[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                          THE NEXT GENERATION:
                   EMPOWERING AMERICAN NUCLEAR ENERGY

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC GROWTH, ENERGY 
                      POLICY, AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

                                 OF THE

               COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                            JANUARY 18, 2024

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-86

                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability
  
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]  


                       Available on: govinfo.gov,
                         oversight.house.gov or
                             docs.house.gov
                             
                                ________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
54-582 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------     
                             
               COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                    JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman

Jim Jordan, Ohio                     Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking 
Mike Turner, Ohio                        Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona                  Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of 
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina            Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin            Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Michael Cloud, Texas                 Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Gary Palmer, Alabama                 Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Clay Higgins, Louisiana              Ro Khanna, California
Pete Sessions, Texas                 Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Andy Biggs, Arizona                  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Nancy Mace, South Carolina           Katie Porter, California
Jake LaTurner, Kansas                Cori Bush, Missouri
Pat Fallon, Texas                    Shontel Brown, Ohio
Byron Donalds, Florida               Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania            Robert Garcia, California
William Timmons, South Carolina      Maxwell Frost, Florida
Tim Burchett, Tennessee              Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia      Greg Casar, Texas
Lisa McClain, Michigan               Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Lauren Boebert, Colorado             Dan Goldman, New York
Russell Fry, South Carolina          Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida           Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
Nick Langworthy, New York
Eric Burlison, Missouri
Mike Waltz, Florida

                                 ------                                
                       Mark Marin, Staff Director
       Jessica Donlon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
                Jeanne Kuehl, Senior Professional Staff
                Kim Waskowsky, Professional Staff Member
      Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk

                      Contact Number: 202-225-5074

                  Julie Tagen, Minority Staff Director

                      Contact Number: 202-225-5051
                                 ------                                

 Subcommittee On Economic Growth, Energy Policy, And Regulatory Affairs

                      Pat Fallon, Texas, Chairman
Byron Donalds, Florida               Cori Bush, Missouri, Ranking 
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania                Minority Member
Lisa McClain, Michigan               Shontel Brown, Ohio
Lauren Boebert, Colorado             Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Russell Fry, South Carolina          Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of 
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida               Columbia
Nick Langworthy, New York            Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Mike Waltz, Florida                  Ro Khanna, California
                                     Vacancy
                         
                         
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hearing held on January 18, 2024.................................     1

                               Witnesses

                              ----------                              
Dr. Kathryn Huff, Assistant Secretary, Office of Nuclear Energy, 
  U.S. Department of Energy
Oral Statement...................................................     5
Dan Dorman, Executive Director for Operations, U.S. Nuclear 
  Regulatory Commission
Oral Statement...................................................     7
Dr. David Ortiz, Director, Office of Electric Reliability, 
  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Oral Statement...................................................     9

 Opening statements and the prepared statements for the witnesses 
  are available in the U.S. House of Representatives Repository 
  at: docs.house.gov.

                           Index of Documents

                              ----------                              

  * Report, GAO, ``Nuclear Waste Cleanup''; submitted by Rep. 
  Bush.
  * Op-Ed, Powered By Nuclear Energy, ``Freshwater Future''; 
  submitted by Rep. Donalds.
  * Op-Ed, ``It's Time for America to Unleash Next-Generation 
  Nuclear Energy''; submitted by Rep. Donalds.
  * Op-Ed, ``Lesson Learned From Hurricane Ian - Let's Embrace 
  Nuclear''; submitted by Rep. Donalds.
  * Op-Ed, ``Nuclear Innovation Is Key to America's Economic 
  Future''; submitted by Rep. Donalds.
  * Op-Ed, ``The Dishonest Fantasy of Wind and Solar''; submitted 
  by Rep. Donalds.
  * Op-Ed, ``What About the Waste''; submitted by Rep. Donalds.
  * Op-Ed, ``Why I'm An Advocate For Advanced Nuclear 
  Technology''; submitted by Rep. Donalds.
  * Report, ``Rebalancing America's Energy Investment Strategy''; 
  submitted by Rep. Williams.
  * Questions for the Record: to Dr. Huff; submitted by Rep. 
  Donalds.
  * Questions for the Record: to Dr. Huff; submitted by Rep. 
  Waltz.
  * Questions for the Record: to Dr. Ortiz; submitted by Rep. 
  Fallon.
  * Questions for the Record: to Dr. Ortiz; submitted by Rep. 
  Donalds.
  * Questions for the Record: to Dr. Ortiz; submitted by Rep. 
  Waltz.
  * Questions for the Record: to Mr. Dorman; submitted by Rep. 
  Fallon.
  * Questions for the Record: to Mr. Dorman; submitted by Rep. 
  Donalds.
  * Questions for the Record: to Mr. Dorman; submitted by Rep. 
  Waltz.


The documents listed above are available at: docs.house.gov.

 
                          THE NEXT GENERATION:
                   EMPOWERING AMERICAN NUCLEAR ENERGY

                              ----------                              


                   Thursday, January 18, 2024

                     U.S. House of Representatives

               Committee on Oversight and Accountability

                Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy 
                     Policy, and Regulatory Affairs

                                           Washington, D.C.

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:03 p.m., in 
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Pat Fallon, 
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Fallon, Comer, Donalds, Fry, Bush, 
Brown, Stansbury, Norton, and Krishnamoorthi.
    Also present: Representatives LaTurner and Williams of New 
York.
    Mr. Fallon. The hearing on the Subcommittee on Economic 
Growth, Energy Policy, and Regulatory Affairs will come to 
order. I want to welcome everyone, thank the witnesses for 
coming.
    I recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening 
statement.
    Today's hearing is an opportunity to provide oversight of a 
critical element of our national energy mix, which of course is 
the nuclear power sector. I am a proponent of the all-of-the-
above approach, where we, you know, use oil, natural gas, clean 
coal, wind, solar, hydro, and, of course, nuclear.
    The U.S. is the world's leading producer of nuclear energy. 
Nuclear power plants account for almost 20 percent of our 
Nation's electricity, and it is the most reliable source of 
power generation. Now think about that. That is 1 in 5 homes is 
powered with nuclear energy. It is also an extremely clean form 
of energy production, producing zero carbon emissions.
    In fact, nuclear power is responsible for more than 70 
percent--I am going to repeat this--nuclear power is 
responsible for more than 70 percent of U.S. non-greenhouse-
gas-emitting power generation.
    Additionally, nuclear fuel is incredibly efficient. A 
single nuclear reactor can produce as much power as over 3 
million solar panels or 431 wind turbines.
    Over the past several decades, American innovators have 
made significant strides in developing new technology to meet 
our evolving energy needs.
    When most people think of nuclear power, they think of 
large-scale cooling towers and massive industrial projects that 
can take decades and, of course, cost billions of dollars to 
complete. They also, I think, admittedly, think of, when you 
think of nuclear power, if you are old enough to remember Three 
Mile Island or Chernobyl. The fortunate thing about the things 
we are building, have built, and the things we are building in 
the future it is not being built by the lowest Communist 
bidder, and we also have many more regulations as well to 
prevent what happened in the Ukraine all those years ago.
    These traditional reactor designs contribute massive 
amounts of energy for homes, businesses, and manufacturers.
    But what many people do not know is that the future of 
nuclear power can take many forms. Small modular reactors and 
microreactors could provide energy to isolated communities, 
military installations, and critical infrastructure. American 
innovation has, as it often does, led the way for many of these 
advancements.
    But similar to other emerging and evolving technologies, 
the Federal regulatory system has been very slow, 
unfortunately, to adjust. As a result, the industry is faced 
with burdensome and expensive, and in my humble opinion, 
unneeded bureaucratic hurdles. Meanwhile, older nuclear power 
plants are at risk of closure, potentially jeopardizing grid 
reliability, and domestic energy security.
    That is why we have asked representatives from three of the 
leading Federal entities regulating and overseeing our Nation's 
energy sector to testify today. The Department of Energy, the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission each have very important roles to play in 
ensuring our country's energy infrastructure, stability, and 
security.
    These regulators are here today to answer important 
questions. For instance, are we creating an environment where 
U.S. innovators can succeed and thrive in providing cost-
effective solutions to our energy challenges? Are there areas 
of regulation that are outdated or duplicative and in need of 
reform to streamline our Nation's approach to deploying nuclear 
power? Are we on track to meet the energy needs of tomorrow 
with the technology and regulatory frameworks that we have in 
place today?
    And as we dive into each of these questions, we must also 
pay close attention to the nuclear fuel supply chain. China and 
Russia, and this is alarming, collectively control 60 percent 
of the globe's uranium enrichment capacity, and the U.S. 
imports a quarter of its low-enriched uranium, the fuel needed 
to power America's commercial nuclear fleet, from Russia. This 
means that one out of every 20 American homes is currently 
powered by Russian uranium.
    Recent funding initiatives and legislation like H.R. 1042, 
the Prohibiting Russian Uranium Imports Act, which passed the 
House last month, endeavor to jumpstart American development 
and decrease our reliance on adversarial nations. Very good 
idea. When it comes to the nuclear fuel supply chain, energy 
security truly is national security. I think they are very 
synonymous.
    So, I look forward to a thoughtful discussion on the state 
of American nuclear power and where we are today, where we can 
come together and make for a better tomorrow and a successful 
future.
    I want to thank each of the witnesses for being here today, 
and I will yield to Ranking Member Bush for her opening 
statement.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. St. Louis and I are here 
today to express our grave concerns about the devastating 
impact nuclear waste has had on this Nation, especially Black 
and Brown communities. We cannot talk about expanding nuclear 
energy in this country without first dealing with the Federal 
Government's continuing legacy of failing to properly remediate 
harmful nuclear waste in communities like mine.
    In St. Louis, nuclear contamination dates back to 1942, 
when, as part of the Manhattan Project, the Federal Government 
hired Mallinckrodt Chemical Works to process uranium in the 
heart of what is now my district in downtown St. Louis. The 
processing resulted in dangerous radioactive waste getting 
recklessly stored above ground near the St. Louis airport for 
decades. Near the airport is a waterway central to our 
community called Coldwater Creek, which sprawls across 
residential areas, schools, businesses, and parks, affecting 
North St. Louis County.
    The improper storage of radioactive waste at this site 
persisted unchecked for decades. The material was left in the 
open, exposed to the rain and the wind. This callous 
mishandling of deadly waste allowed it to seep into the ground, 
contaminating Coldwater Creek as well as the soil and waterways 
in the surrounding communities.
    Though I did not live right on the creek, I was told that 
during heavy rainfall the water from the creek may have flooded 
my basement. During that summer my basement flooded at least 
six times. My mother actually lived near Coldwater Creek, very 
close, and so my kids would play out there when they were 
visiting her.
    Not only did we not know how dangerous it was, we did not 
even know it was contaminated at all. We had no reason to 
suspect or any warning at all that the creek could pose a 
possible risk to our health.
    After many years of neglect, the Federal Government sold 
the waste to Cotter Corporation for further for-profit 
processing, which moved it about a half mile north. What Cotter 
could not use to make money was illegally dumped in the nearby 
public landfill called West Lake Landfill. Such heartless and 
negligent action was a clear violation of Federal law and 
common decency. As a result, radioactive waste remains both in 
Coldwater Creek and at West Lake Landfill, putting our 
communities in harm's way.
    In a shocking revelation, records released last July proved 
that the Federal Government both hid and downplayed the risks 
of this radioactive waste in St. Louis for nearly 75 years, and 
that radioactive waste was known to pose a threat to people 
living near Coldwater Creek as early as 1949. Despite this 
knowledge, however, Federal officials repeatedly downplayed 
these risks as ``slight,'' ``minimal,'' ``low level.''
    People in my district who were unknowingly exposed to this 
radiation are now living with serious chronic health 
conditions, including several types of rare cancers. I have had 
these conversations. I know many of these folks, and my heart 
breaks for them. Some of them are no longer with us.
    In 2014, the Missouri Department of Health and Senior 
Services did an analysis of people living in the eight ZIP 
codes around Coldwater Creek and West Lake Landfill. The report 
found breast, colon, prostate, kidney, and bladder cancer cases 
in the areas were significantly higher than average. Just to 
give one specific and chilling example, the Department of 
Health report found brain and other nervous system cancers were 
300 percent--3-0-0 percent
    --more likely to be found in children aged 17 and younger 
living in the ZIP code closest to West Lake Landfill.
    It was not until 2016, which is 67 years later, that the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finally began 
advising the community to avoid Coldwater Creek entirely.
    To this day, people in my district continue to allow their 
children to play in Coldwater Creek because they still are not 
aware that it is contaminated. There are no signs to indicate 
any danger or to properly warn folks of the high contamination 
levels in the creek. That is why I am currently working with 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental 
Protection Agency to put up this urgently needed signage.
    The Federal Government still has not provided Missourians 
any funding to help families test their homes, their 
businesses, or their schools to ensure they are not living with 
and sending their children to school in a place with unhealthy 
levels of radiation. As this toxic waste continues to devastate 
my community, neither the Federal Government nor those private 
sector contractors, who reaped benefits--they reaped profits 
from their shoddy work
    --have provided financial compensation to the victims of 
the Manhattan Project in St. Louis. Shame.
    In 2022, Jana Elementary, a school in Florissant, Missouri, 
in my district, was shuttered after privately conducted testing 
revealed radiation levels that were 22 times higher than 
normal, healthy levels. They were found in classrooms, the 
cafeteria, and the playground. My constituents were again 
unknowingly sending their children every day to a school that 
was exposing them to dangerously high levels of radiation, and 
no, this was not a new school.
    All of this was substantiated in the recent GAO report I 
requested, along with Ranking Member Raskin, which confirms 
what we have been saying for years. I ask unanimous consent to 
enter this report into the record, which finds the Federal 
Government has failed to remediate these two sites in St. 
Louis.
    Mr. Fallon. Without objection, so moved.
    Ms. Bush. And so, not only in St. Louis but in many other 
communities across our country, this GAO also finds that the 
St. Louis sites with Manhattan Project waste are found near the 
most underserved communities of any remediationsites around the 
country.
    Mr. Chairman, I wrote to you in October, requesting a field 
hearing in Missouri's First District to investigate this 
ongoing environmental catastrophe and hear directly from 
Missourians whose lives and families have suffered the grievous 
effects of this preventable and heart-breaking health crisis. I 
would like to renew my request for a field hearing right here, 
right now. This shameful legacy of negligence and lies has hurt 
so many people in St. Louis, and they continue to suffer to 
this day.
    Actions need to be taken to remediate the damage that has 
clearly, and what we know has already been done, before we 
start talking about expanding nuclear energy in this country. 
We have a responsibility to both fix and learn from our 
mistakes before we risk subjecting any other communities to the 
same exposure.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Fallon. I think we are talking about properly stored 
nuclear waste, and of course not improperly, and unfortunately 
that has happened in the past. I understand that both of our 
staffs have been discussing your request, and my staff will 
continue to work to find a solution. This Subcommittee has not 
had a field hearing at all yet. And in the meantime, we have 
great witnesses today to talk about the issues at hand.
    Without objection, Representative LaTurner of Kansas and 
Representative Brandon Williams of New York are waived onto the 
Subcommittee for the purpose of questioning witnesses for 
today's hearing.
    I am pleased to welcome our three witnesses today. First, 
we have Dr. Kathryn Huff, who serves as the Assistant Secretary 
of the Office of Nuclear Energy within the Department of 
Energy. Next, we have Dan Dorman, the Executive Director for 
Operations at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. And last, we 
have Dr. David Ortiz, who serves as the Director of the Office 
of Electric Reliability at the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission.
    I want to thank each of the witnesses for being here today 
and thank you for your testimony. I look forward to a great 
discussion on these issues.
    Pursuant to Committee Rule 9(g) the witnesses will please 
stand and raise their right hands.
    Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you 
are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    Mr. Fallon. Let the record show that the witnesses answered 
in the affirmative. Thank you, and please take your seats.
    We appreciate you being here today and look forward to your 
testimony. Let me remind the witnesses that we have read your 
written statements, and they will appear in full in the hearing 
record. Please limit your oral statements to 5 minutes. As a 
reminder, please press the little button
    --green, you get 4 minutes, then it will go yellow for that 
last minute, and then if is on red and you are still talking, 
if you could just kind of wrap up your thought. We will be 
courteous. And I want to thank you again for your time here, 
and we would appreciate that.
    So, I now recognize Dr. Huff for your opening statement.

                    STATEMENT OF KATHRYN HUFF, PH.D.

                          ASSISTANT SECRETARY

                        OFFICE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY

                       U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Dr. Huff. Thank you, Chairman Fallon, Ranking Member Bush, 
and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. It is an honor 
to appear before you to represent the Department of Energy, and 
I appreciate the Subcommittee's attention on the programs and 
policies shaping our nuclear future.
    Ninety-three nuclear power reactors currently operate at 54 
sites across 28 U.S. states. They generate about one-fifth of 
our electricity and are the Nation's single largest source of 
zero-emissions electricity.
    Nuclear energy remains one of the safest and most reliable 
generation sources available today. So, to swiftly reduce our 
carbon emissions and to rebuild U.S. leadership globally, the 
Office of Nuclear Energy is prioritizing activities that keep 
the existing fleet of nuclear power reactors operating, deploy 
advanced reactor technologies, secure and sustain the nuclear 
fuel cycle, and expand international nuclear energy 
cooperation. These priorities aim to strengthen our energy and 
national security, to create and maintain high-quality jobs, to 
allow for an equitable energy transition, and to bolster our 
economic interests abroad.
    To this end, President Biden has signed into law both the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act, 
which each have provisions supporting these nuclear energy 
goals.
    To reestablish U.S. global nuclear leadership and meet our 
net zero goals by 2050, we must deploy new nuclear reactors. 
Indeed, last month, at COP28, the U.S. and more than 24 other 
countries committed to working together to triple nuclear 
energy capacity globally by 2050, because we assessed that this 
is the magnitude of growth that is needed. We also invited 
shareholders of international financial institutions to 
encourage the inclusion of nuclear energy in lending policies.
    The Office of Nuclear Energy includes partnership with 
national laboratories, universities, and the private sector, 
supports new reactor technologies and fuel cycles through 
research, development, and demonstration activities. This 
research has enabled advancement in technology underpinning 
deployments today, and to make these deployments a reality, the 
Department's new Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations oversees 
two public-private partnerships to deploy advanced generation 
for nuclear reactors this decade.
    However, to fuel today's nuclear reactor fleet as well as 
the growing fleet of tomorrow, the Administration has taken 
several actions to secure our civil nuclear fuel supply as well 
as that of our allies and partners. The Russian Federation's 
brutal invasion of Ukraine has demonstrated the grave threat to 
global energy security posed by Russian-supplied fuels.
    Russia is the largest global enricher of uranium and 
currently supplies a significant portion of the nuclear fuel 
supply chain to the U.S. Without expansion of our domestic fuel 
cycle capacity the U.S. cannot reliably make available the 
uranium needed to support the needs of today's nuclear power 
fleet, the future advanced reactor power fleet, research 
reactors, or medical isotope production facilities needed for 
the health of Americans.
    Accordingly, President Biden has requested $2.16 billion in 
supplemental funding to improve our long-term domestic 
enrichment capabilities for low-enriched uranium, including 
high-assay low-enriched uranium, or HALEU. This investment, 
paired with a long-term ban on enriched uranium imports from 
Russia is pivotal to reestablishing U.S. civil nuclear energy 
security. I welcome the opportunity to work with Congress to 
address this national security vulnerability.
    Now, after several years of operation, the enriched uranium 
fuel rods that power nuclear reactors do deplete and must be 
remoted. The heat and radioactivity associated with used 
nuclear fuel must be managed and stored safely. The existing 
U.S. reactor fleet creates about 2,000 metric tons of used fuel 
each year, which is being stored at more than 70 sites across 
the country. Over the last 55 years, more than 2,500 casks of 
used fuel have been shipped across the United States without 
any radiological releases to the environment or harm to the 
public.
    But the promise of new and advanced reactors can only be 
responsibly realized in conjunction with progress on the long-
term management of their used nuclear fuel. The Department 
believes a consent-based approach to siting interim storage 
should be used to develop both interim storage and disposal 
options. A consent-based approach is not only the most 
equitable and just way to approach siting but also represents 
our best chance of success. Consistent with direction provided 
by Congress, DOE is making progress on consent-based siting for 
one or more consolidated interim storage facilities.
    While we are working to make progress under existing 
authorities, additional congressional authorization will be 
required before DOE can actually construct and operate a 
Federal interim storage facility.
    Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the 
Subcommittee today. I welcome the opportunity to work with you 
toward a more sustainable, equitable, reliable, affordable, 
safe, and secure energy system for our Nation.
    I look forward to questions.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. Thank you very much. And you did it 
almost on the dime in 5 minutes. Very well done.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Dorman for his 5 minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF DANIEL DORMAN

                   EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS

                   U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

    Mr. Dorman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Fallon, 
Ranking Member Bush, distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. 
I serve as the Executive Director for Operations, or the Chief 
Operating Officer, for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The 
NRC is an independent Federal agency with a mission to license 
and regulate the civilian use of radioactive materials to 
provide adequate protection to public health and safety, to 
promote the common defense and security, and to protect the 
environment. I welcome the opportunity to address the Committee 
and describe our role in licensing and regulating nuclear power 
so that it is deployed and operated in a safe and secure 
manner.
    The nuclear industry is developing new and advanced reactor 
designs, and the NRC staff is reviewing pre-application 
materials and applications commensurate with the risk and 
safety significance of the proposed technology. Over the past 
several years, the NRC has been working to modernize our 
existing licensing processes to support the deployment of new 
and advanced reactors through the use of risk-informed and 
performance-based techniques and updated regulatory guidance.
    Additionally, the NRC has streamlined its licensing review 
process by using a ``core team'' approach to complete reviews 
of applications we have received thus far. Last month, the NRC 
issued a construction permit to Kairos Power LLC for the Hermes 
fluoride salt-cooled high-temperature non-power reactor after 
completing all required steps, including the safety and 
environmental reviews, on budget and ahead of schedule.
    In addition, the NRC is enhancing its regulatory 
infrastructure for new and advanced reactors in an open and 
transparent manner with substantial stakeholder engagement. For 
example, the NRC recently issued a final rule and associated 
regulatory guide that applies risk-informed, performance-based 
emergency preparedness requirements to small modular reactors 
and other new technologies.
    The NRC is developing a new optional regulatory framework 
for licensing new reactors in accordance with the Nuclear 
Energy Innovation and Modernization Act, or NEIMA. This rule 
would establish a technology-inclusive, risk-informed, and 
performance-based regulatory framework for licensing and 
oversight of new commercial nuclear power plants. The NRC 
expects to issue the final rule ahead of the NIEMA deadline of 
December 31, 2027.
    The NRC staff is also working on a rulemaking to facilitate 
efficient licensing of fuels with higher enrichment and burn 
up, which are critical aspects of many advanced reactor 
designs.
    The staff continues to develop guidance for advanced 
reactor licensing, including guidance related to Technology-
Inclusive Content of Application and Advanced Reactor Content 
of Application, which is expected to be published later this 
year. Additionally, the staff is working on a rulemaking and 
guidance to build on the NRC's existing process for licensing 
the use of byproduct materials and establish a framework to 
regulate near-term fusion facility designs--again, ahead of the 
NIEMA deadline of December 31, 2027.
    The NRC also continues to monitor potential impacts of fuel 
supply on the U.S. commercial nuclear fleet and the domestic 
fuel cycle suppliers and remains in close communication with 
the Department of Energy and other Federal agencies on the 
availability of non-Russian-sourced fuel. The NRC staff 
routinely communicates with the industry to understand its 
near-term and longer-term licensing needs to potentially 
replace uranium and fuel cycle services that have come from 
Russia.
    The Commission recognizes the national strategic importance 
of these issues and held a public meeting in December to learn 
more about the Administration's short-and long-term domestic 
uranium fuel strategy and the NRC's readiness to support 
licensing and oversight.
    The NRC has recently issued several major fuel supply 
licensing actions and authorizations. For example, in 
September, the NRC authorized American Centrifuge Operating LLC 
to proceed with its planned demonstration project to produce 
high-assay low-enriched uranium. The NRC has also issued 
several authorizations allowing increased enrichment and 
accident tolerate fuels to be loaded in radioactive material 
transportation packages. The NRC staff performed thorough and 
transparent safety, security, and environmental reviews and 
completed all of these on schedule.
    The NRC staff is prepared and expecting to review between 
12 and 14 additional major fuel supply licensing actions in the 
future and will continue to have other informal discussions 
with potential applicants.
    I appreciate the Subcommittee's interest in the NRC's 
mission and the work of our dedicated staff as well as the 
opportunity to address you today. We appreciate our continuing 
engagement with Members of Congress, and I look forward to your 
questions.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you very much. And now the Chair 
recognizes Dr. Ortiz for your opening statement.

                    STATEMENT OF DAVID ORTIZ, PH.D.

                DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF ELECTRIC RELIABILITY

                  FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

    Dr. Ortiz. Chairman Fallon, Ranking Member Bush, and 
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 
testify today. My name is David Ortiz. I am the Director of the 
Office of Electric Reliability at the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission. My remarks today are my own, and I appear here as a 
Commission staff member, and my thoughts do not represent those 
of the Commission or any individual Commissioner.
    My testimony summarizes the Commission's oversight of the 
reliability of the Bulk-Power System and my perspective on 
nuclear power and its role in ensuring a reliable U.S. electric 
grid.
    In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress amended the 
Federal Power Act to add Section 215 pertaining to Bulk-Power 
System reliability. This provision tasked the Commission with 
responsibility to oversee mandatory, enforceable reliability 
standards for the Nation's Bulk-Power System. This authority 
pertains to the interconnected electric power system--we also 
call it the ``grid''--in the United States, and excludes 
Alaska, Hawaii, and local distribution systems.
    The Federal Power Act also gives the Commission 
jurisdiction over rates, terms, and conditions for wholesale 
sales of electricity, and reserves to the states the choice of 
electric generation facilities, including the development of 
nuclear electricity generating capacity. With respect to 
reliability, Section 215 does not give--in fact, it explicitly 
prohibits, FERC from directing the construction of electricity 
generation or transmission capacity.
    Given the tight linkage among nuclear power plant safety 
systems, which are regulated by the NRC, and the electric 
transmission system, the Commission and the NRC entered into 
several Memoranda of Understanding to ensure appropriate 
coordination. To further coordinate on these important issues, 
for 20 years the Commission and the NRC have conducted biannual 
joint commission meetings, where the commissioners of both FERC 
and the NRC meet to discuss matters of common interest. The 
next joint meeting will occur next Thursday, January 25.
    The topic of today's hearing is nuclear power plants and 
their future. According to the Energy and Information 
Administration, from January to September 23, the nuclear power 
fleet produced 18 percent of U.S. electricity and operated at a 
capacity factor of 94 percent. This is significantly higher 
than all other generation resource types.
    Additionally, because nuclear power plant reactors and 
turbines are enclosed, they typically perform much better than 
other resources during extreme weather conditions. Our recent 
report looking into Winter Storm Elliott found that only 0.4 
percent of over 1,700 of the outages that occurred during the 
storm were attributed to nuclear units.
    The changing resource mix, however, poses significant 
challenges for reliable operations of the grid beyond having 
sufficient capacity. To ensure reliability, in addition to 
resourcing energy adequacy, the resource mix must provide 
flexibility and system stability services. Most new resources 
interconnecting to the grid are renewable. These resources are 
highly variable, and while in aggregate they may provide 
sufficient capacity, they may not provide essential services 
needed to maintain reliability at all times.
    The current fleet of nuclear power plants in the United 
States was not designed to be flexible and has historically not 
provided significant voltage control or other reliability 
services due to safety and operational factors. Nuclear power 
plants also do not provide black start service, which is needed 
to restart the grid in the event of a blackout. Technologies 
that are currently under development, including the small 
modular reactor, when deployed, could both provide the capacity 
and energy that nuclear power plants are known for, and help 
operators to meet flexibility requirements of the future grid. 
I defer to my colleagues at the Department of Energy and the 
NRC to provide the most up-to-date information in this regard.
    FERC will continue to work with relevant stakeholders and 
our sister agencies to execute its responsibilities under 
Section 215 of the Federal Power Act to enhance and to maintain 
and improve the reliability of the electric grid. Nuclear power 
has and will have a key role in supporting that reliable 
operation.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look 
forward to answering your questions.
    Mr. Fallon. I want to thank the witnesses. Thank you very 
much. A very important topic to discuss. I now recognize myself 
for 5 minutes of questions.
    Dr. Huff, I would love to start with you. As you know, 
nuclear fuel is made from processed uranium. Together, China 
and Russia account for nearly 60 percent of the world's uranium 
enrichment capabilities. This is clearly a national security 
issue for the United States' commercial nuclear reactor fleet, 
in my humble opinion, and I wanted to get your thoughts on 
that.
    Dr. Huff. Thank you very much. It is absolutely a key 
priority for my office, for the Administration, to ensure a 
reliable supply chain from trustworthy sources. We acknowledge 
that it is not a sustainable approach to allow continued 
dependence on Russia for this fuel. And, in fact, in the 
supplement request, President Biden has requested $2.16 billion 
in supplemental funding, paired with an import restriction, as 
you described. That would really go a long way to expanding the 
conversion and enrichment facilities that we need in the United 
States domestically to ensure our fleet, which being the 
largest nuclear fleet in the world is also the hungriest in 
terms of low-enriched uranium. But also, the fuel of our allies 
and partners, which also rely on Russian-enriched uranium. 
Thank you.
    Mr. Fallon. If I could follow up, the U.S. current 
commercial nuclear reactors run exclusively on low-enriched 
uranium, or LEU. U.S. imports nearly a quarter of LEU from 
Russia. What is the Administration doing to encourage investing 
domestically to really further and foster our enrichment 
capabilities?
    Dr. Huff. Yes. So, in our proposed uranium strategy to 
remove ourselves from dependency on Russia, we have suggested 
this $2.16 billion supplemental funding to procure enriched 
uranium as a buyer of the new capacity that will need to be 
stood up, at the premium that needs to be stood up, and then 
make sure that it is available for the industry in the near 
term. That uranium strategy does rely on protecting those 
investments from continued import of cheaper Russian uranium.
    And right now, we have been supporting a number of grants 
associated with higher assay low-enriched uranium, or HALEU, to 
support advanced reactors in the future, and have recently seen 
the benefits of that program. We have just recently produced 
the first HALEU.
    Mr. Fallon. What are the cost differentials? Assuming, let 
us say, once we are up and running and we have that economy of 
scale, are we going to be at cost with what we pay the Russians 
currently, or will it be a little cheaper, or will it be a 
little more expensive?
    Dr. Huff. It will be a little more expensive, but it takes 
a little while to build enrichment facilities. It takes a few 
years. And it can take a while because it is mostly capital 
investment. It does not take them a lot of people to operate 
them. It will take a while to recoup the expenses, but once 
they are running, they are an incredible national security 
asset.
    Mr. Fallon. Well, that is the important thing right there.
    Mr. Dorman, advanced reactors offer new technologies, and I 
think really new opportunities as well, but it demands a 
different regulatory structure than traditional reactors. To 
address this, the NRC drafted what is commonly referred to as 
Part 53, which is yet to be finalized. What challenges do you 
feel that the NRC faced and faces in updating regulations for 
emerging technologies, and how does the NRC hope to overcome 
the obstacles that are presented?
    Mr. Dorman. I do not think there is a significant 
challenge, Mr. Chairman, to getting through that rule. We have 
provided a draft proposed to the Commission and are awaiting 
their direction to get into the notice and comment period for 
that proposed rule, and we expect to complete that within the 
NEIMA schedule.
    I think, in the meantime, we expect to have several 
applications for new reactors that will come in under our 
legacy rules of Part 50 and Part 52. And so, for those novel 
technologies, those rules were built and built up over time for 
large light-water reactors, and so there are some areas of 
those that are not applicable. And a key is the preapplication 
discussions we are having with the applicants, and we are 
making sure those are all clearly understood and dealt with 
appropriately in the licensing process.
    Mr. Fallon. Do you think that lowering the cost of 
regulatory compliance ultimately will translate into lower 
energy costs for consumers?
    Mr. Dorman. I think lower regulatory costs will impact the 
cost to consumers because we, as you know, our regulatory costs 
are fee-based, so they do come from the users. But I think they 
are a pretty small fraction of the total cost of operation a 
nuclear power plant, so I do not think that is where the huge 
gains will be.
    Mr. Fallon. Dr. Ortiz, real quickly because I am out of 
time, the Biden Administration has engaged in what is called 
the whole-of-government approach to address climate fears by 
regulating, I think, everything from vehicles that you drive to 
the appliances in your home. Electrifying everything has its 
consequences, of course, and there are growing concerns that 
the system that we have in place is not prepared for the 
increasingly electric future that this Administration 
envisions.
    How does FERC view the role of nuclear power in our 
national energy mix, given, I think, these very real concerns?
    Dr. Ortiz. As I provided in my written testimony, the 
nuclear power fleet has and will continue to be an essential 
component of the electricity generation resource mix in this 
country.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you very much. Very well done.
    The Chair now recognizes Ranking Member Bush for her 
questions.
    Ms. Bush. St. Louis and I are here today to discuss the 
devastating legacy of nuclear waste in our community. As I 
outlined in my opening statement, St. Louis is still grappling 
with the consequences of the Manhattan Project as radioactive 
waste has contaminated Coldwater Creek, a central waterway, and 
the surrounding area. I am concerned about further developing 
nuclear power in this country before its history of radioactive 
contamination is effectively and appropriately addressed in my 
community and others like it. I am especially concerned because 
many of these cleanup sites exist in marginalized Black and 
Brown communities.
    Dr. Huff, I understand that the specific problematic sites 
in my district are now under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps 
because, in 1997, Congress transferred execution of Formerly 
Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program, the FUSRAP program, 
from the Department of Energy to the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency, due to 
complaints of the DOE's longstanding mismanagement of the 
program.
    So, Dr. Huff, the EPA is charged with overseeing the 
cleanup at West Lake Landfill for the exact same reason, due to 
the mismanagement and failure to properly remediate, but we are 
nowhere near completing the task. Though DOE is no longer 
charged with overseeing cleanup, which we have established, 
your agency is still responsible for the financial burden of 
paying to clean up your radioactive waste that you made, 
leftover from the Manhattan Project.
    I understand that there is a unilateral administrative 
order from the EPA, authorizing the use of the judgment fund to 
clean up the West Lake Landfill site that the DOE still has not 
signed.
    Dr. Huff, will the Department of Energy finalize this 
agreement to fund your portion of the EPA's cleanup plan 
through the judgment fund without delay to remediate the area 
containing your radioactive waste at West Lake Landfill?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you.
    Ms. Bush. And I understand this is before your time.
    Dr. Huff. And thank you, Ranking Member. It is also not my 
office. I will take this specific question back, but I do want 
to acknowledge the incredible importance of transparency and 
care with regard to clean up activities. I am proud to be part 
of an Administration that does take energy justice and 
environmental justice very seriously.
    Ms. Bush. OK. And then, so our office will--our team will 
follow up and see if we can get some more information because I 
am just not sure what is preventing this from happening. You 
know, I am just not sure what is preventing the Department of 
Energy signing this document to fund so that we can help save 
lives.
    Dr. Huff, let me ask, given previous concerns with 
appropriately handling nuclear waste disposal, how is the 
Department now ensuring that any new waste is handled and 
disposed of properly?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you so much for this question. I think it 
is incredibly important. You know, I think acknowledging the 
dark legacy of the nuclear weapons complex's handling of 
nuclear materials is a critical component of the way we look 
toward the future of commercial nuclear power, which is 
distinct in terms of how it manages its waste, but has given us 
a number of lessons with regard to how we need to move forward. 
And a critical component is that our approach will be consent 
based in terms of identifying a location where communities are 
both informed and consent to holding that material for the long 
term.
    Right now, the spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear 
power plants is stored safely, but in 70 sites that did not 
agree to hold that material in the long term, it is DOE's 
responsibility to take it off their hands and take title of 
that material. Our approach is to leverage a consent-based 
siting approach that is being leveraged with success in Finland 
and is being leveraged in Canada, that starts by centering the 
needs and concerns of communities.
    That process has begun with $26 million worth of grants to 
community organizations, universities, and private industry to, 
you know, reach out and discuss what it means to be consent 
based, and then we assess that that approach will get us to an 
interim storage facility that can take that material from its 
current locations and consolidate it into a smaller number, 
hopefully one or two.
    Ms. Bush. Well, consent is definitely a good start. 
Consent--we like that.
    As I said earlier, we simply cannot talk about expanding 
the use of nuclear power in the United States while communities 
continue to suffer from the legacy of nuclear waste 
mismanagement. I implore the Biden-Harris Administration and 
the Department of Energy to use every tool in its belt, which I 
know is what you are working on, to first cleanup our 
community. So, if you can pass the word to your colleagues to 
pay attention to the fact that we need this signed, that is a 
step, and to develop a plan to ensure that these mistakes never 
happen again.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Chairman 
Comer for 5 minutes of questions.
    Chairman Comer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Assistant 
Secretary Huff, thank you for visiting my district last year 
during a nuclear conference in Paducah, Kentucky, hosted by the 
Energy Communities Alliance. As you know, the site of the 
former Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plan receives over $240 
million annually from the Uranium Enrichment, Decontamination, 
and Decommissioning Fund for site remediation activities. As 
you heard during your visit, the Paducah community is eager to 
expedite this cleanup, and local officials and community 
leaders have begun planning for reindustrialization and 
economic development at that site.
    Since your visit, the Paducah Chamber of Commerce was 
awarded a DOE grant to develop a reindustrialization roadmap 
for the assets and workforce at the site. This award is 
evidence of the region's united support for pursuing innovative 
ideas to develop advanced nuclear opportunities, and is further 
highlighted by resolutions passed by Ballard and McCracken 
counties and the city of Paducah supporting reindustrialization 
efforts at the site.
    At the state level, a nuclear working group has been 
established to analyze the commonwealth's regulatory 
environment and develop strategies to promote nuclear energy 
development. This working group concluded that there are no 
insurmountable policy barriers to the development of nuclear in 
Kentucky and recommended a permanent nuclear authority to 
advance nuclear causes across the state of Kentucky.
    Assistant Secretary Huff, with all this in mind, what 
opportunities and resources would you recommend to this region 
to aid the development of advanced nuclear opportunities?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you very much, Representative. I am really 
impressed by the leadership of your community in thinking ahead 
in terms of that reindustrialization. I heard a lot about their 
plans, and I think that particular region holds an immense 
amount of resource in their workforce. And when we look to 
equitable transitions for the future of nuclear energy, I want 
to see folks with real expertise in the nuclear space getting 
new jobs in a future of nuclear. And as the cleanup project 
rolls down, those folks with real radiological expertise have 
an opportunity in a variety of fuel cycle activities, 
manufacturing activities, and potentially even the deployment 
of new nuclear reactors, as you have described. Those skills 
that they already have are going to be very valuable in that 
transition.
    Chairman Comer. OK. Assistant Secretary, Global Laser 
Enrichment has a significant interest in partnering with the 
community to develop a commercial-scale facility which can 
supply uranium, conversion, low-enriched uranium, and high-
assay low-enriched uranium. Projects like these are vital to 
turning legacy waste into fuel and creating high-paying jobs 
and economic activity in and around Paducah, Kentucky.
    I understand that DOE recently released a proposal for 
HALEU following the creation of the HALEU Availability Program 
in the Energy Act of 2020. However, I am also aware that DOE 
has $100 million in funding which is yet to be disbursed.
    Can you provide a timeline for when DOE might issue 
additional funding opportunities that could support innovative 
technologies including domestic HALEU production?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you. Indeed, we did release the HALEU RFP 
very recently, and in fact right now, today, we are executing 
basically an industry day to discuss with companies like GLE, 
you know, what we expect from those proposals and how they 
should interpret the details of that funding opportunity. What 
we would like to see, certainly, is a competitive process by 
which the Department of Energy can enter into procurement space 
for high-assay LEU.
    With regard to the next $100 million, you know, Congress 
directed us to use the $700 million from the Inflation 
Reduction Act in a certain way. Some of that money has been 
released through the deconversion request for proposals, some 
is targeted toward the enrichment request for proposals that we 
were just discussing, and some may need to be used for 
transportation and other components.
    Chairman Comer. So, what other opportunities within DOE's 
authority, including public-private partnerships, could the 
Department make available to support the acceleration of these 
types of projects?
    Dr. Huff. Yes, I think ultimately that request for 
proposals is a historic moment in the ability for companies 
like this to compete for the ability to produce material with 
DOE backing, and it could be accelerated by fully funding it 
through the President's supplemental request of $2.16 billion. 
We requested $2.16 billion to support LEU and HALEU enrichment 
expansion as well as conversion expansion, combined with the 
revolving fund, so that the U.S. Department of Energy can 
procure material at a higher premium today that will not appear 
until that capacity is built, and then make it available and 
recover those funds through an availability program. That 
availability program is being stood up through that HALEU RFP, 
but ultimately it will probably need the $2.16 billion 
requested by the supplemental.
    Chairman Comer. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chair now 
recognizes Ms. Brown, from Ohio.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. President Biden and 
Vice President Harris have purposely prioritized energy 
independence over the past 3 years of their Administration. As 
a result of Biden-Harris Administration policies, American 
energy independence was greater in 2022 than at any other time 
over the past seven decades. Yes, that is right. America is 
producing more energy under the Biden-Harris Administration 
than ever before, contrary to what my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle may say.
    This has been possible by way of historic investments from 
legislation like the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the 
Inflation Reduction Act, and the CHIPS and Science Act. In our 
efforts to burn less fossil fuels and become less dependent on 
foreign oil, science shows us nuclear power is a clean, 
competitive, and cost-effective alternative. Nuclear power 
releases just a fraction of the greenhouse gases that coal or 
gas does, while creating a great amount of energy.
    Specifically, I want to touch on the unprecedented 
investments being used to create new American jobs and preserve 
and support safe nuclear facilities through the Civil Nuclear 
Credit Program, a program established in the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law.
    So, Dr. Huff, how will the continued implementation of 
President Biden's Civil Nuclear Credit Program and his 
investment in nuclear energy more broadly help to reach the 
Administration's goal of 100 percent clean electricity by 2035?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you very much, Representative. The Grid 
Deployment Office now administers the Civil Nuclear Credit 
Program, but I am very familiar with it because it started in 
the Office of Nuclear Energy. I will not try to speak to 
details out of turn, but I will say, you know, what has been 
made available enables the existing fleet to continue 
operating, despite the kind of economic challenges that some 
markets place before some of those plants.
    In its first year, DOE has made a conditional grant of $1.1 
billion to Diablo Canyon, which can contribute to keeping that 
plant operating. This is gigawatts of clean power on the grid, 
and keeping existing nuclear reactors open through subsequent 
license renewals that the NRC can provide through their 
licensing process is some of the cheapest clean power we can 
put on the grid. It is much cheaper than building a new nuclear 
reactor, to keep one operating for even longer. And we are 
seeing an opportunity for some reactors that, you know, had an 
initial lifetime estimate of 40 years, going to 60 and even 80 
years.
    So, this is really critical to that zero-carbon grid. We 
have to keep all the reactors running, and the Civil Nuclear 
Credit Program is putting billions of dollars toward it and 
resulting in gigawatts of clean power. Thank you.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you. I would be remiss if, like my 
colleague, Ranking Member Bush, that I did not mention nuclear 
power facilities in the past have been far more likely to be 
placed in close proximity to communities of color than their 
White counterparts. This exposes Black and Brown communities to 
the health and environmental risks presented by nuclear waste, 
which can cause cancer, cardiovascular disease, and more.
    It is especially important as we continue nuclear 
development to ensure consideration of the health and safety of 
the communities which have been overlooked for far too long.
    So, Dr. Huff and Dr. Dorman, how is the Biden-Harris 
Administration ensuring investments in nuclear power do not 
lead to environmental and health risks for minority 
communities?
    Dr. Huff. In DOE, we have included community benefits plans 
as part of our process for new grants, as one example of which 
we are establishing news ways to incorporate the concerns and 
needs of historically underserved and Black and Brown 
communities. This is now part of our granting process.
    And ultimately, too, I think it is important to note, I do 
want to give you comfort about the safety of the nuclear 
industry. You know, our real concern, in terms of deaths per 
terawatt hour, nuclear is very safe compared to most other 
sources. Nuclear is very comparable to wind and solar, where it 
is fewer than one death per decade is attributable to the 
lifecycle of nuclear power.
    But we still want to acknowledge the burdens on underserved 
communities as part of our granting process.
    Mr. Dorman. Congresswoman, the NRC has a longstanding 
program to address environmental justice concerns in our 
licensing and oversight processes, and the Commission tasked 
the staff a couple of years ago to do a comprehensive review of 
our environmental justice program. What while we found that it 
has served us well, we did identify to the Commission 
opportunities to enhance our outreach activities, update our 
policy statement and our environmental justice strategy and to 
assess whether enhancements can be made to how environmental 
justice is addressed in the agreement state application 
process, which applies to our industrial and medical uses. 
Those recommendations are with the Commission. But we are 
committed to environmental justice as a key part of our 
licensing process. Thank you.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you. My time has expired, but I just want 
to say I applaud the Administration's work and remain committed 
in my strong support. And with that I yield back.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes our good 
friend from Florida, Mr. Donalds.
    Mr. Donalds. Thank you, Chairman. Dr. Huff, actually, I 
want to start with you. Your last comment was kind of 
interesting, around deaths associated with power generation 
facilities. Are there more deaths from wind farms than nuclear 
power plants?
    Dr. Huff. A lot of folks have done analyses on these. The 
order of magnitude of lifecycle deaths per terawatt hour is 
really comparable between wind and solar and nuclear. 
Ultimately, some assessments put wind just slightly higher, 
slightly lower than nuclear. I would say the uncertainty bars 
are pretty big, depending on what assumptions you make, but 
they are magnitudes different than unabated pollution-emitting 
sources.
    Mr. Donalds. OK.
    Dr. Huff. Magnitudes slower, sorry, smaller.
    Mr. Donalds. There was a Forbes article that written, maybe 
6, 8 months ago, that stated that in England there were 114 
deaths from wind turbine maintenance, because people fell off 
the turbines trying to maintain them, and there were 0 deaths 
from nuclear power plants. Is that true?
    Dr. Huff. That sounds very aligned with these kinds of 
statistics.
    Mr. Donalds. OK. Mr. Ortiz--Dr. Ortiz, my apologies--the 
nationwide forecast of electricity demand has shot up from 2.6 
percent to 4.7 percent over the next 5 years, as reflected in 
the 2023 FERC filings. With the increase in electricity demands 
can the United States realistically have a reliable electric 
grid and affordable energy prices without nuclear power, both 
conventional and advanced?
    Dr. Ortiz. Well, sir, if you are talking about the next 5 
years it is going to have to include the current nuclear power 
fleet, obviously. Within the Commission's oversight, with 
respect to reliability, the Commission, as I mentioned in my 
testimony, has authority over the operating reliability of the 
electrical grid, but the Federal Power Act reserves for the 
states the choice of electric generating facilities. Within 
that mix of organizations that helps to manage the grid, our 
grid operators are responsible for planning and operating their 
systems to include taking into account appropriate load growth.
    And so, to the degree that load growth is something that is 
a concern--and we heard a significant amount of discussion 
about load growth at our Commission meeting in Portland, 
Oregon, in June--the grid operators are responsible for 
managing their fleets as well as to dispatch, plan ahead and 
dispatch load, effectively to maintain that.
    So, the fact of the matter is, is that going to nuclear 
power, the expectation is that it is going to be there and that 
if future systems are available and deployed, they will be 
there too.
    Mr. Donalds. OK. Dr. Huff, do you believe that energy 
reliability is a prerequisite for energy affordability.
    Dr. Huff. Both that and safety. I think people need 
reliable energy to stay safe, and reliable energy is required 
for affordability as well.
    Mr. Donalds. So, I represent southwest Florida. You know, 
we take in hurricanes all the time. The last one was Hurricane 
Ian. We had Hurricane Irma before that. Do you believe that 
advanced nuclear microreactors can be deployed to assist with 
natural disaster response efforts?
    Dr. Huff. We are really interested in the possibility that 
this could happen. So very small, transportable microreactors 
are being developed, and some of them envision applications 
that could respond to emergencies like that. I think, you know, 
it will depend on licensing by the NRC, but a number of 
companies and concepts are being developed toward that goal. 
Thank you.
    Mr. Donalds. Now bring me to the NRC. Thank you for that 
segue. Mr. Dorman, how can we reduce regulatory risks 
associated with licensing new nuclear technology? Are there any 
nuggets you can provide Members of Congress to help the NRC 
accomplish this goal?
    Mr. Dorman. Thank you, Congressman. We are very engaged 
with about 15 technology developers in what we call pre-
application discussions, and it is critically important that 
these are voluntary engagements, but I think they are helpful 
to both parties in that it helps the developers, many of whom 
do not have experience working with the NRC, to understand----
    Mr. Donalds. OK, Mr. Dorman, not to cut you off but I have 
like 35 seconds. So, is there anything that you can provide 
Members of this Committee, detailed regulatory or statutory 
changes, that can help us do our job on Capitol Hill to give 
you the flexibility you need at the NRC?
    Mr. Dorman. I do not have specific legislation. I think we 
have some things we are working with our Commission on.
    Mr. Donalds. All right. Well, I would love to see that. And 
Mr. Chairman, I think that is something that should be provided 
to the Committee.
    At the end, Mr. Chairman, I would request unanimous consent 
to submit for the record an op-ed titled, ``A Freshwater Future 
Powered by Nuclear Energy: Lessons Learned from Hurricane 
Ian,'' ``Let's Embrace Nuclear,'' ``Nuclear Innovation is Key 
to America's Economic Future,'' ``The Dishonest Fantasy of Wind 
and Solar,'' ``It is Time for America to Unleash Next-
Generation Nuclear Energy,'' ``Why I Am An Advocate for 
Advanced Nuclear Technology,'' and ``What about the Waste?''
    Mr. Fallon. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Donalds. I yield.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Ms. 
Stansbury from New Mexico.
    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I greatly 
appreciate the opportunity to have this hearing today. This is 
an issue that is crucial to New Mexico, to my district, and 
something that the people of my district feel very passionately 
about. And that is because New Mexico has been ground zero for 
our nuclear industry since the beginning of the Manhattan 
Project, and I am sure many of the people in this room saw the 
movie ``Oppenheimer'' this year, which introduced to the world 
New Mexico's crucial role in helping to create our Nation's 
first nuclear weapons. And to this day Sandia National Labs is 
still in my district and plays a critical role in helping to 
maintain our Nation's nuclear arsenal and ensure not only 
domestic but international security. So, it is an issue of 
great interest, both to our national security and to our 
economy and New Mexico's history.
    But what that movie did not tell us about is the dark side 
of that nuclear legacy. As Ranking Member Bush talked about, 
the way in which the Manhattan Project, of course, was spread 
across the United States as part of trying to ensure that it 
was kept a secret. And so, the fuel that was actually enriched 
in Ranking Member Bush's district was mined in New Mexico, and 
that was mined on Tribal lands, and those mines, which operated 
from the 1940's until really the 1980's and 1990's, were 
largely abandoned by the private companies that mined them. And 
guess what? They are still not remediated to this day. And 
there are thousands of people who are living around those 
mines, with nuclear waste coming off of those mines into their 
water systems, into their homes, their wells, poisoning their 
livestock and their family members. The miners who worked in 
those mines never got compensation for the diseases, the 
cancers that they developed.
    And guess what? They also tested the very first nuclear 
bomb. You saw it in ``Oppenheimer.'' But what they did not show 
you is the nuclear fallout that came from that giant mushroom 
cloud, just like what happened in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. But 
guess what? It fell on Americans, in my district, in the 
Tularosa Basin. A mushroom cloud of 200 miles left nuclear 
fallout across rural communities in New Mexico. People said 
that the sky turned dark, and it rained snow on them. Their 
animals died in the following days. And to this day, there are 
thousands of members of people in the communities that I 
represent that experienced cancer, birth defects.
    They are still seeing the legacy, and the United States has 
never apologized. The United States has never provided any kind 
of medical support for the people that they bombed, here in the 
United States. Mr. Oppenheimer helped build the bomb that you 
all saw in that movie this year.
    In addition to that, those labs, of course, became the 
offices that Dr. Huff works at, because after the war the 
potential to transform those weapons of mass destruction into 
opportunities for energy production was recognized, and our 
national labs helped to develop the know-how, the science, and 
the engineering to make it possible to do everything that we 
are talking about right now in this hearing.
    But the waste from that also had to go somewhere, cradle to 
grave. So, not only was it mined in our district, dropped on 
our district, produced in our district, it is now dumped in our 
district. New Mexico has been a dumping ground for nuclear 
waste since the nuclear program began in the 1940's, the WIPP 
site, which was opened in the 1990's.
    And guess what? About 5 years ago, a private company out of 
New Jersey hooked up with some local boosters in southeastern 
New Mexico and saw an opportunity to take advantage of the fact 
that the DOE had not come up with a way to find a permanent 
storage solution for all of this spent nuclear waste. And so, 
they came to New Mexico and said, ``Hey, we want to open a 
nuclear waste dump in your state,'' and New Mexico said, ``No 
thanks.''
    I was serving in the state legislature when the WholeTech 
company came and presented to us their plan for a 20-year 
interim storage facility. They could not answer what they were 
going to do with the nuclear storage after 20 years, when the 
design life of their canisters would begin to melt. And they 
said, ``Well, do not worry about it because by that point we 
will have a permanent storage facility.'' I mean, how long have 
we been trying to license a permanent storage facility?
    But the thing that boggles my mind, and Mr. Chairman, if 
you will please give me the opportunity to ask a couple of 
questions about this, is that we have heard a lot today about 
consent-based siting. But in New Mexico, our Governor 
transmitted a letter to the NRC begging you not to license that 
facility. our state legislature passed a law requiring consent. 
Every single member of the New Mexico congressional delegation 
mailed you a letter at the NRC and said, ``We do not want this 
nuclear waste site in our state.'' Communities surrounding that 
site said, ``We do not consent and do not want this nuclear 
waste facility.'' And yet----
    Mr. Fallon. The gentlelady's time has expired. The 
gentlelady's time has expired. I apologize.
    Ms. Stansbury. Excuse me. Give me one moment, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Fallon. No. Your time has expired.
    Ms. Stansbury. The NRC----
    Mr. Fallon. Your time has expired. Votes have been moved 
up. Your time has expired.
    Ms. Stansbury. The NRC----
    Mr. Fallon. I give you----
    Ms. Stansbury [continuing]. Licensed----
    Mr. Fallon. The gentlelady is not recognized.
    Ms. Stansbury. Let me finish my sentence.
    Mr. Fallon. No. The gentlelady is not recognized.
    Ms. Stansbury. The NRC licensed----
    Mr. Fallon. The Chair recognizes Mr. Fry----
    Ms. Stansbury [continuing]. A nuclear facility----
    Mr. Fallon [continuing]. For 5 minutes.
    Ms. Stansbury [continuing]. In New Mexico in May of last 
year, against our dissent, and we are----
    Mr. Fallon. You are out of order.
    Ms. Stansbury [continuing]. Not OK with that.
    Mr. Fallon. You are out of order, completely out of order.
    Ms. Stansbury. You know what? It is out of order to dump 
nuclear waste----
    Mr. Fallon. I agree, but you are out of order.
    Ms. Stansbury [continuing]. In our communities. OK.
    Mr. Fallon. You did not remove one bit of nuclear waste by 
being out of order here.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Fry.
    Ms. Stansbury. So, we would like to ask the NRC to 
revisit----
    Mr. Fallon. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Fry.
    Ms. Stansbury [continuing]. This decision because it is 
crucial to the future of our communities and our country.
    Mr. Fallon. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Fry.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Dorman, my home state 
of South Carolina is a leader in nuclear energy with over 55 
percent of electricity generation coming from a nuclear plant, 
and my congressional district is home to Duke Energy's Robinson 
Nuclear Plant, which generates about enough electricity to 
power half a million homes and employs 600 people in rural 
South Carolina. Duke Energy submitted an NRC application to 
renew Robinson's operating license for another 20 years, and I 
am hopeful that the plant meets all of the NRC requirements for 
approval. The electricity, high-paying jobs, and local tax base 
of the facility are so important to Hartsville, South Carolina, 
and the surrounding area.
    Are you able to provide me with an update regarding their 
relicensing?
    Mr. Dorman. Congressman, I would be happy to get you a 
specific update on that. When we receive an application like 
that, we communicate a schedule and a level of resource to the 
applicant on when we expect to complete that review, and we 
would be happy to get that information to you.
    Mr. Fry. What is the timeframe in which they have to 
operate, or the timeframe that they would be looking at for 
review?
    Mr. Dorman. We are working to get that down to 18 months 
for those reviews. We did get a higher number of applications 
than we anticipated, and that strained some of our resources, 
but we are working to get that back to 18 months.
    Mr. Fry. What is the current average right now?
    Mr. Dorman. I think it is around 22 months.
    Mr. Fry. Twenty-two months? OK. Thank you for that. I do 
appreciate that.
    Dr. Huff, the U.S. recently led a coalition of nations to 
pledge to triple their nuclear power capacity by 2050. With the 
nuclear waste generated by this goal in mind, do you and the 
Office of Nuclear Energy see the development of domestic 
nuclear recycling technology as vital to our country's nuclear 
future?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you very much, Congressman. While the 
United States does not currently encourage commercial 
reprocessing, we continue to do research and development to 
explore options and advance fuel cycle options as the 
technology and economics evolve.
    A critical component of this certainly is the development 
of advanced reactors with high-assay LEU fuel. The resulting 
spent nuclear fuel from some of these reactor concepts may have 
much more value in a recycling scenario and change the 
economics of recycling in the longer-term future.
    So, this is something we are very aware of. I am working 
very closely with my colleagues in the National Nuclear 
Security Administration to ensure that we have a coherent 
strategy with regard to how we approach that research, to 
ensure the highest levels of safety, security, and safeguards 
around recycling options for our future nuclear fleet.
    Mr. Fry. Did you say that you do not see that in the 
commercial setting? What do you mean by that?
    Dr. Huff. So, in the National Security Memorandum 19, the 
President's policy is set out to say that we do not currently 
encourage commercial reprocessing. This does not say that we 
will discourage it or that we would either discourage or 
encourage Federal reprocessing.
    Mr. Fry. But you do see the recycling as part of the 
nuclear future, given the lofty goals set by----
    Dr. Huff. Yes, we continue in DOE to do research and 
development, to find options that will meet economic and 
technical challenges.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you. What steps has the NRC taken to modify 
the licensing process, and how will these modifications help to 
streamline the construction of reactors?
    Mr. Dorman. For reactors--now we are switching subjects? 
So, for reactors, over the last several years we have adopted 
what we call a ``core team'' concept. We have added data 
analytics to our licensing process to make sure that we are 
tracking to the schedules and budgets that we are telling 
applicants when we receive their application. We have had 
success with that, most recently with the Kairos molten salt-
cooled demonstration reactor, a 30-megawatt reactor in 
Tennessee, for which we issued the construction permit last 
month. The staff completed their safety and environmental 
reviews on budget and ahead of schedule.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you. And Dr. Huff, this might be for you. 
Considering the Department's recent efforts in the research and 
technology that you talked about, what stands out to you as 
having the highest potential return on investment?
    Dr. Huff. Well, I think development of new reactors of a 
variety of sizes is really important, and I especially am 
interested in seeing the deployment of nuclear reactors in 
place of retiring and retired coal sites. I think this targets 
workforces that need to transition equitably, and it allows us 
to use resources like the transmission grid that goes to those 
coal sites.
    Ultimately, too, I think it is important to note that the 
radiation exposure to individuals living outside of an 
operating coal plant is higher than the radiation exposure to 
any individual living outside of a nuclear power plant because 
of the strict safety regulations by which those reactors 
operate.
    And so, I would love to see transitions for coal plants to 
nuclear plants. That is where the biggest benefit lies.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 
Timely.
    Mr. Fallon. Timely. Five minutes. That is not the 
Representative Fry show.
    The Chair now recognizes----
    Ms. Bush. That was unnecessary.
    Mr. Fallon. Well, you know what was unnecessary? Two and a 
half minutes----
    Ms. Bush. You went over.
    Mr. Fallon. and yes, and I gave her 30 seconds. Not 2 
minutes. The Chair recognizes Ms. Norton from D.C.
    Ms. Norton. I thank the Chair. I would like to use my time 
to discuss two bills pending in Congress. One bill, introduced 
by a Republican on this Committee, would require a feasibility 
study on incorporating an advanced nuclear reactor in the 
Capitol Power Plant at the U.S. Capitol Complex. Not only is 
placing a nuclear reactor in the U.S. Capitol Complex a danger 
to national security, it is a danger to my constituents, here 
in D.C., in this densely populated city. I strongly oppose this 
bill.
    The other bill, the Nuclear Weapons Abolition and 
Conversion Act, would require that beginning on the date that 
the President certifies to Congress that all countries 
possessing nuclear weapons have begun the verifiable and 
irreversible elimination of these weapons under the Treaty on 
the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, the United States then 
direct resources that are being used for nuclear weapons 
programs to address the climate crisis and human infrastructure 
needs, such as housing, health care, and restoring the 
environment.
    Monday is the third anniversary of the Treaty entering into 
effect, and 70 countries have ratified the treaty, and another 
27 are in the process of ratifying it.
    In 1993, the District of Columbia peace activists were 
successful in getting a ballot initiative in the District of 
Columbia passed that called for nuclear disarmament. Every 
Congress since then, I have introduced a bill based on that 
initiative, including this bill.
    In March 1919, the D.C. Council passed a Sense of the 
Council resolution urging the United States to approve the 
treaty. D.C. residents were early prescient leaders on this 
important issue, which has become all the more important with 
the current wars in Ukraine and the Middle East.
    I am very pleased that the bill is endorsed by several 
major national and international organizations.
    I yield the balance of my time.
    Mr. Fallon. That is extra timely. Thank you.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. LaTurner from Kansas.
    Mr. LaTurner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
    Dr. Huff, given that the United States purchases a quarter 
of its supply of enriched uranium from Russia, how long do you 
estimate it will take to eliminate our reliance on Russia for 
nuclear energy fuel, and to what extent is that timeline 
influenced by research and development investments?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you very much, Congressman, for this 
question. You know, it is challenging to make precise 
estimates, but it will take a few years to buildup the 
capacity, and that is really where the timeline lies. During 
that time, if there is a complete disruption of Russian 
material into the United States then utilities will need to 
draw down their resources and find alternative supplies from 
our allies and partners abroad, of which, of course, there is 
some capacity, but it is limited.
    Through my role we have been very careful to ensure some 
partnership with what we are calling the Sapporo 5--the United 
States, the U.K., Japan, France, and Canada--our partner to 
ensure that there is an engagement on reliable fuel supply 
during that time.
    But 3 to 4 years right now is the estimate of how long it 
could take for enrichment capacity to stand up, but we are 
actually awaiting proposals from private industry that will 
give us more information. We have released a request for 
proposals regarding high-assay low-enriched uranium, but it 
includes the standing up of new capacity for low-enriched 
uranium on the way to that high-assay low-enriched uranium. It 
should give us more information. And $2.16 billion in the 
supplemental request from the President certainly would give us 
an opportunity to further that. Thank you.
    Mr. LaTurner. I appreciate that. I will stick with you. One 
of the concerns that I frequently have with respect to energy 
environmental policy at the administrative level is that the 
right hand never seems to know what the left hand is doing. 
There is a perceived lack of coordination between agencies and 
among specific offices within those agencies at times.
    Can you describe what interagency communication steps you 
take to ensure that our energy goals can coexist with our 
national security, grid stability, and economic environmental 
goals?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you so much for this question, Congressman. 
I have been really lucky to have a lot of engagements with the 
National Security Council, and especially with my counterparts 
in the National Nuclear Security Administration. Through 
interagency policy committee engagements, of course, the NRC 
plays a key role in those conversations, especially in the 
context of the deployment of nuclear reactors, the export of 
nuclear reactor technology, and, of course, ambitions with 
regard to expansion of nuclear fuel capacity. Thank you.
    Mr. LaTurner. The Government Accountability Office and 
Congress have previously raised concerns that despite all the 
administrative and legislative initiatives to support the 
domestic development of nuclear fuel there seems to be room for 
improvement at DOE, both in the budgeting of funds and in 
providing a credible audit of the Administration's estimates 
for future industry demands.
    Can you address these concerns and explain how DOE is 
working to develop a clear-cut strategy for uranium management?
    Dr. Huff. Yes. Thanks very much. So, the uranium equities 
across the Department abroad, and include other offices such as 
environmental management, inventories, and NSA's inventories, 
and of course, the interests of the civil nuclear sector, which 
is more the concern of my office, we, in development of the 
uranium strategy that has led to estimates in the supplemental 
request by the Biden Administration incorporated a great deal 
of input from industry that currently operates our nuclear 
reactors in this country and industry that intends to build new 
reactors.
    We have engaged an independent contractor to conduct direct 
assessment of the inventories available as well, and, of 
course, we have historic knowledge from the running of, for 
example, the United States Enrichment Corporation in the past.
    Mr. LaTurner. Thank you, Doctor.
    Mr. Dorman, do you feel that cybersecurity requirements 
have a compliance cost that delay the rollout of advanced 
reactor technologies?
    Mr. Dorman. Thank you, Congressman. I would not say a 
delay. We have established, about 15 years ago, cybersecurity 
performance-based requirements that can be applied to any 
technology. So, the key is just any new technology coming in 
needs to an appropriate assessment of what their critical 
digital assets are that could affect safety, security, and 
emergency preparedness and apply those requirements to their 
program.
    Mr. LaTurner. Can you speak to the comparative advantages 
of nuclear versus other generation sources? Briefly, because I 
am going to run out of time.
    Mr. Dorman. So, NRC does not typically do that because our 
role is not the promotion. So, we are assessing the safety and 
security. But we do recognize that in the national policy arena 
and in the national strategic international arena the interest 
from both the climate change and the energy security 
standpoint, and we are, as Dr. Huff indicated, partnering with 
the National Security Council and with the Administration in 
supporting some of those international aspects as well.
    Mr. LaTurner. Thank you all very much for being here. I 
yield back.
    Mr. Fallon. The Chair now recognizes our friend from New 
York, Mr. Williams.
    Mr. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
inviting me to participate today. This is a wonderful 
opportunity for me.
    Before I get started, I would like to ask for consent to 
enter into the record the ``Rebalancing of America's Energy 
Investment Strategy,'' a policy paper that I wrote.
    Mr. Fallon. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Williams. Thank you.
    Dr. Huff, thank you for your expert--for devoting your 
service to the government and bringing all your expertise. You 
and I have had many opportunities to talk, so I am going to 
focus on these two, if I may.
    Mr. Dorman, you and I come from the same place, same 
training, same background. When we talk about the cost of the 
regulatory environment for nuclear, particularly as it goes 
forward, picking up on Mr. Donalds' question about what policy 
actions can we take, can you talk about addressing the 
limitations that come from ALARA, as low as reasonably 
achievable, for radiation exposure and particularly using the 
linear no-threshold model for radiation exposure. You and I 
both have had extensive training in that.
    Mr. Dorman. Thank you, Congressman. So ALARA, ``as low as 
reasonably achievable,'' is, as you know, a requirement in Part 
20 that addresses how a company or anybody operating a nuclear 
facility, not just nuclear power plant----
    Mr. Williams. I am familiar with it. Do you mind talking 
about, you know, can we move beyond ALARA to get some 
reasonable radiation limits that might actually lower the costs 
and speed along the regulatory process?
    Mr. Dorman. So, I think ALARA has embedded in, the R is 
``reasonable.'' So, the question is, what is reasonable. You 
mentioned the linear no-threshold. That is the prevailing 
theory on the effects of low doses of radiation.
    Mr. Williams. We have 100 years of experience with 
radiation. I mean, Madame Curie maybe overdid it a bit, but we 
have learned a lot in 100 years. So, how can we move past this 
to get to a reasonable framework?
    Mr. Dorman. So, I think that is going to involve a 
substantial dialog around the linear no-threshold. There are 
other theories that are out there, and the Commission has 
longstanding commitment to the linear no-threshold theory.
    Mr. Williams. Let us put a target on that because just with 
that one we could dramatically change the cost structure of 
nuclear without, in any way, shape, or form, changing the risks 
to the population.
    I would just point out, when you talk about the amount of 
fees that go into an approval process, I agree with you. Those 
are de minimis compared to the costs. But any kind of changes 
in reviews halt production and can often create very, very 
costly delays.
    Is the NRC using physics-based modeling, computer 
simulations? It seems like we have vastly better tools than 
slide rules like we did in the 1950's.
    Mr. Dorman. We do have vastly better tools, and part of our 
key partnership under NEICA, another act, with the Department 
of Energy is to access particularly the data that they have 
relative some of the technologies that are novel to the NRC, 
like molten salts and high-temperature gases, making sure that 
our computer models take advantage of that data and are 
appropriately updated to reflect that. So, we are using the 
best science when we are evaluating an application.
    Mr. Williams. Another good example of the use of DOE and 
the work that they do. Just because I am Chairman of the Energy 
Subcommittee on Science, Space, and Technology does not reflect 
on my championing of their cause.
    Dr. Ortiz, can you briefly explain to me the difference 
between--as it relates to the grid, any definition of the grid 
that you want to apply--the difference between resilience and 
reliability.
    Dr. Ortiz. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. I 
appreciate it. So, reliability is defined, you know, although I 
am engineer, the Commission is largely a legal organization, so 
reliability is defined legally as the operating the 
transmission system to prevent cascading outages, and that is 
the framework around reliability that we have.
    Mr. Williams. That is very helpful. But resilience, how is 
that different?
    Dr. Ortiz. So, resilience is defined in a number of 
different areas, and there is not an official definition the 
Commission uses. But typically, resilience is thought of as the 
ability to withstand an extreme event and then to recover from 
to the degree that----
    Mr. Williams. Thank you. If you were to create two columns, 
nuclear power in one column, wind and solar in the other, which 
one provides more resilience and more reliability, wind and 
solar or nuclear?
    Dr. Ortiz. I think that is going to depend on the situation 
when applying that.
    Mr. Williams. Oh, come on. You are an engineer. I am an 
engineer. Come on.
    Dr. Ortiz. Actually----
    Mr. Williams. So intermittent power, you say, has the same 
qualities of resilience and reliability as----
    Dr. Ortiz. Well, the ability to----
    Mr. Williams [continuing]. Nuclear and sustainable. Is that 
what you are saying? That is your expert opinion?
    Dr. Ortiz. It is the ability to recover from, right. So, a 
nuclear power----
    Mr. Williams. I understand a black startup. I mean, I know 
what you are saying. But you are not going to do a black 
startup in a wind storm with wind turbines. They are not going 
to help you.
    Dr. Ortiz. No, but----
    Mr. Williams. It is dispatchable power----
    Dr. Ortiz [continuing]. But curiously, though, there have 
been several tests of batteries for black starts, so it is 
feasible. There are different solutions here.
    Mr. Williams. I was the battery officer on a nuclear 
submarine. I would love to see that. Thank you. I yield back. 
My time has expired.
    Mr. Fallon. The Chair now recognizes Ranking Member Bush 
for a closing statement.
    Ms. Bush. Chair Fallon, you said at the start of the 
hearing that our staffs are in communication about my request 
for a field hearing in St. Louis on the devastating legacy of 
improperly stored nuclear waste, but it is my understanding 
your staff has not yet gotten back to us on this request that 
is at least, you know, a few weeks old. I did not bring it up 
in this hearing because you said no. I brought it up in this 
hearing because there was no response. I would like a response.
    So, if you are serious about accountability and proper 
storage of waste that continues to be generated to produce 
nuclear power, hold a hearing about the continuing failure of 
the Federal Government to protect its own people from toxic 
waste it created and improperly disposed of in St. Louis and 
elsewhere.
    Yet again, I am requesting this field hearing in St. Louis 
on the Manhattan Project. As you know, Chair Fallon, I sent you 
and your team a trove of information. We made a public request 
in the last Subcommittee hearing. There has been no response. 
And again, there has been no response.
    We have got a 300 percent increase in cancer in children in 
my district. That should be enough to warrant a field hearing, 
not hearing that other folks, you know, nobody else has had a 
field hearing yet. I made a request, I gave the information, 
and I deserve at least some type of response, the respect from 
my colleague to respond. And it is not just my district and 
Rep. Stansbury's district that are impacted. A total of seven 
Members of the Oversight and Accountability Committee have 
these sites in or near their districts--Rep. Brown, Rep. Mfume, 
Rep. Summer Lee, Rep. Goldman, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, Rep. 
Langworthy, and Rep. Jim Jordan. It impacts so many of us and 
our constituents. We owe it to them.
    Will you hold a field hearing on the lasting and unsolved 
legacy of nuclear waste in our communities? This issue is so 
urgent, and I will keep raising it until I get a conclusive 
answer. This is not partisan. This is about everyone. It is 
about humanity. I am asking for a response. It is not hard. 
This is not adversarial. I am speaking out for my community. If 
I was Chair, I would have it myself. I am not Chair. I am 
Ranking Member. I am asking this of my Chair.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. Actually, I have an email from staff 
talking to them about this hearing and then the staff, one of 
your staff members said that it was great to hear that we were 
going to have this hearing, and this would be within the scope. 
Again, this Subcommittee has not had one field hearing yet, at 
all, in the year that we have been--we have not had one field 
hearing in this Subcommittee.
    OK. So, this is not from your staff, right here? That is 
not somebody that works for you?
    Ms. Bush. Where is the answer.
    Mr. Fallon. This is the response to this.
    Ms. Bush. Yes. We want an answer.
    Mr. Fallon. OK. OK. We do not want to get over----
    Ms. Bush. Yes or no?
    Mr. Fallon. OK. So, first of all, I am sorry that our 
friend from New Mexico left, but I wish that the Democratic 
administration of Harry Truman did not let off a nuclear bomb 
in her state, but unfortunately that did happen.
    You know, the thing that gets me about that is I try to be 
very, very fair and attentive to time, and if we go over 20 
seconds, I will make sure the opposing party has their 20 
seconds, or whatever it is.
    But just because, you know, when people want to claim moral 
high grounds and virtue signal because they are outraged, they 
do not get to say whatever they want, wherever they want, for 
however long they want. We have a decorum, and we have rules, 
and it is unfortunate.
    And then you have got folks on the left, and particular the 
far left, that say, ``We do not want any more fossil fuels at 
all. We do not want oil, heating oil, natural gas, diesel fuel, 
clean coal.'' And now some say even, ``We do not want nuclear 
power either.'' Well, that leaves hydro and wind and solar, 
which is terribly inadequate for our energy needs, and it is 
living in a fantasy world and not being practical. I know it 
sounds good to college students who are 19, that say let us 
just invest in solar, and let us invest in wind, and we will 
all ride our unicorns to the rainbows and talk to the 
leprechauns and be generating--you know, it is just not a 
reality.
    I would like to live within the bounds of reality and do 
what is best for this country and not what is best for China 
and our other adversaries and governments that have absolutely 
no legitimacy because they were not elected by their own 
people. They rule by the barrel and force of a gun.
    So, I want to thank your witnesses for coming today and 
having this conversation on nuclear energy sites.
    You know, historically, our Nation has never had a 
comprehensive solution for nuclear waste disposal. That is 
something that is an issue here. And I do not think any 
rational person would want to dispose of nuclear waste 
improperly. Unfortunately, that has happened in the past. But 
implementing a centralized spent fuel facility is by far the 
easiest way to streamline fuel storage regulation logistics and 
ensure nuclear material is handled in the utmost security and 
care. And as sobering as it is to hear about the hurdles 
communities must address today, due to mismanaged spent fuel 
storage from decades ago, it is even more sobering to 
acknowledge that we are no closer to a centralized nuclear 
waste repository than we were when nuclear power generation was 
only a theory.
    But that does not mean that a permanent solution cannot 
exist. It can. In fact, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, 
which was amended in 1987, identifies Yucca Mountain, Nevada as 
the sole site for a permanent nuclear waste repository. But 
after localized political outcry, construction of Yucca 
Mountain ceased, and progress on a centralized nuclear waste 
repository shuttered, despite spending $15 billion in Federal 
funds, and that $15 billion was a heck of a lot more then in 
relation to what it would be now in real dollars.
    So, the irony is that in refusing to choose a centralized 
location, Yucca Mountain, critics forced companies to keep 
spent fuel in what was supposed to be interim storage solutions 
at over 70 nuclear sites in 35 states. Some of this fuel has 
been in, quote/unquote, ``temporary storage'' for over 40 
years, and because the Federal Government is in direct 
violation of Federal law, as of 2020, taxpayers have paid the 
owners of nuclear power plants over $9 billion in damages for 
costs associated with storing the used fuel. Instead of 
complying with the law, however, the U.S. Government has 
decided to turn the simplest nuclear waste storage solution, 
quite literally, into a $15 billion money pit in the desert.
    But as a reminder, nuclear fuel is remarkably energy dense. 
So, get this. Of all the spent fuel the United States has 
produced since the 1950's, it could fit in a single football 
field, stacked less than 10 yards deep. That is an acre, an 
acre. One thing we have in this country is a lot of land, 
particularly when you get west of the Mississippi, a lot of 
open spaces. That is the perfect place to store it. Now, I get 
it. Nobody wants to be near it. That is why you put it where 
nobody really lives around it. And advancements in technology 
can recycle up to 90 percent of the spent nuclear fuel.
    So, I think--well, I would hope, anyway--both sides of the 
aisle can find common ground and, you know what, common sense, 
live within the bounds of reality, regarding the need to 
safeguard our nuclear fuel supply chain and ensure safe, clean, 
and baseload power generation for the electric grid. By 
onshoring as much of the uranium supply chain as possible, we 
can help usher in the next generation of advanced nuclear 
reactors and strengthen national security at the same time.
    I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today, 
and I hope Congress continues to discuss ways in which America 
can remain the global leader in nuclear technology and 
advancement.
    And I just want to take a point of privilege as the Chair 
to recognize a new intern for the Oversight Committee. It is 
Haley Sorrell. And Haley was a scholarship soccer player at the 
University of Georgia.
    And this is just simply about fighting for what you believe 
in. In the summer of 2020, her soccer team had decided and 
agreed that they were all going to kneel for the National 
Anthem. That was their choice. As Americans, you can choose to 
stand, you can choose to put your hand over your heart, or you 
can choose to kneel. That is the beauty of America. She told 
her team that she was standing. She was the only one that was 
going to stand, and she was cajoled for weeks, and she stood. 
And the day she stood, eight other girls on that soccer team 
decided to stand as well. It is about fighting for what you 
believe in.
    And with that, and without objection, all Members have 5 
legislative days within which to submit materials and 
additional written questions for the witnesses, which will be 
forwarded to the witnesses.
    If there is no further business, without objection the 
Subcommittee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 3:34 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]