[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY,
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
December 11, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-99
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
92-332 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
RALPH M. HALL, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
Wisconsin DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia DAN MAFFEI, New York
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
MO BROOKS, Alabama JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois SCOTT PETERS, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana DEREK KILMER, Washington
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas AMI BERA, California
BILL POSEY, Florida ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut
CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming MARC VEASEY, Texas
DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona JULIA BROWNLEY, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ROBIN KELLY, Illinois
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota KATHERINE CLARK, Massachusetts
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
RANDY WEBER, Texas
CHRIS COLLINS, New York
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
------
Subcommittee on Energy
HON. CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming, Chair
RALPH M. HALL, Texas
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma ERIC SWALWELL, California
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois MARC VEASEY, Texas
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ZOE LOFGREN, California
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
RANDY WEBER, Texas KATHERINE CLARK, Massachusetts
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
C O N T E N T S
December 11, 2014
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Cynthia Lummis, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 6
Written Statement............................................ 7
Statement by Representative Eric Swalwell, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 8
Written Statement............................................ 9
Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 9
Written Statement............................................ 10
Witnesses:
Panel I
The Honorable Peter Lyons, Assistant Secretary, Office of Nuclear
Energy, U.S. Department of Energy
Oral Statement............................................... 11
Written Statement............................................ 13
Discussion....................................................... 21
Panel II
Dr. Ashley Finan, Senior Project Manager, Energy Innovation
Project, Clean Air Task Force
Oral Statement............................................... 37
Written Statement............................................ 40
Mr. Mike McGough, Chief Commercial Officer, NuScale Power
Oral Statement............................................... 47
Written Statement............................................ 49
Dr. Leslie Dewan, Co-founder and Chief Executive Officer,
Transatomic Power
Oral Statement............................................... 60
Written Statement............................................ 62
Mr. Daniel Lipman, Executive Director, Policy Development,
Nuclear Energy Institute
Oral Statement............................................... 66
Written Statement............................................ 68
Discussion....................................................... 81
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
The Honorable Peter Lyons, Assistant Secretary, Office of Nuclear
Energy, U.S. Department of Energy.............................. 86
Dr. Ashley Finan, Senior Project Manager, Energy Innovation
Project, Clean Air Task Force.................................. 88
Mr. Mike McGough, Chief Commercial Officer, NuScale Power........ 90
Dr. Leslie Dewan, Co-founder and Chief Executive Officer,
Transatomic Power.............................................. 92
Mr. Daniel Lipman, Executive Director, Policy Development,
Nuclear Energy Institute....................................... 93
THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY
----------
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2014
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Cynthia
Lummis [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Lummis. The hearing of the Subcommittee on
Energy will come to order.
Good morning and welcome to today's joint hearing titled
``The Future of Nuclear Energy.'' In front of each Member are
packets containing the written testimony, biographies, and
truth-in-testimony disclosures for today's witnesses.
And before I give an opening statement, I would like to say
that it has been my pleasure for the past two years to serve on
a Committee that is Chaired by one of the most distinguished
Members of Congress who has been the type of Chairman that
every Member of Congress hopes that they will have the
opportunity to serve with and under. Lamar Smith is a
gentleman's gentleman and has been one of the most wonderful
people that a Subcommittee Chairman could have the opportunity
to tutor under.
This Committee has conducted I believe 87 hearings during
the course of the last two years under Chairman Smith's
leadership and we have done it in a manner that has been
respectful, that has sought information, allowed us to be
better advocates and more knowledgeable Members of Congress.
So I would like to start before I give my opening statement
to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Smith for his
leadership, his mentorship, and for his many years in Congress
from which all of us who have worked with him and under him
have benefited.
Mr. Weber. Will the gentlelady yield?
Chairwoman Lummis. I will yield.
Mr. Weber. I have got to get ahead of our Chairman here. I
just want to say ditto.
Chairman Smith. You all are nice. Would the Chair yield
just for a minute?
Chairwoman Lummis. The Chair will yield.
Chairman Smith. I just want to thank Cynthia Lummis for
being an outstanding Subcommittee Chairman. We will miss her
but always support her in her other committee assignments. And
she has not only been an outstanding Chair, she has been an
outstanding Member of Congress. She is knowledgeable, she is
conscientious, she is thoughtful, she is diplomatic, but she is
also strong, and those qualities have made Cynthia Lummis one
of the outstanding Members of Congress that we have today.
So, Cynthia, thank you very much for all you have done and
thanks for spreading good rumors about me.
Chairwoman Lummis. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Members of this Committee which will participate under
your leadership during the next Congress are fortunate indeed
to have you as their leader and mentor.
Well, good morning. And I would like to welcome our
witnesses for today's hearing. Today, we will look at the track
record and road forward for research and development within
DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy. We will also look at the
progress of nuclear energy technology in the United States and
the regulatory environment for licensing new reactors.
Nuclear power currently accounts for approximately 19
percent of the United States' electricity generation and 60
percent of our emission-free electricity. And my home State of
Wyoming is the nation's largest producer of uranium. Nuclear
energy is reliable, resilient, and has safely powered America
for decades.
But the fundamental questions about the future of this
technology need to be answered: When will we see the
commercialization of small modular nuclear reactors that can be
deployed at off-grid locations, something of particular
interest I might say from me coming from the most sparsely
populated state in the United States. When will we see
deployment of advanced reactors that can reach much higher
levels of thermal efficiency, recycle nuclear waste, and serve
as hybrid energy systems? And what are the regulatory and
market barriers slowing down progress of these technologies in
the United States?
As many of us know, the time frame for bringing a nuclear
reactor online is unforgivably long and so we must work
together to make sure that we can make it more time-sensitive.
Nuclear energy was born in the United States. We have the
best scientists and engineers in the world. We are fortunate to
have some of them here today. Yet we are not seeing the pace of
commercial technology advancement that we would expect. At the
same time, other countries, including China, are surging ahead.
We have to ask ourselves: Is the United States going to
remain a global leader in nuclear technology? These are the
issues that we want to discuss today. I look forward to further
discussion and again, I thank the witnesses for participating
in today's hearing.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Lummis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee on Energy
Chairwoman Cynthia Lummis
Good morning. I would like to welcome our witnesses to today's
hearing. Today, we will look at the track record and road forward for
research and development within DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy. We will
also look at the progress of nuclear energy technology in the United
States and the regulatory environment for licensing new reactors.
Nuclear power currently accounts for approximately 19% the United
States' electricity generation and 60% of our emission-free
electricity. And, my home state of Wyoming is the nation's largest
producer of uranium. Nuclear energy is a reliable, resilient, and has
safely powered America for decades.
But, fundamental questions about the future of this technology need
to be answered:
When will we see the commercialization of small modular
reactors that can be deployed at offgrid locations?
When will we see deployment of advanced reactors that can
reach much higher levels of thermal efficiency, recycle nuclear waste,
and serve as hybrid energy systems?
What are the regulatory and market barriers slowing down
progress of these technologies in the United States?
Nuclear energy was born in the United States. We have the best
scientists and engineers in the world. Yet, we are not seeing the pace
of commercial technology advancement that we would expect. At the same
time, other countries including China are surging ahead.
We have to ask ourselves: is the United States going to remain a
global leader in nuclear technology? These are the issues we intend to
discuss today. I look forward to further discussion and again, I thank
the witnesses for participating in today's hearing.
Chairwoman Lummis. The Chair now recognizes our Ranking
Member Mr. Swalwell for his opening statement.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Chairman Lummis.
And first, I would also like to express my good wishes for
you going forward. I have enjoyed working with you. You were
very kind early on when we both were selected to lead our
respective sides on this Subcommittee. And we met and we have
talked about what our mutual interests are, I think especially
in an all-of-the-above energy approach I do think you have led
this Committee every time with an open mind, with dignity, and
it is something that I will miss. But I know that there are
many great things ahead for what you will do and the work you
will accomplish in the Congress.
So thank you for just being so gracious. Even during
contentious hearings, you never ceased to allow both sides to
be heard and you were always open, I think, to whatever ideas
were out there that could move our country forward and I really
do appreciate that.
Chairwoman Lummis. Thank you. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Swalwell. Yes.
Chairwoman Lummis. I, too, want to acknowledge what a
proper and important and dignified and lovely working
relationship that I have had with the Ranking Member Mr.
Swalwell. It has been a breath of fresh air. And we are good
partners on this Committee and I have very much enjoyed our
working relationship and my very best to you.
Mr. Swalwell. And, Chair, I will never forget you asked me
one time during a meeting--I told you I believe when it comes
to energy if we can make it safe, we should make it happen, and
you looked me in the eye and you said do you really believe
that? And I said yes, I do. And you said I am going to put the
screws to you on that and hold you to that and you have, and I
appreciate that. And I hope we can find more ways where we both
believe we can make it safe, we can make it happen.
And speaking of making it safe and making it happen, with
respect to today's hearing, for decades, the federal government
has provided critical support for energy R&D. And from solar
and wind to natural gas recovery, many of the technologies that
are helping us transition to a clean energy economy and
creating entire new industries wouldn't be nearly as far along
as they are today, or would not exist without the benefit of
the partnerships between the federal government and public and
semi-public partnerships and entities.
I look forward to learning more today about nuclear energy,
particularly from our witness from NuScale power, who we will
be hearing from today, who has been working with Sandia
National Laboratory, which is located in Livermore, California,
in the 15th Congressional District, which I have the privilege
to represent.
This morning we are here to discuss the federal role in the
development and deployment of the next generation of nuclear
power plants and how this support may be better structured
going forward. I am eager to learn about the costs and benefits
of these new technologies over the course of the hearing,
including ways we can improve the safety of new reactors to
minimize the chance of another catastrophic event along the
lines of the disaster that occurred at the Fukushima plant just
a few years ago.
I have stated a number of times that I just referenced that
I believe and support an all-of-the-above ``if we can make it
safe, we should make it happen'' approach to clean energy, and
achieving a safer, more cost-effective and environmentally
friendly way to utilize nuclear energy, and how that can play
an important role in this mix. We just need to make sure that
we are making the smartest investments we can with our limited,
challenged resources and that they are in the best interest of
the American people.
Again, I want to thank the witnesses, particularly Dr.
Lyons, today for being willing to provide their insights. I
look forward to working with my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle and with all of the stakeholders in this critical,
critical area moving forward.
Again, thank you, Chairman Lummis, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Swalwell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee on Energy
Ranking Minority Member Eric Swalwell
Thank you Chairman Lummis for holding this hearing, and I also want
to thank this excellent panel of witnesses for their testimony and for
being here today.
For decades, the federal government has provided critical support
for energy R&D. From solar and wind energy to natural gas recovery,
many of the technologies that are helping us transition to a clean
energy economy and creating entire new industries wouldn't be nearly as
far along as they are today, or would not exist at all, without the
benefit of federal support and public-private partnerships. The same
certainly holds true for nuclear energy and in fact, NuScale Power, who
we'll be hearing from today, has been working with Sandia National
Laboratories.
This morning we are here to discuss the federal role in the
development and deployment of the next generation of nuclear power
plants, and how this support may be better structured going forward.
I'm eager to learn more about the costs and benefits of these new
technologies over the course of the hearing--including ways we can
improve the safety of new reactors to minimize the chance of another
catastrophic event along the lines of the disaster that occurred at
Fukushima just a few years ago.
I have stated numerous times that I support an ``all of the above''
approach toward a clean energy economy and achieving safer, more cost-
effective, and environmentally friendly ways to utilize nuclear energy
can play an important role in this mix. We just need to make sure that
we are making the smartest investments we can with our limited
resources, and that they are in the best interests of the American
people. I want to thank the witnesses again for being willing to
provide their insights today, and I look forward to working with my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle and with all of the
stakeholders in this critical area moving forward.
Thank you again, Chairman Lummis, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Swalwell.
I now recognize the Chairman of the full Committee for a
statement.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Today's hearing will examine both current and future
challenges and opportunities that face nuclear power.
Nuclear power is a proven source of emission-free
electricity that has been generated safely in the United States
for over half a century. However, our ability to move from R&D
to market deployment has been hampered by government red tape
and partisan politics. We are just now seeing the first
reactors under construction in more than 30 years. This hiatus
has diminished our supply chain and ability to build new
reactors. In fact, the United States no longer has the
capability to manufacture large reactor pressure vessels.
Today, we will hear from NuScale, a company that is the
closest to navigating the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's
licensing process to build and deploy the first small modular
reactors in the United States, a subject that our colleague
Dana Rohrabacher has long been interested in.
We will also hear from Transatomic, a company recently
formed by two graduate students from MIT that could
revolutionize the energy sector. Transatomic's technology would
recycle spent nuclear fuel, achieve higher levels of efficiency
than existing designs, and yield minimum radioactive
byproducts.
The United States has not lived up to its potential when it
comes to nuclear energy. The regulatory process is cumbersome
and lacks the certainty needed for sustained investment in new
nuclear energy technology. I am hopeful that this hearing can
serve as a forum for how to enable nuclear power to meet more
of our energy needs.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Full Committee Chairman Lamar S. Smith
Today's hearing will examine both current and future challenges and
opportunities that face nuclear power.
We will first hear from the Department of Energy on its research
and development (R&D) strategy to ensure the United States' nuclear
energy industry remains competitive. Our second panel will discuss the
challenges that developers face in today's regulatory environment.
Nuclear power is a proven source of emission-free electricity that has
been generated safely in the United States for over half a century.
However, our ability to move from R&D to market deployment has been
hampered by government red tape and partisan politics. We are just now
seeing the first reactors under construction in more than 30 years.
This hiatus has diminished our supply chain and ability to build
new reactors. In fact, the United States no longer has the capability
to manufacture large reactor pressure vessels.
Today, we will hear from NuScale, a company that is the closest to
navigating the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's licensing process to
build and deploy the first small modular reactors in the United States.
We will also hear from Transatomic, a company recently formed by
two graduate students from MIT that could revolutionize the energy
sector.
Tranastomic's technology would recycle spent nuclear fuel, achieve
higher levels of efficiency than existing designs, and yield minimal
radioactive byproducts.The U.S. has not lived up to its potential when
it comes to nuclear energy. The regulatory process is cumbersome and
lacks the certainty needed for sustained investment in new nuclear
energy technology.
I am hopeful that this hearing can serve as a forum for how to
enable nuclear power to meet more of our energy needs.
Chairwoman Lummis. I thank the Chairman.
If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening
statements, your statement will be added to the record at this
point.
Chairwoman Lummis. It is now time to introduce our first
witness panel. Our first witness today is thw Honorable Peter
Lyons, Assistant Secretary for the Office of Nuclear Energy at
the Department of Energy. Dr. Lyons previously served as
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of Nuclear
Energy. Prior to joining DOE, Dr. Lyons was the Commissioner of
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission focusing on safety and
operating reactors.
As our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited
to five minutes each after which Members of the Committee have
five minutes each to ask questions. Your written testimony will
be included in the record of the hearing.
So without further ado I now recognize our witness Dr.
Lyons.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE PETER LYONS,
ASSISTANT SECRETARY, OFFICE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. Lyons. Thank you very much.
Chairman Lummis, Ranking Member Swalwell, and Members of
the Committee, thank you for your invitation to testify at the
Committee's hearing today on the future of nuclear energy.
Nuclear energy continues to play a vital role in President
Obama's all-of-the-above energy strategy for a sustainable
clean energy future. Nuclear energy has provided nearly 20
percent of our electrical generation over the past two decades
and now produces over 60 percent of our zero carbon
electricity.
In order for nuclear energy to continue this role, the
Office of Nuclear Energy, or NE, focuses on programs to improve
the reliability, performance, and operating lifetime of current
reactors, support the deployment of affordable advanced
reactors, develop a sustainable nuclear fuel cycle, maintain
key infrastructure, and manage international collaborations.
The current light water reactor, or LWR fleet, is
challenged by economic conditions that contributed to the early
closure of four reactors in 2013 in addition to the imminent
retirement of the Vermont Yankee plant. The shutdown of these
power plants is a significant loss of low carbon electricity.
Nevertheless, we remain optimistic with the current
construction of five nuclear reactors, four of which are the
Westinghouse AP1000, a new generation of passively safe
reactors. Two of these plants received over $6 billion in loan
guarantees, and for future assistance, the Department recently
released a $13 billion loan guarantee solicitation for advanced
nuclear energy projects.
In conjunction with industry and, more appropriate, the
NRC, the LWR Sustainability Program supports the current fleet
for possible license renewals beyond 60 years, and this program
also addresses the lessons learned from the Fukushima Daiichi
accident.
A high priority of the Department is to accelerate the
commercialization and deployment of small modular reactors or
SMRs with our Cost-Shared Licensing Technical Support Program.
SMRs can promote American competitiveness, create domestic
manufacturing jobs, and help reduce CO2 emissions.
The two small modular LWRs supported by the Department feature
extremely impressive passive safety.
Future reactor systems may employ advanced designs to
improve performance beyond what is currently available.
Coolants other than light water may enable reactors to operate
at higher temperatures with improved efficiencies and
economics, as well as optimize their waste forms. The
Department has supported industrial R&D on these advanced
reactor designs through cost-shared agreements, as well as
supported R&D at national labs and universities. In addition,
we also continue to leverage international experience through
the Generation IV International Forum.
Progress towards a consent-based solution to managing the
nation's nuclear waste and used fuel remains a challenge that
must be addressed. In January 2013 the Administration released
its strategy for this task. And pursuant to that strategy, my
office is undertaking activities within its existing authority
to plan for the eventual transportation, storage, and disposal
of used nuclear fuel, as well as R&D on related topics.
By way of conclusion, any programs encompass all aspects of
nuclear power including support for the nation's 100 operating
LWRs which remain a vital national resource of safe, clean
energy but new plants are also needed. Past programs like the
cost-shared NP 2010 program provided two certify designs for
passively safe, large LWRs, and in an analogous way, our
current licensing technical support program strives to provide
design certification for two SMRs. If we are successful with
that program, the nation will have two complementary approaches
to new plant construction well matched to the wide range of our
domestic needs, as well as addressing international markets.
In planning for future advanced reactors it is appropriate
to remember the words of Hyman Rickover when he discussed the
differences between paper and real reactors. He noted the
challenges of bringing a new reactor design online are
substantial and are hard to fully anticipate as the project is
planned. His words are not a reason to forgo development of
advanced reactors but they should remind us of the challenges
inherent in such endeavors even though several of the advanced
concepts have some operational history.
In the United States we have comprehensive knowledge of
LWRs. We can design and regulate them with highest confidence
for safe operations. Today's advanced concepts will be deployed
only if they are based on the same confidence that we have
today for LWRs. Research today should focus on providing that
level of confidence for these new concepts for tomorrow.
To use advanced reactors in the future we need to maintain
a strong domestic nuclear energy industry, including utilities,
with operational experience on nuclear systems. In the near
term the latest generation of LWRs and the promising new SMRs
must serve as an essential bridge between the reactors of today
and the future potential for new reactor designs. And without
that bridge any path towards non-light water reactors will be
challenging.
Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lyons follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Lummis. I thank the witness for his testimony.
I will remind the Members that Committee rules limit
questions to five minutes and the Chair at this point will open
the questioning.
Now, I want to set this up, Dr. Lyons, to see if I
understand this correctly. The Energy Policy Act of 2005
established the Next Generation Nuclear Plant project, and as I
understand that, it was to develop a prototype reactor for an
eventual hybrid energy system. And it was supposed to be
accomplished through cost-shared R&D, as well as design,
construction, and operation on behalf of the Alliance. Now, is
that a quick summary, an accurate summary of the NextGen
Nuclear Plant project?
Mr. Lyons. Yes.
Chairwoman Lummis. Okay. Then, it is also my understanding
that DOE and the NextGen Nuclear Plant Alliance have reached
somewhat of an impasse over cost-shared distribution, that the
Alliance is asking the Department to frontload its portion of
cost-share while DOE maintains a cost-share at 50/50 throughout
going from day one until it comes online.
I understand also that there have been some successes thus
far in this program, including the development of TRISO fuel,
so I am very interested in knowing is there an impediment for
DOE to exercise its authority to host, for example, private
development of prototype reactors at a DOE site?
Mr. Lyons. Thank you for those questions, all very good
ones. And there are several different questions inherent in
what you just asked.
Your description of NGNP I believe is accurate. Very
successful R&D has been conducted on that program. You
mentioned TRISO fuel. We now have very high confidence in our
ability to produce TRISO fuel to the highest standards and
TRISO fuel is capable of withstanding extremely high
temperatures in any accident scenario. It is an incredibly
robust type of fuel which we believe can have applications in
many, many future systems. There are other areas of strong
research for NGNP. I am sorry, other areas of strong research
that were conducted as part of NGNP.
Now, you are also quite right that as we came to the point
in our R&D programs where it became feasible to look towards
actually moving ahead with a demonstration reactor, we asked
our advisory committee to evaluate the status of the research.
At the same time we were discussing with the NGNP alliance
their interest in moving ahead.
I might note that when we started the NGNP program, there
were a number of studies which pointed out the cost efficiency
of this approach for gas greater than $8, and when we started
NGNP--and I have to admit I was one of the co-authors of the
language--when we started that program, gas was way over $8.
Chairwoman Lummis. Yeah.
Mr. Lyons. At the time we got close to being able to move
towards a developmental program; that was definitely not the
case.
Chairwoman Lummis. Um-hum.
Mr. Lyons. And while, when we initially wrote the language,
there was very strong interest from industry in looking towards
the 50/50 cost-share, as we moved towards the point in time
when we could have started into development, as you described
correctly, their interest was in the DOE frontloading the
expenses and they might--they would pick it up later if they
deemed appropriate. That is not my understanding of the
Congressional intent on cost-sharing as written in EPAct '05,
and furthermore, to accomplish what they would have suggested
would have taken essentially the entire R&D budget of my office
simply for NGNP.
So we have continued the research on the TRISO fuels, the
graphites, we have continued to work with and even to some
extent support the NGNP Alliance as they look towards possible
opportunities in the future. But this question of what is the
appropriate cost-share certainly could be the subject of more
discussion within Congress and exactly how the intent was to
formulate that cost-share, but in my mind, it is important to
have strong industry support, as evidenced by cost-share,
before one moves ahead to actually build a prototype reactor of
any of these.
You also, right at the end, asked the possibility of
utilizing--I think you said DOE sites in moving ahead with
advanced reactors. I think that is also a subject of great
interest. We can certainly discuss it further. I am not aware
of any fundamental impediments to that. There would be a number
of challenges and I think we could talk through what those
challenges might be if you wish.
Chairwoman Lummis. I would like to go there. Can you tell--
oops, my time is expired. That went really fast.
Chairman Smith. You can have more time if you want.
Chairwoman Lummis. Oh, well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I do think that I will recognize Ms. Bonamici for five
minutes.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, and
thank you for allowing me to join you this morning even though
I am on the full Committee, not on this Subcommittee. I wanted
to be with you today, especially because of Mr. McGough from
NuScale. But thank you so much, Dr. Lyons, for being here.
I wanted to ask you, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 created
the--of course the Next Generation Nuclear Plant project along
with timelines for completing each of the project's three
phases. Apparently, there have been some barriers that have
arisen. Can you just talk a little bit about the reasons for
the delays in that project and then I want to save time for
another question as well, please.
Mr. Lyons. Thank you for the question. I think I tried to
address some of that on the previous questions.
I think the research on NGNP has gone extremely well. We
have made dramatic progress. But as I indicated, at the time
NGNP was formulated, there were many studies saying $8 gas was
the breakeven point. We don't have $8 gas today and we are way
below the breakeven point.
There--I also just alluded to the I would say difference in
opinion between the NGNP Alliance and me, my office, on what it
means to cost-share. Their proposal was that we construct the
reactor and they would--and I am paraphrasing this greatly--but
that we would construct the reactor and that they would decide
later if they wished to build the actual systems, operational
systems, and that over the long run one would achieve a 50/50
cost-share.
My understanding of EPAct--I think it is Section 988
perhaps of EPAct--was that a cost-share means a continual cost-
share over the life of the program. Now, that could be subject
to interpretation and certainly for evaluation by Congress. I
hope that is at least a bit of an answer.
Ms. Bonamici. Yes, thank you for expanding on that.
And then Mr. Swalwell in his opening remarks talked about
the issue of safety, which of course our constituents are
concerned about as well. And I represent a district out in the
northwest where we spend a lot of time talking about resilience
and what will happen. We are--we have the Cascadia Subduction
Zone off our coastline and we are having a lot of conversations
about how we deal with the eventual earthquake and tsunami.
So can you talk a little bit about the lessons that the
Department has learned from the Fukushima disaster, what work
is being done, not necessarily just in siting but in structure,
to make sure that there is that preparation for sites in areas
like the Northwest where there will eventually be earthquakes
and tsunamis?
Mr. Lyons. Thank you for that question as well.
If I were to start with the lessons--well, I could talk for
days on the lessons of Fukushima. However, if I were to start
with the single most important lesson it was on the importance
of having an independent regulator. They--Japan did not have an
independent regulator like the NRC. While I was at the NRC,
there were many advances that were made in U.S. plants, for
example, to prevent--to respond to a station blackout. We
shared that information with the Japanese regulator at that
time. The Japanese regulator did not elect to make those
requirements on Japanese plants. Japan has now moved to an
independent regulator away from their previous system where
their regulator was part of METI and the I in METI is industry.
So, number one lesson, have an independent regulator. We have
one and I was proud to serve with the NRC.
In terms of lessons from the actual events at Fukushima,
certainly the NRC has evaluated those but I think it is also
fair to say that our plants are extremely well prepared because
of any number of requirements that we have required--that we
had demanded of the nuclear industry.
But specific areas of research on which we have--what we
have expanded post-Fukushima, one would be so-called accident-
tolerant fuels. The current generation of fuel systems use a
zirconium cladding. Under accident conditions that creates
hydrogen. When you have too much hydrogen, things blow up and
there were--and that took a very bad day at Fukushima Daiichi
into an absolute crisis.
We believe it is possible to generate--and to come up with
a new generation of fuel systems that would greatly minimize
the production of hydrogen under an accident scenario. That has
been very well supported in Congress, about 60 million a year.
We have been making dramatic progress.
Introducing a new fuel system is a big deal in the nuclear
industry and that is going to take more than a decade to do
this but we are making good progress. There are good ideas and
it is my hope that we will start testing probably in 2018 on
the initial--we will make some down-selects in 2016. We will
have the first testing--trenchant testing in 2018 for accident-
tolerant fuels. And if we can develop that, that will be
another significant step forward.
But on other points--and I am sorry I am probably taking
too much time here--you mentioned an interest in NuScale in the
small module reactors. The fact that NuScale and any of the
SMRs are--that we are interested in--are sited underground, it
gives them substantially more seismic resistance. In addition,
the design of the NuScale plant increases--it is a long word,
the probabilistic risk assessment of the plant, the probability
of an accident is many decades lower in the NuScale design.
That plant is dramatically safer than our existing plants,
which are already very safe. And again----
Ms. Bonamici. Terrific. I look forward to hearing from Mr.
McGough about that.
My time is expired and thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Chairwoman Lummis. I thank the gentlelady and yield to the
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Let me continue following up on that same subject that was
mentioned by the Chair a few minutes ago, that is to say the
cost, but on the way there, Dr. Lyons, thank you for your
encouraging remarks. You are being very positive. You are
talking about how we can improve things for the future and that
is what this hearing is all about.
We have been told that sometimes it costs up to $1 billion
to get through our NRC's licensing process. Is there any way to
reduce the cost of that? I have several questions. Is there any
way to reduce the cost? Is there any way to streamline the
process? Is there any way to make it easier to construct safe
nuclear reactors in the future?
Mr. Lyons. Thank you for that question, and again, there
are many ways I can answer that question.
The billion-dollar number is frequently used but let's
remember that that billion is far more than just what--than
just the actual work done by the NRC. In order--under Part 52,
the new licensing approach at the NRC, the vendor--and NuScale
if you want to use them as an example--has to prepare a very
complete design. They have to go way into the engineering
details of the plant in order to answer all of the questions
from the NRC under Part 52. Now, under Part 52 the goal is that
you end up with a certified design, and once you have that
certified design, as long as you stay with it, then you don't
go back through the safety analysis again. And that is believed
to be a very effective way of advancing nuclear power in this
country.
Chairman Smith. So part of the cost is the design which
they would have to do anyway, is that what you are saying?
Mr. Lyons. Yes.
Chairman Smith. Okay.
Mr. Lyons. And I think it is fair that we talk about a
billion that we recognize----
Chairman Smith. Okay.
Mr. Lyons. --that that is included but at the end of the
game you end up with success with a certified design but then
you can take to any site in the country and not go back through
the safety analysis.
Chairman Smith. Okay. And let me follow up again on those
other questions. I think it takes close to, what, five years to
get through the regulatory process now? I am not sure how many
years but that is what I have read but how can we expedite the
process? It just seems to me that if we are trying to
accomplish the good designs, if we are trying to increase
nuclear energy, there is bound to be a way to try to actually
encourage companies to go that direction and to not unduly
prolong the process.
Mr. Lyons. As the NRC has evaluated the SMR designs, they
have published a schedule of 39 months that they intend to
follow once an application is filed. That remains to be tested
and I am certainly hoping they will succeed.
You asked what could possibly be done to improve that. I
would note that NuScale, as one of the SMRs that we are
supporting, has taken advantage of the so-called pre-licensing
process in which they can submit white papers to the NRC on
specific design aspects and gain comments back from the NRC. I
think that is a very effective way of perfecting a design.
If you ask me for one possible improvement in that, right
now, the NRC delivers an informal opinion on those white
papers. I think one could imagine that it could be even more
useful to companies like NuScale or mPower if it was a formal
decision, and that might be a question that you address through
NuScale----
Chairman Smith. How much time would that save?
Mr. Lyons. Well, I think what it would do would be to
provide far more confidence to a vender that what they have
submitted in a white paper and had some pre-analysis is
actually going to be accepted. Right now, there is 30 or more
white papers that are put in, they have got comments on all of
them, but they don't have the confidence that there won't be a
change later when the commission evaluates it.
Again, this is just a suggestion and it certainly would be
appropriate to discuss with NuScale and with the NRC.
Chairman Smith. Okay. And is this a subject that you are
discussing with NRC? You have some control over what they do.
Are you encouraging them to expedite the process and reduce the
cost if it is possible?
Mr. Lyons. Well, we continue to have frequent interactions
with the NRC on all of our programs and keep them as informed
as we can on the directions that we are going----
Chairman Smith. Yeah.
Mr. Lyons. --and asking how we--how our research can help
them.
Chairman Smith. Yeah. I guess I am looking to see if you
will go beyond just keeping them informed and actually try to
spur them to take some steps to reduce the cost and the time
involved with the licensing process.
Mr. Lyons. The reason I am giving you a delicate answer is
they are an independent agency. They highly value their
independence. I know that having served there. And I think one
probably wants to be a little bit judicious in how strongly one
makes suggestions that could be interpreted as undermining
their independence.
And I just made the comment, too, about the importance of
an independent regulator to avoid a Fukushima, too, so it is
important.
Chairman Smith. Independent agencies need oversight and
suggestions as well so----
Mr. Lyons. And certainly that is--yes.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Dr. Lyons.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Lummis. The Chair now recognizes another Member
of the Texas delegation, Mr. Veasey.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I wanted to talk with you a little bit about the stages for
licensing advanced reactors. We have received testimony that
there should be stages of review by the NRC similar to how the
FDA has three phases of review before a new drug is allowed to
go out onto the marketplace. The argument is that this would
provide much earlier and a clearer signal to investors that a
new nuclear technology is meeting or failing criteria set by
the NRC. As a former NRC Commissioner do you have any thoughts
on this?
Mr. Lyons. Well, thank you for that question and I would go
back to my comment of just a few minutes ago on the pre-
licensing reviews. I think those are an extremely effective way
of a company testing the waters if you will, starting to raise
appropriate questions with the NRC, and gaining feedback from
the staff.
Now, this--also the suggestion I made just a minute ago was
I think it would be worth discussing with the NRC whether to
carry it out a little bit further and instead of just a staff
opinion that comes back maybe asking if that opinion have a
little bit more weight so that the--a potential vendor would
have more confidence that if they stay with a particular design
aspect that it will be accepted by the Commission later on. So
I think that is at least an approach towards the question you
have asked.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you very much. As far as the
commercialization of advanced reactors again, what do you
believe are the necessary components of a public-private
partnership that can ultimately take these advanced reactors
from the lab to the marketplace?
Mr. Lyons. At least one example has been the NP 2010
Program, highly successful program that Congress supported for
a number of years which was cost-shared with both Westinghouse
and GE and has led to certified designs. We are trying to do
exactly the same thing with the small modular reactors. We may
get to the point where there is sufficient maturity of some of
the non-light water designs that it would be--that Congress
might want to consider that in the future.
In any case, my point would be that the cost-shared--that
the cost-shared work towards design certification has already
proven to be very successful. In the case of NP 2010 in the
case of the SMRs, at present we have not asked for support
beyond the design certification anticipating that at that point
there is sufficient information for industry to make their own
decisions and, of course, the loan guarantee program that the
Department has also consists in this.
Whether one can go still further, one could if that were
deemed appropriate from a Congressional standpoint, and
certainly cost would escalate appropriately.
Mr. Veasey. What about steps that commercial vendors and
utilities need to take to ensure their ability to accept
advanced reactor technology as part of their energy portfolio?
Mr. Lyons. I think part of that answer will be addressed by
Dan Lipman in his testimony on the next panel. I found his
testimony very interesting where he notes that industry has
formed a working group now devoted to advanced reactor
technologies. That is somewhat analogous to what they did
during the time when we were working on design certification of
the Westinghouse and GE reactors. They have a similar model
that they are using now on the small modular reactors and I
think in general having industry organize to explore their own
interests in any particular reactor design is highly
advantageous.
Mr. Veasey. Madam Chair, thank you very much. I yield back
my time.
Chairwoman Lummis. I thank the gentleman and recognize the
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber.
Mr. Weber. Thank you.
Dr. Lyons, as you know, the United States has engaged in
ongoing climate negotiations with the U.N., final agreement
expected in Paris 2015. Do you believe that the benefits of
nuclear power should be specifically recognized in the UNFCCC
agreement to be reached in Paris?
Mr. Lyons. I guess I would answer, Mr. Weber, that
certainly the benefits of clean energy need to be recognized.
Whether nuclear needs to be called out specifically in that, I
don't have an opinion. There are many, many studies showing
that in order to achieve the clean energy desired in the future
that nuclear will be a significant part.
Mr. Weber. Do you know of any other energy as reliable and
capable of producing the kind of megawatts necessary as nuclear
energy?
Mr. Lyons. Well, that is why any of the studies that I am
referencing, for example, the recent World Energy Outlook from
the International--IEA, International Energy Agency, notes the
importance of a strong nuclear component looking into the
future for exactly that reason.
Mr. Weber. So that is kind of a roundabout way of saying
yes?
Mr. Lyons. Well, again, I am saying I don't think that you
can achieve what we need without nuclear but I also think----
Mr. Weber. But I mean the importance of recognizing it in
the agreement reached in Paris?
Mr. Lyons. The only reason I am hesitating, sir, is that
different communities, different regions, different countries
are going to have different mixes of power appropriate to
whatever their situation is.
Mr. Weber. Yeah, but let's focus----
Mr. Lyons. So I don't want to----
Mr. Weber. Let's focus on the United States, though.
Do you think emissions--let me back up. What role will
nuclear play in meeting global emissions targets that we can
expect in the agreement in Paris? I mean we have already talked
about 60 percent of the energy would--basically zero emissions
so would you expand on that a little bit for us?
Mr. Lyons. Well, I would just again note that any study I
have seen--I happened to reference the World Energy Outlook
that was published just recently--certainly notes that nuclear
is going to have to play a strong role----
Mr. Weber. Okay.
Mr. Lyons. --as we look forward into--to reach the goals
that are in--that are----
Mr. Weber. Sure.
Mr. Lyons. --required.
Mr. Weber. So that is to say that you don't believe those
targets could be reached without nuclear when you say it has to
play a strong role?
Mr. Lyons. That is--I believe that is true and that is
consistent with the President's all-of-the-above strategy.
Mr. Weber. Do you know if the new Green Climate Fund for
international mitigation efforts can be used to support nuclear
projects?
Mr. Lyons. I do not know, sir. .
Mr. Weber. Okay. Do you believe it should be used to
support nuclear projects? Noting your earlier comments, you
can't reach those targets without nuclear.
Mr. Lyons. I know so little about that fund that I
hesitate, sir. .
Mr. Weber. Yeah.
Mr. Lyons. I mean in general, yes, I think nuclear should
be recognized for its clean energy--.
Mr. Weber. But you do get paid to work--you do get the
money, right, so you know a little bit about money, and so if
we have got dollars being spent for Green Climate Fund and
nuclear is--you said you can't reach that target without
nuclear, doesn't that make sense that some of that fund should
perhaps be used to support nuclear projects?
Mr. Lyons. Again, I am not sufficient--nuclear is going to
be a part of a future solution. I don't know enough about that
fund to give you a credible answer, sir. .
Mr. Weber. Well, it is dollars for Green Climate Fund and
it seems like we ought to be including nuclear in that.
Let's change over to Yucca Mountain for a second. In a
letter to NRC Chairman Macfarlane dated November 18, 2014, from
Senator Patty Murray, she stated ``Over the last 30 years,
independent studies have pointed to Yucca Mountain as the
nation's best option for a nuclear repository for high-level
waste. At the same time, Congress in every previous
Administration have voted for, funded, and supported pursuing
this option. The recent completion of Volume 3 of SER reaffirms
that Yucca Mountain is the right solution for the United
States.'' Do you agree with Senator Murray?
Mr. Lyons. The fact that the SER Volume 3 stated the safety
from a post-closure standpoint of Yucca Mountain is not a
surprise. The Department submitted our application for Yucca
Mountain in 2008. It doesn't change the fact that we believe--I
believe strongly that Yucca Mountain is not a workable solution
and I would be happy to go into that in as much detail as you
would like. I have spent a lot of my career involved with Yucca
Mountain.
Mr. Weber. Are you familiar with the Waste Control
Specialists site low-level radiation out in Andrews, Texas?
Mr. Lyons. I have visited them multiple times.
Mr. Weber. Okay. What is the difference between a low-level
radiation and high-level radiation, notwithstanding the
obvious? When you use fuel rods, for example, we expend most of
them and I understand France has a method for reclaiming a lot
of that energy--what is the difference between low-level waste
and high-level waste? Can you expand on that? And I am out of
time but if you can do that quickly.
Mr. Lyons. In this country we have a definition of high-
level waste that refers to its use in a reactor and ties it to
used fuel. However, the--a simpler definition is simply as you
said; it is kind of obvious. One is low and one is high-level
radiation. As far as France--and we could talk about France a
great deal if you want in the future----
Mr. Weber. But when you use fuel in nuclear reactors, do we
not try to use up all of that energy and all of that fuel?
Mr. Lyons. With our current generation of light water
reactors we come nowhere close to using the full energy content
of the fuel resource.
Mr. Weber. Okay.
Mr. Lyons. That is one of the advantages of advanced
reactors.
Mr. Weber. Okay. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you.
Chairwoman Lummis. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
Swalwell.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And, Mr. Lyons, as you know, I represent Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratory in
Livermore, California, and while these labs do not work
directly on nuclear energy, I know that Sandia, for example,
played an important role in the accident response and after-
accident analysis with respect to Fukushima. And I was hoping
you could tell us about the role our national labs are playing
to keep us safe, as well as how important it is that our
national laboratory system advances science, and how DOE is
utilizing our national labs to ensure that we are doing
everything we can to keep existing reactors safe.
Mr. Lyons. Thank you, Mr. Swalwell.
There is no question that our national laboratories are an
incredible national resource for science and technology. I make
extensive use of all of the national laboratories in my
program. Livermore is not one of the predominant ones. Sandia
is. You mentioned Sandia's very strong capabilities in severe
accident management and a number of other areas that are
ongoing at Sandia and I have extensive funding at Sandia.
But in general the national labs are a vital resource and I
make extensive use of them.
Mr. Swalwell. Great. And, Mr. Lyons, I and many people in
my district have strong concerns about the safety of nuclear
energy and I was hoping you could tell us about the research
that the Department of Energy is conducting to improve existing
technology and make our nuclear plants safe.
Mr. Lyons. The--I would first start with the Accident-
Tolerant Fuel Program that I mentioned a little bit earlier.
The national labs, industry, and universities are heavily
involved in the Accident-Tolerant Fuels Program where we are
seeking to develop a class of fuels that would ideally not emit
hydrogen, at least emit far less hydrogen in an accident
scenario. And it was the hydrogen explosions at Fukushima
Daiichi that took a very bad situation into a catastrophe.
Mr. Swalwell. And, Mr. Lyons, could you talk more about
Sandia's nuclear accident modeling software MELCOR?
Mr. Lyons. MELCOR has been vital throughout the industry. I
was over at--in Tokyo within days of Fukushima, as were leaders
from the Sandia Severe Accident Program. MELCOR was used
extensively post-Fukushima. We continue to use MELCOR. MELCOR
is the prime code used in this country for severe accidents and
both we and the NRC use it extensively.
Mr. Swalwell. Great. Thank you, Dr. Lyons, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Chairwoman Lummis. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr.
Massie.
Mr. Massie. Madam Chair, I just want to say thank you and
thank you for letting me serve on your Subcommittee. It has
been a pleasure serving here for you and with you on the
Oversight Committee. I will note that one of your questions
went viral on YouTube the other day on Oversight. If only we
could get something in the Energy Subcommittee to go viral.
Maybe we need to bring a working reactor here for that to
happen. That might get it done.
I have always been a supportive of an all-of-the-above
energy plan both in public life and in my private life. I
started a company right off the MIT campus and the directions
to our company were take a right at the nuclear reactor and a
left at the candy factory. So we were never worried about the
safety of that.
I was astounded; I looked at the cost of that nuclear
reactor. It only cost $3 million to build that in 1956. Yeah.
But even accounting for inflation that was astounding and there
is something wrong about the price of nuclear energy right now,
the fact that it costs so much to build a new plant these days.
You know, in my personal life I drive a Tesla. It is an
electric car but it has Friends of Coal license plates just so
people know where the energy comes from. To balance out the
karma there I live off the grid. I just added 3 kilowatts of
solar panels to my 10 kilowatt array, and I used to work in an
oil refinery.
But I find it disturbing that the State of Kentucky has a
moratorium on building any nuclear plants and I think that is a
problem, I think it is wrong, and I think it is to the
detriment of the citizens of Kentucky unfortunately.
But, there is sort of public opinion about this and the
elephant in the room here is what do we do with the nuclear
waste? And I think Mr. Weber asked you earlier about Yucca
Mountain and that is sort of my question. We see trucks going
through the district that have canisters that have nuclear
material in them. What are we going to do about the nuclear
waste? If the answer is not Yucca Mountain, what is the answer?
Mr. Lyons. The Administration published a strategy in
January of 2013 based on the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon
Commission.
Mr. Massie. What is your recommendation?
Mr. Lyons. I think the Blue Ribbon Commission had fabulous
suggestions, to move ahead with a consent-based process. And I
think that if there was a legislative basis to move ahead with
a consent-based process----
Mr. Massie. What does that mean for my constituents back
home, consent-based process? What is the answer is what we want
to know? And I only have two minutes and I know it is more
complicated than that.
Mr. Lyons. I think consent basis means frankly exactly the
opposite of the Yucca Mountain situation. I grew up in Nevada,
worked in Nevada, worked at the test site, worked with Yucca
Mountain, directed the research on Yucca Mountain. I know it
rather well. But I also am well aware that the Nuclear Policy
Waste Act amendments of '87 are viewed in Nevada as the ``screw
Nevada'' bill. There was never a consent basis at--in Nevada
for the--for Yucca Mountain and it has led to a rather--to say
it is polarized is putting it mildly.
Mr. Massie. If the----
Mr. Lyons. On a consent basis we would avoid that.
Mr. Massie. If nuclear energy is going to flourish and
remain a viable option for us, we have to solve this problem.
Do we have time to do this consent-based process? Or, I am
sorry, consensus?
Mr. Lyons. Well, I would submit that if we don't do a
consent-based process, we will have rate difficulties ever
succeeding. So the--we--the current storage of the used fuel in
pools and dry casks is safe but there is no question that that
is not a long-term solution. And eventually we need to move, I
believe, as the BR--Blue Ribbon Commission said, to centralized
interim storage and to a repository but doing it on a consent
basis. And there are a number of communities, in some cases
even states that have expressed interest in being considered
for housing such facilities. And I think if we tried on a
consent basis, discussed how this could be done with the utmost
attention to safety, I think we could succeed.
Mr. Massie. I think we have to succeed with doing something
with the waste because this is the elephant in the room, what
are you going to do with it? And this is what drives public
opinion I think. I am convinced that the safety issue has been
solved but clearly dealing with the waste has not been solved.
Let me switch to a lighter topic because I would be remiss
if you were here and I didn't get a chance to ask this question
for my constituents who are always asking me about this. Does
thorium have a place in our nuclear future?
Mr. Lyons. We have evaluated thorium-based cycles many,
many times. Given that we have made a massive commitment in
this country to a uranium-based cycle, I see no compelling
reason to move towards a thorium cycle. I--
Mr. Massie. If we weren't so heavily invested though in
this path, does it make sense? I mean does it make sense in
other countries that----
Mr. Lyons. If you are starting from scratch, I think one
could make a decision to go either way but some of the claimed
advantages for thorium, which I hear frequently from people who
would like us to put more money into thorium such as that it is
proliferation-resistant, are simply false. There was a recent
report done by the Nuclear Energy Agency of the OECD on thorium
systems which certainly made this point, that they are anything
but proliferation-resistant.
Can you make them work? Yes, you can make them work. Is
there an advantage to doing it? I haven't seen it.
Mr. Massie. Thank you very much. I--my time is expired.
Chairwoman Lummis. I thank the gentleman, recognize the
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Neugebauer.
Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Dr. Lyons, according to recent reports from some of the NGO
organizations that there is a significant chance that nuclear
power plants may close as a result of low natural gas prices
and renewable energy subsidies, to what extent has DEO--DOE
assessed those scenarios?
Mr. Lyons. We have studied that, sir, in considerable
detail. We are very concerned that the closure of any clean
energy resource in the nation only complicates our eventual
quest for a--an overall clean energy system. As we have
evaluated the reasons for some of those closures and some of
the economic pressures, we have yet to identify a federal lever
that could be used to protect those plans. Most of what can be
done is on a State basis and there are widely publicized
negotiations going on in a number of States, certainly Illinois
and New York would be two very prominent, where there are
negotiations at the State level that might involve power
purchase agreements as one example in order to keep marginally
economic nuclear power plants online under the current market
system.
There also are efforts, for example, in PJM region to move
towards a so-called capacity auction that would do a better job
of valuing the attributes of nuclear, that it is always there,
very reliable, highly resilient, very important in maintaining
overall good stability. Those are not attributes that are
currently valued as perhaps they might be and it is--these
questions of how the markets value nuclear power remains a
complex issue but I think that PJM in their region of the
country are starting to ask these very important questions.
Mr. Neugebauer. So I guess one of the questions--and do we
have conflicting policy in some way where we are subsidizing
other renewables and so making it difficult to actually have
price discovery of what is the market, for example, power
because we are distorting that in some ways with some of these
subsidies?
Mr. Lyons. Well, I think it is fair to note that there is a
number of different factors that are entering into these
questions. Certainly low natural gas prices, while a tremendous
boon for the country, also are at least challenging to any of
the clean energy systems. There is also flat or decreasing
electrical demand in many parts of our country as more and more
efficiency measures are coming into play. That, too, makes it
very difficult, so there is a number of different stresses on
the nuclear power plants. And particularly for the relatively
small single unit sites, they are the ones under the greatest
stress and those are the ones that, as I indicated, that we
have been discussing whether there is a direct federal action
and we haven't found it yet. We are still--if we find it, that
would certainly be interesting.
Mr. Neugebauer. So on one of the things that I guess--and I
am always a little reluctant to point out France but one of the
things that they have done over the years, they have a pretty
robust nuclear presence over there and one of our opportunities
to sit down with some of the people over there--and of course
they recycle a lot of their nuclear waste and to the point
where they--as I understand it--I am--don't understand all of
the science of it but they reprocess a lot of the--and what
they basically said is that we keep reprocessing and
reprocessing and reprocessing and so the volume ultimately that
we dispose is much smaller. Is that something that the United
States should be thinking about?
Mr. Lyons. Well, first, we have robust programs looking at
R&D on advanced reprocessing.
Reprocessing certainly opens many questions, including
nonproliferation and environmental ones. It is fair to say that
the type of reprocessing that is done in France at La Hague
would not be licensed in the United States with the level of
emissions that they have. It also would be somewhat misleading
to say that they reprocess over and over. They reprocess once,
go to MOX fuel, and then they are storing the MOX fuel.
Now, their eventual goal is to move towards fast reactors
and closing the fuel cycle. They are a long ways from doing
that but they are going at least one step of reprocessing and
at least--I would--I think I have made the point that from--our
concerns would be both from an environmental and
nonproliferation standpoint, which is why we have the research
programs to continue to evaluate options looking into the
future. And I think the country may at some point want to
evaluate whether they want to move towards a closed cycle, but
in my mind that would be made after one has demonstrated a
repository because you need a repository whether it is an open
or a closed cycle. France still needs a repository. They are
building one.
Chairwoman Lummis. I thank the gentleman.
And the Chair without objection will recognize Mr.
Rohrabacher from California for five minutes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
And let me congratulate you on a tour of duty here on this
Committee and you have done us proud and served your country
well with the leadership you have provided, and we wish you all
the luck and we will be working with you on your new assignment
as well.
So I am a bit disturbed by some of the directions that we
are talking about today and I know we have had this exchange
before and it just seems to me that when we talk about the
development of Next Generation Nuclear Power Plants and as we
are stepping forward, the words light water reactor continue to
be part of the game. And I have been told by numerous
engineers, renowned engineers, people who know what they are
doing and--who tell me that we now are capable of building
nuclear power plants, for example, General Atomics has a plan
for a high temperature gas-cooled reactor that can be done and
that we have small modular reactors because--various sizes, but
yet--and that reactor would be--and I am sure--and I have
talked to other scientists and engineers about other approaches
and they--I don't know--you suggested that--this--oh, this
thing about thorium is that some of the claims are not true,
but there are a number of approaches that I have been told
would eliminate the leftover waste problem, which is a huge
challenge for us to overcome before the public is going to
accept further investment into nuclear energy.
But every time I hear about--coming back--what will be
built, again, it is light water reactors. So this money that
you are talking about now being expended will go to light water
reactors which have some of the same defects that we have
experienced with Fushimora? I guess I am not pronouncing it
right--Fukushima. And I don't understand what is going on here.
Why are we spending money to build basically reactors based on
the same concept that Fukushima was built on and that we have
been building ever since World War II?
Mr. Lyons. Well, thank you for the question, sir, and there
certainly could be many answers to that.
The reactors that we are--that we have supported through
the NP 2010 program or that we are supporting through the SMR
program----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Um-hum.
Mr. Lyons. --are certainly very, very different from
Fukushima. They are dramatically safer than Fukushima and we
could certainly talk about those differences.
However, they are light water reactors. I agree with you on
that point. We have in this country, we have in the world
tremendous expertise on light water reactors and I don't
question that there will be, I hope, a time in the future when
we do move towards advanced reactors. They appear--by advanced
I mean non-light water.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
Mr. Lyons. There certainly are a number of attributes that
we can list that they should be able to demonstrate but I also
think there is going to be more research required to get to
that point. And, as I said in my opening statement, I believe
that the light water reactors for the foreseeable future will
be a bridge between the industry of today and an industry of
tomorrow that will be able to handle and utilize the advanced
reactors.
And I also--some of the other comments--there was the
reference to the working group being formed within the Nuclear
Energy Institute to explore advanced reactors, which I think is
also very important to get industry--
Mr. Rohrabacher. See, I don't see that as a bridge to
anywhere else. What I see is this is a castle around the
current establishment. I mean what we have got is not a bridge
to tomorrow but a protection of the status quo. I mean your
very analysis of what is going on here is we have so much
expertise in the current system that it--protecting their jobs
of people who now have that expertise and spent a lifetime
developing it, there is something to be said to be humane to
those people, but the fact is we need to have a step forward--
human progress needs a nudge here, and I understand people are
going to lose their jobs who don't know the new type of way of
producing electricity.
It seems to me what we have, Madam Chairman, is a status
quo of people who are credentialed, they have spent their
lifetime learning about it, they are expert, they can be put on
consulting contracts, and they don't want to change the status
quo and that is why we don't ever come up with the money--we
are coming up with a bridge but we never come up with the money
to get across the bridge.
Chairwoman Lummis. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
Chairwoman Lummis. By unanimous consent, the Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Broun.
Mr. Broun. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to ask a question or two, and I appreciate the
opportunity to be here and thank you for serving on my
Committee to and this same Committee.
But, Dr. Lyons, I am a physician from Georgia, and as you
know, Georgia Power Company is building the first licensed
reactor that has been approved in I guess three or four
decades, and it seems to me that the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission has been a huge hindrance for Georgia Power to be
able to build this and it is going to cost Georgians a
tremendous amount of money.
And it seems to me also that there should be a way for NRC
and for DOE to have some basic schematic or preapproved plans
that could be put out there for companies like Georgia Power
Company or any of the Southern Company or any of the other
power company in this country to be able to go ahead without
having to expend so much money to get approval and have all the
stoppages that have occurred over and over again.
For the name of peace, please, I beg of you try to put
together some way that the power companies can build these
reactors. I am a huge advocate of nuclear energy and I want to
see these advanced reactors, and as we go forward with these
advanced reactors, the government can be a hindrance. That is
what my friend from California was talking about.
Is there any reason whatsoever that we cannot have some
kind of a preapproved schematic or preapproved plans that NRC
and DOE can approve and we can put these--not only the current
type reactors in place but as well as the advanced reactors?
Mr. Lyons. Well, thank you for your question, Mr. Broun. I
can perhaps address some aspects of that, although the majority
of your question really is appropriate for the NRC.
However, as far as preapproved plans, the Vogtle plant is
being built on a preapproved Part 52 design-certified AP1000.
Mr. Broun. I understand that but over and over again NRC
has caused stoppage after stoppage after stoppage, and this
kind of thing is going to cost Georgians a tremendous amount of
money. How can we get through this?
Mr. Lyons. Well, the idea of Part 52 is that once one has
the design certification that it will be built per the way it
is spelled out in the design search. To the extent that there
is a departure from that, then the--Georgia Power in this case
has to go back to the NRC to ask whether whatever change is
being made is acceptable. I know the NRC is working on ways to
streamline this process. I don't know the details since it is
over in the NRC now and I am quite removed from that. But I do
believe that the overall Part 52 design certification approach
is the best way for the country to move forward to have
certified designs where it is agreed upon upfront exactly what
is going to be built, build it, and then proceed to operate it.
Mr. Broun. Well, I promised the Chairman that I was not
going to take a lot of time and I appreciate your answer.
And I beg of NRC, as well as DOE, let's make it so that we
can build these nuclear plants, that we can develop the
advanced reactors, and we can do so in a very cost-effective
way without costing the taxpayers, as well as ratepayers, so
much money.
Thank you, Madam Chairman. I yield back.
Chairwoman Lummis. I thank the witness for his valuable
testimony.
And the Members of the Committee may have additional
questions and we would ask you to respond to those in writing.
So thank you, Dr. Lyons, and you are excused.
And we will now move to our next panel.
Now, let me give you a little notice about our schedule. It
looks like we are going to have a vote series coming up in 10
to 15 minutes possibly. We would like to expedite the efforts
to hear what this second panel has to say so we are going to
move quickly into your testimony.
This vote series is going to be long and rather than hold
you here waiting for us to return, we would like to hear your
testimony and then invite you back early next year so we can
ask you questions about the matters to which you will be
testifying.
So without further ado, it is time to introduce our second
panel. Our first witness is Dr. Ashley Finan, Senior Project
Manager of The Energy Innovation Project at the Clean Air Task
Force. Dr. Finan manages the Advanced Nuclear Energy Project.
I would like now to ask Ms. Bonamici to introduce our
second witness.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Lummis, for
allowing me to participate in the hearing and I thank my
colleagues on the Subcommittee who have invited Mr. McGough.
Thank you for being here. Mr. Swalwell and Mr. Veasey were kind
enough to invite me to introduce you.
And to Mr. McGough, thank you for your willingness to share
your considerable knowledge on this issue. Mr. McGough is a 36-
year veteran of the commercial nuclear industry. He has
overseen the development of nuclear facilities around the
globe. Now, he is helping an innovative Oregon company develop
a safer approach to nuclear power.
NuScale Power is a leader in the developing field of small
modular reactor, or SMR, technology. It is based in Corvallis,
Oregon. My colleagues in the Oregon delegation and I have
supported NuScale's efforts to secure Department of Energy
funding for their design development because we see their
approach as offering a safer alternative to current reactor
designs.
I was pleased to see that the funding bill for Fiscal Year
2015 includes programmatic funding at the DOE that supports
NuScale's design development. Following the earthquake and
tsunami in Japan in 2011, my constituents expressed serious
concerns about safety issues and I am very proud to have an
Oregon company working to develop a safe approach to this
problem.
And because I am also on the Education Committee I do want
to point out that Oregon is home to the only research reactor
operated primarily by undergraduate students. The research
reactor at Reed College since 1968 has 40 licensed students
operating it.
So, Mr. McGough, thank you for coming here from Oregon and
for appearing before us today. I look forward to your testimony
and I yield back. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Chairwoman Lummis. I thank the gentlewoman.
And our third witness is Dr. Leslie Dewan, cofounder and
Chief Executive Officer at Transatomic Power. Dr. Dewan was
recently named one of Time Magazine's 30 people under 30
changing the world. Welcome, Dr. Dewan.
Our final witness today is Dr. Daniel Lipman, Executive
Director of Policy Development at the Nuclear Energy Institute.
Now, as our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is
limited to five minutes each. Hopefully, we will have time
after the vote series to ask you some questions but that
remains to be seen. So we are going to play it by ear.
Thank you so much, panel. Your written testimony will be
included in the record of this hearing.
So I now recognize our first witness, Dr. Finan. Welcome.
TESTIMONY OF DR. ASHLEY FINAN,
SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER, ENERGY INNOVATION PROJECT,
CLEAN AIR TASK FORCE
Dr. Finan. Thank you.
Chairman Lummis, Ranking Member Swalwell, and distinguished
Members of this Subcommittee, thank you for holding this
hearing and for giving me the opportunity to testify.
My name is Ashley Finan, Project Manager for Energy
Innovation at the Clean Air Task Force. Clean Air Task Force is
a nonprofit environmental organization dedicated to catalyzing
the development and deployment of low emission energy
technologies through research and analysis, public advocacy,
leadership, and partnership with the private sector.
Climate change is an enormous challenge. To have the
greatest chance of success, CATF's position is that we will
need all of the low carbon energy technologies available,
including nuclear power.
While nuclear technology has made big incremental
improvements in the last decade and is suitable for deployment,
it still faces obstacles. Advanced reactors can address those
by reducing cost and construction time, enhancing safety, and
better managing waste.
The United States has an exciting opportunity to continue
to be a world leader in nuclear technology. We have some of the
world's best innovators, a tremendous asset in the DOE and the
national lab system, investors ready to invest in advance
designs under the right conditions, and a regulator that is
considered the global gold standard.
As with any energy technology, the development and
commercialization of advanced non-light water reactors requires
a suite of supportive policies from early research through
demonstration and adoption. I will focus on two elements that
need more attention: first, a testing facility that would
enable private companies to build prototypes in a DOE-
supervised environment; and second, a clear and predictable
regulatory pathway for licensing advanced reactors.
Historically, the Atomic Energy Commission developed and
demonstrated new reactors with full public funding on
government sites. Since that level of public support was scaled
back, the United States has not seen successful
commercialization of a major breakthrough in nuclear reactor
technology but that is not for lack of ideas. We need a new
model that better incorporates private investment while taking
advantage of the important role that DOE plays. A testbed
facility at a DOE site would provide technology-neutral support
through public-private partnership arrangements. DOE has safety
oversight authority, unique capabilities, experts, and
experimental facilities that could dramatically reduce the
barriers, costs, and delays involved in nuclear demonstrations.
By controlling and defining many of the costs and unknowns,
the testbed site would enable private investment in prototype
reactors and pre-commercial projects. Not only could this
unlock a great deal of private capital, it would enable U.S.
innovators to move forward domestically rather than turning to
foreign partners.
In addition to demonstration activities, another crucial
step in commercialization is licensing with the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. The NRC's experience base is with light
water technology and it has established a clear pathway for
licensing a light water reactor. The process for an advanced
reactor is far less established and thus introduces a level of
uncertainty that can be paralyzing to private investment.
Advanced reactors don't need a shortcut or less stringency but
they need a well-defined, predictable process. This is another
area where the model could be adjusted to enable more private
and venture investment.
One such adjustment would be introducing stages of
licensing. The current NRC certification process is all or
nothing without interim levels of approval or acceptance. By
comparison, the FDA has orderly stage dates with preclinical
trials, phase 1, 2, and 3 trials; and finally, a new drug
application. A drug can pass or fail at each stage and this
provides a clear signal to investors that a technology is
meeting or failing criteria set by the regulator.
It certainly isn't trivial to stage NRC licensing. The NRC
would need resources and will, but it would provide a more
workable process for investors in new technologies. In
developing such a stage pathway, it would be important to
collaborate closely with the innovators and investors who would
use this process. There are a variety of other actions that DOE
and NRC could take to develop a risk-informed and technology-
neutral licensing framework that would be more applicable to
advanced reactors. NRC and DOE have both taken steps in that
direction but more resources and a clear mandate would ensure
more timely action.
Nuclear power can play a very large role in addressing
climate change, as well as other global air emissions concerns.
Private investors recognize that and are ready to move forward
with advanced reactors if we can modernize the
commercialization model.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I would be
pleased to respond to any questions you might have today or in
the future.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Finan follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Lummis. Thank you, Dr. Finan.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. McGough.
TESTIMONY OF MR. MIKE MCGOUGH,
CHIEF COMMERCIAL OFFICER, NUSCALE POWER
Mr. McGough. Thank you. Good morning.
My name is Mike McGough and I am the Chief Commercial
Officer at NuScale Power, the leading developer of American
small modular reactor, or SMR, nuclear technology.
I want to thank the Committee for the opportunity to
testify before you today and I want to particularly thank
Representative Bonamici for her welcome and introduction. I
would also like to thank Representative Veasey and
Representative Weber for their continued interest and support
for our work.
For 15 years our innovative company, based in Corvallis,
Oregon, and majority-owned by the Fluor Corporation, has been
advancing a unique SMR design that can play a significant role
in our future needs for baseload carbon-free electricity
generation. The NuScale design offers the safest nuclear
technology available today.
[Slide]
Mr. McGough. As you see on Slide 1, we have solved one of
the most vexing problems of the nuclear industry with a design
approach that we call the Triple Crown of Nuclear Safety. In
the event of a station blackout resulting in a complete loss of
electricity comparable to what occurred at Fukushima, the
NuScale Power module shuts itself down and cools for an
indefinite period of time with no electricity, no operator
action required, and no additional water other than an existing
8 million gallon pool. This is possible because the NuScale
design eliminates many of the electrically driven pumps,
motors, and valves that large reactors rely on to protect the
nuclear core. Instead, our reactor is safely cooled using three
simple properties of physics: convection, conduction, and
gravity to drive the flow of coolant through the reactor.
[Slide]
Mr. McGough. Slide 2 presents a visual description of this
natural circulation cooling process and I am happy to provide a
more detailed description of this process during the question-
and-answer session.
[Slide]
Mr. McGough. Our deployment characteristics are unique, and
as you can see on Slide 3, the NuScale Power module is
dramatically smaller than today's pressurized water reactors.
It can be factory-manufactured and transported to a site via
rail, truck, or barge.
Our sites are scalable. As I mentioned earlier, each site
can accommodate up to 12 NuScale Power modules. Therefore, the
amount of electricity at a site is scalable to between 50 and
600 megawatts based on site needs.
Continued support from Congress and the DOE is critical to
our progress. Tomorrow will mark the one-year anniversary of
NuScale's selection as the sole awardee for funding in round
two of the DOE's Small Modular Reactor Grant Program recently
authorized by Congress. The SMR program provides NuScale with
the vital cost-shared funding and support of the continued
design of our reactor, as well as the cost of NRC's review of
our license application. NuScale may receive up to $217 million
of matching funds over five years.
Of the two grant recipients under this program, we are the
only developer proceeding at full speed towards near-term
commercialization. Successful licensing of SMR technology
depends on sustained Congressional support through continued
appropriations for this program and we ask that you continue to
prioritize this work.
One of the highest risk components remaining in our project
is the uncertainty of the time and the process for NRC
licensing. In order to meet our customer's urgent needs, we
must be in a position for commercial operations in 2024.
NuScale has been engaged with the NRC on pre-application review
efforts since April of 2008. We expect to submit our complete
application in the second half of 2016 and the NRC plan
reflects a 39-month review schedule. We are waiting for the NRC
to issue the NuScale design-specific review standard, which
will establish the basis for our technology review.
Because of the unique technology, to ensure timely
completion it is important that we have a team of NRC staff
dedicated to reviewing the NuScale application. NuScale expects
a robust market demand for our technology and a line of sight
to our first project--projects. We are in active negotiations
for our first project known as the Utah Associated Municipal
Power System's carbon-free power project, which will be sited
in Idaho. We expect to deliver our first project to the owner
for a price of about $3 billion with subsequent plans in the
range of $2.5 billion. Energy Northwest has joined this effort
and the company holds first right of offer to operate the
project.
The NuScale SMR is a key part of our nation's energy
future. We appreciate your past support and we ask that you
continue to prioritize the development of SMR nuclear
technology. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McGough follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Lummis. I thank the witness.
And the Chair now recognizes our next witness, Dr. Dewan.
TESTIMONY OF DR. LESLIE DEWAN,
CO-FOUNDER AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TRANSATOMIC POWER
Dr. Dewan. Thank you, Chairman Lummis, Ranking Member
Swalwell, and Members of the Subcommittee. I really appreciate
the opportunity to be here and to talk with you all today about
the future of nuclear energy and the best ways for our country
to retain its superiority in nuclear technology.
I am the cofounder and CEO of Transatomic Power, a nuclear
reactor design startup based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. We
are developing an advanced nuclear reactor that can consume
nuclear waste reducing its radioactive lifetime while
generating enormous amounts of electricity.
In addition to Transatomic, there is a flourishing of other
advanced nuclear reactor designs in this country that can
safely produce very large amounts of carbon-free electricity
with minimal waste. However, this great technology will only be
useful if we can find a way to develop and commercialize it.
Currently, the largest areas are the following: first of all,
the lack of a clear regulatory pathway for advanced reactor
development in the United States; and secondly, the lack of
facilities for prototyping advanced reactor designs.
The commercial regulatory structure in the United States is
currently set up only for light water reactors. The system
works well for these designs but it needs to be broadened to
successfully encompass advanced reactors as well. Informal
estimates suggest that it would take approximately 20 years at
a minimum before such a regulatory pathway for advanced
reactors would be available in the United States. And
furthermore, there is a great deal of uncertainty in how much
regulatory approval will cost the company commercializing the
design. Estimates for licensing just the prototype facility
through the NRC--this is just a prototype facility--range from
$200-$500 million and there are no good estimates for the cost
of a commercial license for an advanced nuclear reactor.
This high cost and long timeline and furthermore the
uncertainty in the estimates of the cost and timeline
effectively block large-scale private investment in new nuclear
reactors because no investor would want to put money into a
project if they don't have a good sense of when they are going
to get a return or how much it will cost at the beginning.
The current system incentivizes reactor designers to
develop their first projects outside of the United States, and
in fact this has already happened. Some existing nuclear
reactor design companies are planning on building their first
power plants overseas in Canada or China or the Philippines
because they don't think it will be possible to build an
advanced reactor in the United States under the current
regulatory system.
A good path forward would be to move to a set of
technology-agnostic guidelines based on performance criteria
that would be equally applicable to all reactors. A similar set
of functional guidelines, functional regulations were recently
adopted in Canada and they are driving significant advanced
reactor progress in that country.
Now, regulatory issues are closely tied to the ability to
build prototype nuclear reactors. The great deal of uncertainty
in the cost and timeline for regulating and licensing prototype
nuclear facilities is a significant barrier to private
investment. A clear way to solve this problem would be to
establish a testbed facility ideally at a national laboratory
site for building demonstration-scale advanced reactors. This
solution would require clarifying the existing rules that say
it is possible to build and operate demo-scale advanced
reactors at national laboratory sites under the auspices of DOE
without requiring an explicit license from the NRC ahead of
time. NRC staffers could potentially be stationed at the site
so they could observe the construction and operation of the
facility. And as they do this, the NRC staffers would be
building up the necessary expertise in the technology to
license commercial-scale plants in the future.
Developing a better regulatory pathway for advanced nuclear
reactors is vital for this country. The United States currently
has the best nuclear technology in the world but I worry that
this will not always be the case, especially if the most
advanced reactor technology is forced to go overseas to be
prototyped, licensed, and commercialized. A regulatory pathway
for advanced reactors, coupled with the ability to more readily
demonstrate reactor prototypes at national laboratories, will
enable greater private investment in the suite of new nuclear
reactor designs currently being developed and allow the United
States to retain the extraordinary benefits of this new nuclear
technology.
Thank you all so much. I am very, very glad to have the
opportunity to testify here today and I am really looking
forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Dewan follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Lummis. And we are looking forward to having a
little bit of time to do that. So I am glad that things on the
Floor are slowing down.
Our final witness is Mr. Lipman and he was nodding his head
during some of the other presentations so I am looking forward
to hearing his remarks.
You are recognized, Mr. Lipman. Welcome.
TESTIMONY OF MR. DANIEL LIPMAN,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, POLICY DEVELOPMENT,
NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE
Mr. Lipman. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Mr.
Swalwell and other Members of the Committee.
I am Dan Lipman, Executive Director at the Nuclear Energy
Institute. Before joining NEI, I spent more than 31 years with
Westinghouse and a period of that time included leading the new
build program, the new reactor business that brought the AP1000
advanced design nuclear reactor to market.
We are keen to address the interests of the Committee. I
think they are critical, particularly because they touch on
three significant areas. These issues are global, these issues
are long-term, and above all, they impact U.S. leadership. As
for the statistics on nuclear energy is contribution in the
United States, both the Chair and Dr. Lyons underlined them. I
don't need to repeat them, but I will say that nuclear power
plants provide a number of other key attributes, including
price stability, technological diversity, and grid stability.
Nuclear fuel is not dependent on the weather or consistent
fuel delivery by trucks or pipelines. During this year's polar
vortex, while other electricity sources faced the challenge of
crowded pipelines or even frozen fuel, the nation's nuclear
power plants operated at a daily average capacity of 95 percent
and no other source of electricity came close to achieving that
level of reliability.
In addition to being clean, safe, and reliable, nuclear
power in the United States is a tremendous demonstration of
U.S. leadership. U.S. reactor designs are the basis for many of
the world's nuclear power programs, yet today we face very
serious competition in world markets. Major growth in nuclear
energy in the near term will be outside this country, so we
need to develop a program that meets this competition head-on
by improving our export control processes, establishing 123
trade agreements with prospective partner countries,
reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, and importantly, as
you have heard today, continuing to develop the safest and most
advanced nuclear technologies here.
And while we need to compete abroad, leadership means we
need to be building and developing more nuclear at home.
Maintaining nuclear energy' s share requires the equivalent of
12 new nuclear power plants by 2025, and if today's nuclear
power plants retire at 60 years of operation, we will need 20
plants by 2030 and 45 by 2035, so subsequent license renewal is
critical.
It is a strategic imperative to deploy small modular
reactors in the early to the mid-2020s followed by more
advanced generation designs in the 2030s and beyond. Small
modular reactors allow capacity additions at smaller increments
and advanced reactors will likely have an even higher level of
inherent safety and may be able to serve a vital role in
management of spent fuel from today's light water reactors.
Commercialization of advanced nuclear reactors will best be
achieved through an appropriate program that identifies these
technologies, facilitates their deployment, and as you have
heard, the most significant challenges facing both SMRs and
Generation IV reactors are financing and licensing. The time,
the uncertainty, and the cost required to design, license, and
build new reactors is daunting.
You heard from Secretary Lyons that at NEI we are
establishing, similar to our SMR working group, an advanced
reactor working group chaired by the CEO of Southern Nuclear
Operating Company to develop an industry vision of a long-term
sustainable program that will support the development and
commercialization of advanced reactors. We must establish a
portfolio of technologies necessary to provide clean, reliable
baseload electricity for the 2030s and beyond. federal and
state governments and industry must address in the balance of
this decade--so in the next five years--the financing and
regulatory challenges facing these advanced nuclear
technologies.
Both SMRs and Gen IV reactors need to have their barriers
deployment and eventually, as you have heard, for overseas
markets. We need innovation, creative approaches to ensure the
availability of capital and regulatory certainty and closure.
Business as usual will not get the job done.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lipman follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Lummis. I thank the witnesses and we will now
open our round of questions. The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Texas, Mr. Weber.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Madam Chair. Dr.--is it Dewan? Is
that how you say that?
Dr. Dewan. Yes, it is Dewan. Thank you.
Mr. Weber. Okay. Transatomic has proposed a molten salt
reactor, a non-light water design that will run on nuclear
waste and reach high levels of efficiency at higher
temperatures. I know I am telling Noah about the flood here but
I am going somewhere. Mr. Lipman just referred to two problems
being financing and licensing. NRC requires approximately 20
years to develop a regulatory pathway for an advanced reactor
design like Transatomic's and your company is in that process.
Now, according to Businessweek, they had an article on--
Bloomberg Businessweek I think it is--on your company. How long
have you been doing this? Let me just ask you that question.
Dr. Dewan. I actually started the company with my cofounder
back in 2011 actually.
Mr. Weber. Okay.
Dr. Dewan. For the first two years it was when we were in
the middle of our Ph.D. program so we have been full-time just
for the past year-and-a-half.
Mr. Weber. Okay. And your cofounder's name?
Dr. Dewan. Mark Massie.
Mr. Weber. Mark Massie, okay.
So for you guys has it been a nightmare? I mean there is no
clear predictable legal process and permitting process. How
does that work for you?
Dr. Dewan. It has been tricky to say the least. And thank
you so much for this question. It is an issue that I spend a
great deal of time thinking about.
We believe that ultimately we will be able to find a
regulatory pathway for this type of advanced reactor technology
in the United States on time scales shorter than the 20 years
currently estimated. We feel it is a necessity if the United
States wants to take advantage of this molten salt technology
that was first developed in this country back in the 1960s,
though it is a very tricky path.
Currently, there is no way for us to build a prototype
facility or move beyond the laboratory-scale work that we are
currently doing. We want more than anything to do this in the
United States but we have been forced to keep an open mind with
respect to the other pathways we could take.
Mr. Weber. Canada was mentioned earlier.
Dr. Dewan. Yes.
Mr. Weber. According to the Bloomberg Businessweek, you all
started in February of 2010. You all decided to fix what is
wrong with nuclear reactors.
Dr. Dewan. Back in spring, summer 2010 was when we first
started thinking about--very broadly about advanced reactor
designs and how you can do such extraordinary things with all
different types of advanced reactors, achieve very high
burnouts, produce very little waste.
Mr. Weber. When did you form your company?
Dr. Dewan. We incorporated in spring of 2011 actually on
the 25th anniversary of Chernobyl.
Mr. Weber. So 3-1/2 years ago?
Dr. Dewan. Yes.
Mr. Weber. So in 3-1/2 years is there anything in that
process you would do differently? Can you be very specific
about dealing with our agencies?
Dr. Dewan. So at this point we have been having informal
conversations with people at the NRC. We haven't started a--we
are not in a position yet to start an application process. We
are not in a position yet to even start the pre-application
process. That is also the point at which it starts being very,
very expensive to engage the NRC once you move beyond informal
conversations.
Mr. Weber. And I don't mean to pry and you may not be at
liberty to answer this but have you sought out investors?
Dr. Dewan. Oh, yes. We have actually raised a round of
funding so far from Founders Fund based in San Francisco. They
are actually one of the main early investors in SpaceX so they
are one of the few VC firms out there that is interested in
longer timescale, higher risk, higher reward technology.
Otherwise, for the reasons I had mentioned in my testimony, it
can be very, very tricky to get private investments in nuclear.
Mr. Weber. And have they been reluctant because of the
permitting and that process?
Dr. Dewan. A large number of the VC firms that we talked to
before we started connecting with Founders Fund, a lot of the
other firms were very concerned about the regulatory
uncertainty.
And it is not so much the high cost. I feel like if I could
tell them--if I could tell potential investors it will cost
$200 million just for the regulatory fees in addition to
however much it would cost for engineering of the prototype
plant, I feel like I could get private investment for that. But
when I talk to people and I say, well, it could be 200 million,
it could be 100 million, it could be 600 million, I honestly
don't know, there are no data points, no one knows, that--
Mr. Weber. No predictability.
Dr. Dewan. That isn't something that I can sell to anyone.
Mr. Weber. We hope to be able to help with that.
And I yield back.
Chairwoman Lummis. I thank the gentleman.
And I am going to ask some questions. We have been called
to votes but I think that if you will each try to limit your
answers to about a minute, you should have an opportunity to
respond.
I would like to ask each of you the same question. I am
going to start with Dr. Finan and go down the line. And I would
like to ask you what can Congress do to assist your efforts to
improve licensing processes, to expedite licensing processes,
and to help the private sector move forward with potential
technologies in this area under discussion today? Dr. Finan?
Dr. Finan. Thank you.
The NRC operates on a fee-recovery basis. They are required
to recover 90 percent of their costs from fees that are paid by
operating reactors, and those fees aren't funds that can be
used to support regulatory research into an advanced reactor
process. So one thing that Congress could do would be to
allocate funds to NRC that would be outside of that fee-
recovery basis so that they could work on this R&D work and
work on developing the groundwork that is needed for innovation
and advanced reactor licensing.
Chairwoman Lummis. Thank you.
Mr. McGough, same question.
Mr. McGough. Thank you.
So the licensing process that Dr. Finan referred to, we
have been involved with the NRC since April of 2008, so we have
been paying those bills for a very long time and they are very
expensive. To receive our design certification through that
point when it will be completed in about 2020, we will have
spent $530 million on that process. So it is very expensive.
We need the NRC to issue to us something referred to as a
design-specific review standard, which is basically a handshake
about how our application will be reviewed. Without that, we
are developing an application somewhat blindfolded, without a
pre-agreement about when we submit it in this fashion, it will
be expeditiously reviewed on the agreed-on 39-month schedule.
Even--and that predictability is better than no predictability,
as Dr. Dewan referred to. So it is really important to us that
we have the NRC dedicated proper resources reviewing those
applications in an expeditious fashion.
Chairwoman Lummis. Thank you, Mr. McGough.
Dr. Dewan, same question.
Dr. Dewan. Thank you.
And my answer ties in very closely to what Dr. Finan and
Mr. McGough were saying, that what would be most useful would
be to encourage the NRC to move to a more staged licensing
process similar, as was said before, to a pharmaceutical
biotech licensing process where there are multiple stages where
designs can get early feedback on the viability of their design
through a regulatory process in the United States.
Chairwoman Lummis. And Mr. Lipman, finally, same question.
Mr. Lipman. Yes. I concur especially with Dr. Finan's
suggestion and I might add to it, and that is that Congress
could establish a budget line item that is particularly
allocated to the review of advanced reactor concepts. There is
simply not the mandate for NRC to do that based under the model
that Dr. Finan suggested. So that would be helpful very
concretely.
Also, the continued investment in many of the programs Dr.
Lyons mentioned and some he didn't--or one he didn't--is the
LWR Sustainability Program, which allows for advanced work in
materials and other aging phenomena that keep our current fleet
going.
And lastly, perhaps investment under the laboratory system
of advanced materials test reactors. You know, all of these
technologies very often depend on behavioral properties of
metallurgical phenomena and so reactors at the national
laboratories can test these things, their data goes into
licensing and can expedite the licensing process. So focus on
the fleet and focus on the advanced concepts. Thank you.
Chairwoman Lummis. I thank this panel and these witnesses
for your valuable testimony and also the Members for their
questions.
The Members of the Committee may have additional questions
for you and you may receive those questions in writing. We
would ask you to respond in writing. The record will remain
open for two weeks for additional comments and written
questions from Members. Hopefully, you will not get them on the
24th of December so you will be responding to questions on
Christmas day.
The witnesses, with our gratitude, are excused.
I would like to ask the staff to prepare a written summary
of the last responses that these witnesses gave to that
question about what we can do and give it to Chairman Smith so
going forward he will know what was recommended for future
action or attention by this Committee going forward.
Again, I want to thank our panel and I want to thank you
for your wonderful work on our nation's behalf in this
important area of research and development.
With that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]