[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]