidy. Hey, Dr. Huff, thank you. When we passed 
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, I had this vision. Let me 
start over. For all these things to work, there has to be a 
functioning business model. So if we are going to decarbonize, 
you need to somehow make direct air capture functional. You 
need to make advanced nuclear functional. You need to make 
decarbonization of the supply chain functional. And so I had 
this kind of dream that we would--in Louisiana, of course--you 
could have a direct air capture next to a carbon capture 
utilization sequestration using our geology as the place to 
store, but that energy for the direct air capture and for an 
associated industrial complex would come out of an advanced 
nuclear.
    There is a lot of regulation right there, right? And 
regulations can just strangle a project, kill it and bury it, 
deeper than we hoped to bury the carbon. What can you do to 
make it work?
    Dr. Huff. Senator, I think we will learn a lot in the very 
near term about what it takes to site, license, and execute 
very complex engineering projects. I think we are up to it. And 
I think in the context of our nuclear regulator, you know, they 
are considering all kinds of issues around things like this, 
including different ways to accelerate their processes, and we 
work closely with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, though 
they must remain an independent body.
    And so what we can do in the Department of Energy is to 
support those regulatory decisions with robust science and 
target those scientific research and development endeavors to 
ensure that the NRC, for example, has the science it needs to 
make decisions quickly, with confidence. And so that has 
generally been the approach with the Department of Energy's 
Nuclear Energy Office, is to fund the kind of research that can 
inform the regulator so that they do not have to wonder about 
how to make a decision with--they have the evidence that they 
need to make decisions quickly. And we have seen that work with 
the lifetime extensions of our nuclear power plants that were 
largely based on a lot of research somewhat funded by the 
Office of Nuclear Energy.
    Senator Cassidy. Okay. Speaking of those, our nation has 93 
operating nuclear reactors--about 20 percent of our 
electricity, two of them in Louisiana.
    Dr. Huff. Yes, sir.
    Senator Cassidy. River Bend and Waterford. So the Civil 
Nuclear Credit program, passed as part of the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Bill, attempts to extend the life of these 
existing facilities, giving significant flexibility to DOE to 
establish and operate. How do you see DOE using this program?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you, Senator.
    This has been a very large lift because of the aggressive--
and importantly so--timelines of the Civil Nuclear Credit 
program--the Civil Nuclear Credit program with $6 billion over 
the course of the next five, even 15 years, if you consider the 
implications of the timelines of the auctions. We are in a 
place that we have released a request for information for the 
Civil Nuclear Credit program with a sketch of what we believe 
that program should look like--the guidelines for becoming a 
certified plant. Not all plants will be eligible for 
participating in the bidding process. And that request for 
information was a sketch of what we believe to be the likely 
forward movement. We have received a lot of responses. We are 
continuing to receive responses. And that will be informing our 
program moving forward, which has, again, as I said, some very 
tight deadlines in the very near term, but, and after 
certification, reactors follow with a bidding process.
    All this was laid out in the law, and our group in the 
Office of Nuclear Energy working toward this is actively 
pursuing really rapid turnarounds with a secondary sort of 
balanced approach to ensure that it is paired with sufficient 
oversight to ensure that this money is spent with the taxpayer 
in mind, because it is a lot of money and it is important to 
keep these plants open first of all, but it is also important 
to responsibly manage the money of the taxpayer.
    Senator Cassidy. Going back to the synergism I was hoping 
to establish earlier to help the business model, if you will. 
The Nuclear Energy Office is currently developing hydrogen 
production facilities. So how do you see this interacting--the 
hydrogen production with our nuclear?
    Dr. Huff. I am personally incredibly interested in hydrogen 
production. As a researcher, I was involved in many nuclear-
related hydrogen production research endeavors, and I have to 
say, I am excited by the work that we are doing in the Office 
of Nuclear Energy along with EERE, the Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy Office, to ensure that the Office of Clean 
Energy Demonstrations has a plan for the broad range of 
hydrogen programs that it will be responsible for, and nuclear 
energy will be playing a central communicative role in the 
planning of this program--the publicity around ensuring that 
the right folks apply to take advantage of this program. I 
really think that nuclear has a special role to play in 
hydrogen because it is a clean way to produce heat.
    Not all renewables produce heat. There are very few clean 
energy technologies that directly produce heat, and heat can 
make hydrogen production really efficient. So the----
    Senator Cassidy. Heat independently of electrons?
    Dr. Huff. Yes, the most efficient way to produce hydrogen 
is when you combine electricity and heat, like in high 
temperature electrolysis, high temperature electrolysis being 
more efficient in an energy return on investment unit than low 
temperature electrolysis. So the more heat you can put into the 
reaction, the more hydrogen you can get out per electron.
    Senator Cassidy. That sounds great. I yield back. Thank 
you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    Now we have Senator Marshall.
    Senator Marshall. Thank you, Chairman. Dr. Huff, again, 
congratulations on your nomination. We look forward to working 
with you.
    I think the Chairman and the Ranking Member have both 
pointed out the challenges when we depend upon a rogue foreign 
nation for critical, critical fuels in both the mining and the 
enrichment process. This may be too broad of a question for 
today, but I am asking, would you be able to prepare us a list 
of the rules, the regulations, the laws that have gotten us to 
this point? Why are we here? We can talk about tax credits, but 
I am still afraid that the same barriers why American companies 
have left are still out there, and there has been an all-out 
attack on nuclear energy. Do you have any quick response to 
that, or is it too broad?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you, Senator. I think it is an incredibly 
interesting question, and my quick response will be to add 
that, you know, in a lot of cases our competition, globally, is 
with state-sponsored programs of nuclear energy, even state-
sponsored programs of other energy systems.
    Senator Marshall. Right.
    Dr. Huff. As I am sure you are aware. And you know, I think 
it would be a really interesting exercise, and I look forward 
to working with you on that.
    Senator Marshall. Yes, I think that there are rules, there 
are policies that have got us here that are still in place.
    Next, let us go back to the HALEU fuels again. Several 
people have talked about this. I just want to specifically ask 
about what the plan is. We have a $4 billion investment in 
those Advanced Reactor Demonstration projects. I think we were 
totally counting on Russian fuel. Do we have any availability 
in this nation to get those HALEU fuels?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you, Senator.
    This concern is a top-of-mind for the Department of 
Energy's Office of Nuclear Energy, and while we do have some 
appropriations for our HALEU Availability Program, there are 
limits to the speed with which enrichment capability in the 
United States can be stood up, particularly in the context of 
the potential need for expanding enrichment in order to support 
Russian exit from the nuclear fuel market. We in DOE do have 
some sources of fuel, and we are considering all conceivable 
options, including recovery and down-blending of materials 
stored at Y-12 and Savannah River, potentially in a cost-share 
program between NE and NNSA, completing the construction of our 
current enrichment demo in Piketon, Ohio, and supporting, 
through the HALEU Availability Program, commercial 
establishment of other kinds of HALEU supply chain issues 
around both conversion enrichment, but also deconversion and 
fuel--fabrication.
    Senator Marshall. Okay, let us talk about U-233 just for a 
second. While we are destroying it, China is making it. And I 
think that you would agree that we had some inherent value, and 
I believe there are some legal reasons that you are saying we 
have to destroy it. And I am hoping that the Committee here 
might be able to look into that as well. Can you just address 
U-233 for a second?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you, Senator.
    Yes, Congress has directed the Office of Environmental 
Management to dispose of the Uranium 233 that is at Oak Ridge 
National Laboratory. That material, having some proliferation 
concerns, has increased the security stance of Oak Ridge 
National Laboratory, and Congress decided some time ago and 
directed the Department to dispose of that material in order to 
reduce the security stance of Oak Ridge National Laboratory and 
reduce the costs of that security stance, which are 
significant. And so any change to the plan would require 
Congressional direction.
    Senator Marshall. Right. So I do hope the Committee will be 
responsive in helping us to see if there are solutions--safe, 
responsible solutions.
    Dr. Huff, every week I read the Wall Street Journal, 
there's China, building nuclear power across the world and 
building their influence. Why is China kicking our butt when it 
comes to building nuclear power plants across the world? Why 
aren't they American?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you, Senator.
    I am so glad you asked this question. It is very important 
to note how our competitors approach commercialization of their 
technologies abroad. And you know, it is not the same as the 
way we approach it. They typically come with a more 
comprehensive package for equity and financing, as well as 
potentially fuel supply, and takeback, and it makes it a very 
attractive package despite the downsides. And I will say, you 
know, the opportunity that this presents us with today is the 
following--the scales have been lifted off the eyes, I believe, 
of the world community with regard to dealing in energy 
technologies with unreputable and untrustworthy suppliers. And 
the United States always has had a gold standard in safety and 
security and is a trusted partner of many of those nations. I 
think that has more value today than it did a few months ago.
    And so we do have an opportunity to reinvigorate those 
relationships and present our American companies and our 
American nuclear reactor designs as an alternative to insecure 
choices. But it will require some financing approach that is 
competitive in the world market and, you know, I would assure 
you that there is a strong interagency conversation about what 
it may take to provide, for example, EX-IM, or the Development 
and Finance Corporation, with the kind of equity approach that 
might be necessary to provide packages of this nature.
    Senator Marshall. Thank you so much. We look forward to 
working with you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Hickenlooper.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Dr. Huff, what 
a pleasure to have you with us, and I cannot tell you how 
impressed I am with all that you have done, and I have several 
friends, as women, who came up through the ranks of science 
into space engineering, or nuclear engineering, and I know that 
sometimes there were obstacles, and I appreciate how hard you 
must have worked to get to where you are. I am one who thinks 
that where you are is exactly the right place, and something we 
definitely need.
    Obviously, there has been a lot of renewed interest in 
nuclear fission. Billions of dollars of private investment, 
well, just in the last few months really. And I think there is 
a significant overlap of technical knowledge and expertise 
between fusion and fission. Fusion is housed in the Office of 
Science's Fusion Energy Sciences program, and is outside the 
Office of Nuclear Energy. How would you go about fostering 
collaboration between the research, just to share best 
practices, make sure the new findings help each other? I mean, 
is there anything that we in the Senate could do to help foster 
that?
    Dr. Huff. Senator, thank you for your kind comments. I 
appreciate that.
    And I think you have really hit on something so prescient, 
that even right now, there is a fusion summit happening at the 
White House this very moment with many members of the Office of 
Nuclear Energy in attendance in order to help foster that 
collaboration. It is very important that the lessons that the 
nuclear energy industry and commercialization of nuclear 
fission technology has learned over the last many decades be 
leveraged so that it does not all have to be relearned in the 
context of fusion, and that includes things like the regulatory 
environment and, you know, how to really support the regulator 
in decisionmaking as well as, you know, materials science and 
materials qualification issues--even just the business plan of 
operating in a space where you are both regulated and concerned 
about export control, but also simultaneously interested in 
real clean energy distribution.
    I think we have a lot to share with the Office of Fusion 
Energy Sciences in the Office of Science, as well as ARPA-E, 
which has a really forward-leaning approach to fusion research, 
and I think it is really, really exciting to see--I think 19 
fusion startups right now. Anyway, I am excited about it, as 
you are too.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Yes. Again, I keep thinking that we 
are now just beginning what 100 years from now we will look 
back on and say was the ``great transition.'' This was that 
transition where we actually did take measured steps, but 
accelerate toward a clean energy future.
    We are obviously--Colorado--and you will have to forgive 
the one required parochial question, but we have strong 
programs in nuclear energy at not just the Colorado School of 
Mines, but at Colorado State University, and more specifically 
the University of Colorado Boulder. The Nuclear Energy 
University Program recently received its own line item, and $70 
million in funding in the Omnibus. I am sure that caught your 
attention. Can you comment on the importance of this program 
and how it might support nuclear education activities, not just 
in Colorado, but in other states?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you, Senator.
    There is no topic closer to my heart than the education of 
nuclear engineers. I am a professor on an unpaid leave of 
absence from a nuclear engineering program in Illinois, and the 
Nuclear Energy University Program is the lifeblood of nuclear 
energy and the training of our next-generation, innovative, 
scientific workforce in this field. The program is so important 
that it is critical that it have its own line item. I think it 
is a wise choice to have it stand alone, in part so that it is 
not seen as a tax on other programs, and so that it can have 
the oversight and direction appropriate to a line item on its 
own. Students receive important scholarships and fellowships. 
Faculty receive important research and development funding. 
Even national laboratories benefit from the nuclear energy 
university programs because faculty proposing research are 
encouraged to incorporate the national laboratories and up to 
20 percent of the funding from any R&D award in the NEUP 
program can go to either industry or the national laboratories, 
and routinely does.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Chair, isn't it astounding and 
wonderful to have a witness who is so in command of every 
aspect, every facet of the program that she is going to run. 
Anyway, I have other questions on some of the other--not just 
electrical power. I will submit them on a written form.
    Senator Barrasso. Very unique for this Administration.
    Senator Hickenlooper. What was that?
    Senator Barrasso. Very unique for this Administration.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Oh no, my gosh, you turn everything 
into partisan politics. I am so shocked. Mortified.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. I think we have unanimous consent on this one 
though.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Yes, I hope so.
    The Chairman. Senator Risch.
    Senator Risch. It was so obvious, he could not help 
himself.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Risch. Well, Dr. Huff, I am not going to apologize 
like Senator Hickenlooper did about the parochialism of my 
questions. As you know, Idaho is the home of the Idaho National 
Laboratory, the birthplace of nuclear energy in the world, and 
the flagship lab for nuclear energy, not only for America, but 
for the world, and I want to thank you for taking the time to 
talk with me about it. And again, I was impressed with your 
knowledge of the operation, and as Senator Hickenlooper pointed 
out, your background on all of this. By now, I think most 
people have figured out that you are the right person for this 
job, and I hope we will be able to move you through as quickly 
as we can. And it is an important position and one that I think 
we can all agree on in a very bipartisan basis that you ought 
to be leading.
    I have some parochial questions on the Idaho National Lab, 
but I am going to submit those for the record so that we do not 
take up too much time.
    But I was interested, being where I am on the Foreign 
Relations Committee and on Intel, in your comments about the 
activity that went on about the nuclear facilities in Ukraine 
during the invasion. Senator Manchin and I are going to 
introduce the International Nuclear Energy Act next week, 
probably, and it has been vetted, I think, probably with you 
and with a lot of different places that we are going to try to 
move forward, but that may be a place, and I am going to 
discuss this with Senator Manchin, but it may be a place where 
we could urge the Administration through international agencies 
to create some sideboard sensitivities, war crimes, or what 
have you, for activity that an invading force or any force that 
takes place around a nuclear reactor. That ought to be 
absolutely off limits, like hospitals or like kindergartens or 
anything else. It really ought to be off limits. I mean, we all 
held our breath that evening when the shooting started around 
there. And I was amazed that we dodged the bullet that we did 
there. I think probably it is interesting, as I understand it, 
the facility was hit and probably it is a testament to the kind 
of hardening that they do around these facilities that we 
didn't have a real catastrophe there.
    So in any event, I would appreciate any other thoughts you 
might have in that regard, but I think it is appropriate that 
the international community come together to recognize this. 
Your thoughts?
    Dr. Huff. Senator--Senators--I am thankful for your 
leadership in this moment. I think it is precisely these kinds 
of actions that can demonstrate the American capability to be a 
leader on the world stage in this place, and I wish you great 
luck in your endeavor here.
    With regard to the nuclear plants, you are right, western 
style containment buildings, as we saw at Zaporizhzhia, are 
hardened against incredible odds--the impact of a jet, 
including the following jet fuel fire are, you know, 
demonstrated at Sandia National Laboratory and through 
incredible modeling, and we are lucky to say that those are 
very robust toward accident. They are not designed to withstand 
repeated, intentional--like sophisticated military assault--nor 
is a kindergarten or a hospital. And it is incredibly important 
that we establish that they are off limits. Risky, reckless 
behavior in a conflict zone near any peaceful nuclear facility 
should not be allowed and is entirely unacceptable on the world 
stage.
    Senator Risch. Well, I could not agree more. It was 
absolutely astounding when that started to happen. I could not 
imagine the lack of control that Russian administration had on 
that. You would think they would have those things on a map and 
mapped out just like hospitals and schools and everything else 
to stay away from it. So Senator Manchin and I will talk about 
this a little bit and see if we cannot get something into the 
bill to explore it on the international stage. Obviously, the 
need is there at this point.
    Well, look, we have a lot of idiosyncrasies on the 
agreements that the State of Idaho has with the DOE. Obviously, 
there is, when you have those kinds of agreements, there is 
always a bit of friction, but we have been very successful in 
working through those at the lab. I look forward to doing that 
again. And I am going to have some questions for the record in 
that regard.
    But in any event, thanks again for stepping up to do this. 
Most people with your kind of capabilities are not particularly 
fond of working in government, so we are glad that you are 
stepping forward to do that, and with that, thank you very 
much, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Murkowski.
    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just going 
through my list of questions here to make sure that I am not 
doubling up on what other members have asked, but I appreciate 
the opportunity to have this meet and greet here today and the 
time that you have spent with my staff on this. Obviously, 
touching on issues of great importance always, but now in view 
of Russia's invasion, the situation in Ukraine, and what that 
means for a source of uranium supply, it assumes even higher 
proportions of priority.
    So there has been a great deal asked already about access 
to the HALEU fuels and the fact that the only commercial 
supplies of HALEU now are coming from Russia--clearly a threat 
to energy security, economic security, and, I believe, national 
security. So I think I heard you say that when it comes to 
appropriations, we need an aggressive forward-moving 
appropriation in this area. So last year, the HALEU program's 
budget was $33 million. Some believe that is insufficient, and 
a mark closer to $200 million is needed. What do you classify 
as aggressive, forward-moving? If you can speak to that, 
please?
    Dr. Huff. Yes, ma'am. You know, I think a lot of our 
planning has, in the past, before the Russian aggression toward 
Ukraine, recognized that there is an opportunity for the first 
couple of plants to be fueled potentially by that commercial 
source, and now that is entirely off the table. It changes the 
equation. As we think about our HALEU Availability Program, our 
requests will increase over time, but I think it will compete 
almost immediately with the broader existing reactor and need 
for uranium. And so they both rely on enrichment and conversion 
capacity. And because of this increase in the potential need 
for us to have additional domestic enriched uranium to support 
not only the future fleet, but also the existing fleet, you 
know, we are working together with the interagency on a plan 
that can quantify some of this. We actually have some of the 
folks from the Office of Nuclear Energy who have been working 
on this topic just behind me, and I would be happy to work with 
you on nailing down some of the details, but it will be in the 
many hundreds of millions, and possibly in the over a billion 
range, I would say, if we want to be very serious about 
standing up a competition that has historically been supplied 
by state-sponsored programs.
    Senator Murkowski. Well, I appreciate that, and understand 
it is hard to give a number to it, but I think a recognition 
that we need to be doing more, and to use your words, ``be 
aggressive on this,'' is important.
    I had an opportunity just this morning to speak to the NEI 
Board that is in town, and part of my comments were thanking 
them for participating in legislative hearings in the State of 
Alaska on what is going on with providing for support for our 
smaller reactors, our microreactors. As you probably are aware, 
Eielson Air Force Base is planning to host DOD's first mobile 
microreactor. We are very excited about that. Within the Copper 
Valley area there is an effort underway now to look at a 
project potentially in Valdez. These are all expected to come 
online by 2030.
    One piece of disappointing news in this area though was 
that we have heard numerous complaints about the NRC permitting 
process, most recently from Oklo with rejection of their 
application. I know that that had been one that had been 
looking to the Eielson project. And so if you can, in my 
remaining time, speak to the opportunities that we have in 
Alaska. I do not know if you have had an opportunity to be up 
there to understand how this might help, not only from a 
military installation perspective, but for remote resource 
development projects that are totally off-grid, to small 
villages who have, again, no source of energy outside of 
diesel-powered generation for whom these could be extraordinary 
opportunities. So you have grant opportunities and community 
engagement that needs to go on, but also this issue with better 
commercialization of our microreactors and to the NRC. So there 
is a super-loaded question there for you.
    Dr. Huff. Thank you, ma'am. Yes, I agree that the 
opportunity for microreactors is really uniquely suited to 
these kinds of remote applications and air force bases, 
especially where the Federal Government can stand as a testbed 
for these technologies. And I would really love to someday come 
to Alaska and see some of these locations. I haven't had the 
chance yet, but I understand that the sort of whole space of 
Arctic energy is such a unique and interesting space. It is 
different than the remaining mainland.
    On your Oklo question, with regard to NRC, you know, I 
understand that their application was--they ceased review 
without prejudice and I do hope that Oklo and other energy 
technologies will, you know, continue to apply to the NRC. My 
understanding is that they certainly have been declined without 
prejudice, and so they have the opportunity to resubmit and----
    Senator Murkowski. But do you think that that is a setback 
for not only Oklo, but others?
    Dr. Huff. So you know, I am encouraged by the certification 
of the NuScale reactor by the NRC as well as the progress NRC 
is making thinking about the two Advanced Reactor Demonstration 
awardees, and I am confident that the NRC has the capability to 
review these applications, but it is also the gold standard in 
nuclear safety across the world, in large part because it does 
hold a very high standard. A high standard, but I think the 
nuclear energy industry can meet it.
    Senator Murkowski. Good.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thank you, Dr. Huff.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    And now we have Senator James Lankford, in person. Senator 
Lankford.
    Senator Lankford. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Dr. Huff, thanks 
for being here. Thanks for going through the process on it.
    I want to pick up where Senator Murkowski just left off 
dealing with the permitting issue on this. It has to be a 
consideration of any entity, any region, to examine not only 
what is the best carbon footprint on this, but also what is the 
best value in it and what is the most predictable. The 
permitting for nuclear is exceptionally unpredictable at this 
point. So my question for you is, how do we fix the permitting 
process, and let me just put out a hypothetical--what is the 
right length of time it should take to actually get a permit to 
actually start construction and to be able to take off right 
now? Because if somebody is going to say, ``great, I am going 
to invest $8 to $12 billion, and it is going to be over the 
next 15 years before I can actually get started.'' That is a 
pretty long time period to actually get ramped up to be able to 
do it. What is the length of time you think it should take to 
get a permit and how do we actually fix the permitting process?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you very much, Senator. I think you have 
touched on a number of things. I will start on predictability. 
Not only is it critically important that the timeline be 
predictable, but also the costs, right? And I think this is 
very, very problematic for the investors you have described as 
well. You know, the Department of Energy's role in the context 
of regulation is that we generally support the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission by supporting research that can inform 
their decisions, by guiding advanced reactor innovation in such 
a way in collaboration with NRC that it can be licensed. But it 
is not my role to pick dates and deadlines, but I will say to 
you, I agree that it is critically important for 
competitiveness, not just in nuclear energy, but all energy 
technologies that, you know, we be able to have some predictive 
timelines. And I would also just say, you know, I think your 
point is well taken with regard to the possibility for these 
technologies to have economics at all in a reasonable business 
model, to have some real surety from, you know, the regulator 
and from the Federal Government, support that they are likely 
to receive.
    And so I hope we can work together on figuring out a way 
for DOE to work better with NRC with regard to this topic.
    Senator Lankford. So as you work with NRC and you are 
making advice to them, what advice would you give them on the 
right length of time that this should take? Should this be a 
15-year process? A 12-year process? A 5-year process?
    Dr. Huff. I think that certifying a reactor design can be 
done in a couple of years. It would not need to be 5 or 10 or 
12, and siting itself has to satisfy NEPA, but the fastest 
conceivable way to satisfy those laws should be the mission of 
the nuclear regulator, and I do believe that they understand 
that mission.
    Senator Lankford. What is the length of time now that it is 
for current projects that are underway to get permitted, sited, 
and then to start construction?
    Dr. Huff. I will have to do some research to get you an 
actual number, but it is not as quick as I hope. Someday it 
will be.
    Senator Lankford. Yes. It is more than two years.
    Dr. Huff. Yes.
    Senator Lankford. Yes, it needs to work through that 
process. I have asked several folks just to ballpark guess on 
this. There has been a lot of conversation about using nuclear 
power, which, by the way, I am not opposed to, I am supportive 
of nuclear power on this. It is a good source. It is one to add 
to a multitude of sources that we have to have, especially 
effective in certain regions. So the question I have always 
asked is, when there has been this push to say, well, let's 
shift to nuclear and to try to replace coal facilities or other 
facilities that are out there, I ask the question, how many 
nuclear facilities does it take to replace the coal that is 
currently out there? I have never been able to get a good 
number. What is a good ballpark that you would estimate?
    Dr. Huff. I think there are about 100 coal sites in the 
country that are like reasonable choices from a technical 
perspective, you know, they are not located near fault lines, 
they are in states that do not currently have a moratorium, 
they are not associated with, you know, emergency issues that 
are unique to reactors, but not coal plants. And we actually, 
in the Office of Nuclear Energy, have an endeavor to help 
identify the regions where there may be coal communities that 
have some retirements coming up so that, as we look toward 
place-based initiatives, we can communicate with those 
communities about their potential options.
    Senator Lankford. So is it a one-to-one where you have a 
nuclear reactor that is replacing one coal plant, or is it 
multiple modular that replaces one coal?
    Dr. Huff. So the average coal plant is in the hundreds of 
megawatts, and that is pretty aligned with the size of a small 
modular reactor deployment. These sort of gigawatt-scale coal 
plants are pretty rare, and anything below 100 megawatts is 
also fairly rare, and so they are fairly close in range to the 
sizes that we see for small modular reactors. And so it could 
be one-to-one. Some of our small modular reactor designs come 
in four-packs or six-packs or 12-packs, and that is, of course 
the NuScale design. And so, you know, you could possibly do a 
little bit of modularity there to reach exactly the same power 
level, but I would say between the sort of hundred- and 
thousand-megawatt scale, that is precisely the right place for 
small modular.
    Senator Lankford. Small modular--each one of them costs 
about what on construction?
    Dr. Huff. So they are generally in the first-of-a-kind 
phase, but I think, you know, at this point, they are in the, 
you know, billion dollars per, well, there are two--I would say 
there are about, in terms of, here is the thing--they are 
different sizes and so they are different costs.
    Senator Lankford. Right.
    Dr. Huff. But we have--they are about $2 billion each for 
the two demonstrations we are deploying plus NuScale, which is 
like slightly higher capacity because of multipack, closer to 
the $4 billion range for that first-of-a-kind, but they would 
like to see those decrease as they demonstrate and get to the 
nth-of-a-kind scale, as well as factory-building them. And so, 
you know, I hope to see that the nth-of-a-kind scale small 
modular reactors are economic.
    Senator Lankford. But that may be decade or more away to be 
able to work through the economics on it?
    Dr. Huff. It could be that long. My hope is that those 
first-of-a-kind reactors will be built by the end of the 
decade, and the second-, third-, and fourth-of-a-kind will 
follow quickly after that. They are already building order 
books for some of these reactors, so that they have a plan. So 
they are not in series, but in parallel.
    Senator Lankford. Okay. All right. Thank you.
    Senator Barrasso [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Lankford. 
Thank you, Dr. Huff. We are so grateful for your appearance 
today before the Committee. Thanks for answering our questions.
    Members may submit some additional questions in writing. I 
have a couple. They are going to have until 6:00 p.m. tomorrow 
evening to submit those questions.
    And with that, the Committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:22 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                      APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                              ----------                              

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   [all]