▶ 0:17:40>> good morning. Welcome to the epw committee and its subcommittee on clean air, claimant and nuclear innovation and safety. This hearing is entitled, "a legislative hearing to examine the nuclear and local materials act," "the discussion charge recharge act, and discussion draft enrichment licensing modernization act."
▶ 0:18:12We thank you to our witnesses and attendees. I'm grateful that ranking never kelly, who was conversant with these issues and very involved in the subject is here today. Thank you. I am going to begin with my opening statement. I have to go to another committee to introduce a colleague, then I will be back.
▶ 0:18:44Senator kelly will take the gavel for that time. Dr. stein, I presume. I'm so sorry that you got waylaid in line. We are delighted you are here. I want to thank all of our witnesses for your willingness to inform our discussions today.
▶ 0:19:09We look forward to hearing your download of your expect download of your exp expertise. America must remain an economic superpower in the decades ahead. That requires a smart energy policy to ensure the united states and states like wyoming and arizona continue to lead the way.
▶ 0:19:33For my state of wyoming, we fueled american prosperity through coal, natural gas, oil and uranium production for decades. We have a minor on our state seal -- miner. We had a robust uranium industry for years before the technology fell asleep. Like rumpelstiltskin -- isn't that who fell asleep for years?
▶ 0:20:03-- it has awakened. Rip van winkle. Excuse me. It has awakened and is more robust than ever. Wyoming workers and producers strengthen our grid and support the reliable energy systems that make economic growth and national security possible.
▶ 0:20:24We all know our new embrace of technology, including artificial intelligence, the data centers that support them, the advanced manufacturing that comes from it, and bitcoin mining, all these demand reliable baseload power. That is the key, the baseload power to continue to grow. The U.S.
▶ 0:20:46Needs more reliable generation, more infrastructure, and a diverse strategy that supports affordability, reliability and long-term energy security. Advanced nuclear energy must be part of that future. We are so glad -- rip van winkle -- we are so glad rip van winkle is awake and alive and well and experts representing it are here today to help us understand it.
▶ 0:21:15Senator kelly and I have a bill we are going to talk about today, the advanced act. It has bipartisan support in addition to us. We need to discuss that bill today and work to build on the momentum that other bills before us help represent.
▶ 0:21:43The build nuclear and local materials act, that's the one you are the prime sponsor? Yeah. It addresses unnecessary escalation and nuclear reactor construction by modernizing the nrc rules governing commercial grade steel and concrete and non-safety-related structures while preserving oversight of safety critical systems.
▶ 0:22:07That means more opportunities for local manufacturers, suppliers, and skilled workers to participate in nuclear projects while reducing unnecessary costs. We will also examine the recharge act. It's a discussion draft. We will focus on deploying advanced reactors at retired fossil fuel facilities. These communities already have energy infrastructure and experienced workforces.
▶ 0:22:39Repurchasing these sites for advanced nuclear development can attract long-term investment, strengthen local tax bases, and create opportunities in energy communities. Wyoming has already demonstrated how this can work. Terrapower, a project in my state, is being developed on a brownfield site and bringing new investment and development to existing energy experienced communities.
▶ 0:23:09Finally, the modernization enrichment facility licensing act. It also is a discussion draft. As the united states moves towards ending reliance on russian uranium imports in 2028 -- which is a big deal and we have to be ready for it -- this is about strengthening domestic uranium conversion and enrichment capacity, which are very limited.
▶ 0:23:34We only have one conversion facility and perhaps only two enrichment facilities in the whole country. This is really important for both energy security and national security. My state of wyoming is excited about this technology. We are positioned to lead. Wyoming has uranium resources and uranium mines. A lot of our in situ minds instead of open pit mines.
▶ 0:24:03It's a transformative technology and producing uranium out of the ground is amazing. When you come upon it, it looks like you're looking at a bunch of beehives off in the distance. It is a uranium field. The surface disturbance is almost nil. It is incredible. I just admire these brilliant minds that work in this area so much.
▶ 0:24:31What america lacks is a domestic enrichment capacity necessary to support a growing nuclear sector. This committee needs to explore, and I'm committed to fixing policies that limit the ability of wyoming and other states resources to power the world. The discussion draft seeks to modernize portions of the licensing process while maintaining nrc oversight and operating license agreements.
▶ 0:24:58Discussions on this proposal remain ongoing and I trust this hearing will inform negotiations with senator kelly moving forward. If america intends to lead the future of advanced manufacturing, artificial intelligence, digital infrastructure, and emerging technologies, we must also lead in reliable energy production, especially baseload.
▶ 0:25:22That future will require more power, more investment, and especially smarter policies that enable wyoming and other energy communities to continue to power this country. I want to thank our witnesses. I look forward to your testimony. I'm going to go introduce a friend in another committee who has been nominated for an ambassador ship -- ambassadorship. You are in the capable hands of senator kelly. Here is the gavel and I will see you in a little bit.
▶ 0:25:53Thank you.
▶ 0:25:53Sen. Kelly: Thank you, madam chair, for the work you have done on this issue. Thank you to our witnesses for appearing before the subcommittee today to discuss nuclear deployment in the future of american energy security. Energy demand is going up. We all see it. It's going to continue to grow in wyoming and arizona, across the country.
▶ 0:26:23Sen. Kelly: We need more reliable, affordable, and abundant power on the grid. That's clear. Nuclear energy needs to be part of the solution. It's a proven technology. We have been building and operating nuclear reactors since the 1960's. This is not an engineering problem. It's a regulatory problem. If we are serious about expanding nuclear power, we need a regulatory framework that helps us build a fleet faster and more efficiently.
▶ 0:26:53Sen. Kelly: We can't afford to wait 10 or 15 years to bring in new nuclear facilities online. Not one families and businesses and the economy need to, reliable power. Common sense regulatory reform should not mean cutting corners. We can streamline permitting and streamline deployment while maintaining high standards that protect communities. That is what the nrc's job was set up to do.
▶ 0:27:25Sen. Kelly: Now more than ever the nrc needs to keep the authority and independence given to it by congress to oversee this industry and protect public health and protect the environment and make sure reactors are being operated responsibly. That is how we move forward faster, bring down costs, strengthen our energy security, and keep people safe at the same time.
▶ 0:27:52Sen. Kelly: One challenge we have to address comes down to the very materials we use to build these facilities from. Nuclear grade construction standards and materials are important for safety, but nrc rules can still force their use in parts of a nuclear plant that do not perform a radiation safety function.
▶ 0:28:17Sen. Kelly: This broad one-size-fits-all approach increases costs and extends project timelines without making nuclear plants any safer. That's why I was happy to work with chairwoman lummis on the build nuclear with local materials act.
▶ 0:28:41Sen. Kelly: It allows commercial grade materials to be used in parts of a nuclear facility where there are no radiological hazards. Commercial grade materials. I may have said nuclear. It also makes clear that the nrc has to certify where those materials are appropriate and not appropriate. Those are one way we can speed up nuclear deployment without cutting corners.
▶ 0:29:11Sen. Kelly: Fuel supply is another critical part of this equation. As I discussed in this committee last week, building more reactors will not mean anything if we don't have the fuel to operate them. Nuclear power plant's depend on a steady supply of enriched uranium. Today the united states imports 80% of our enriched uranium supply. About 20% of that comes from russia, and adversary -- and adversary. Not ideal.
▶ 0:29:41Sen. Kelly: We only have two enrichment facilities and one that can do this at commercial scale. That leaves us short of the fuel capacity we need to protect against energy and economic and national security risks. We need more of these facilities. The licensing process made this a lot harder than it needs to be. Right now nrc requirements include well-intentioned but outdated procedural hurdles that create a lot of uncertainty.
▶ 0:30:10Sen. Kelly: It also drives up costs and delays the projects we need to get new production capacity online. The licensing rules for new uranium enrichment facilities have not been updated in 40 years. Technology has advanced. The world has changed. So should the rules.
▶ 0:30:31Sen. Kelly: If we want to expand nuclear power and strength in our domestic fuel supply and reduce dependence on foreign sources, we need a licensing process that moves faster while keeping the right kind of oversight in place. My enrichment licensing modernization act would address this imbalance by creating a framework more consistent with the process already used for other nuclear fuel facilities that would allow certain construction activities to begin before and operating license is
▶ 0:31:02Sen. Kelly: Issued while making clear the developers move forward at their own risk and early construction does not guarantee final approval. The bill would give the nrc authority to determine the appropriate level of environmental review based on the specific facts and the risks of each application. The bill is included on the hearing agenda today as a discussion draft.
▶ 0:31:27Sen. Kelly: I believe it is a more targeted, practical approach than the status quo. One that can reduce unnecessary delays while also preserving the safeguards we need and expect. I look forward to getting the feedback from our witnesses today as we work to finalize and introduce the bill. I want to acknowledge the third bill on the agenda today, the discussion draft of the recharge act introduced by sick -- senator lummis.
▶ 0:31:59Sen. Kelly: It seeks to streamline the need for review requirements, renew advanced reactors built on ground fields for other retired energy sites. I think the concept of making it easier to build nuclear facilities where an older facility existed has merit. I hope the testimony we received today helps us understand how we can advance the concept in a bipartisan way.
▶ 0:32:25Sen. Kelly: Taken together the bills move us towards reliable, clean power while maintaining the oversight the public deserves and expects. I want to thank the witnesses for being here and taking the time to review this package of bills with us. Each of you brings real expertise and a range of perspectives that will help inform this discussion and improve the legislation before us.
▶ 0:32:55Sen. Kelly: I'm glad we have the chance to discuss these proposals today. I want to thank senator lummis for all of her hard work and the hard work of her staff to put this hearing together. This is a bipartisan topic and I hope we can showcase that this is a space where we can reach some common ground.
▶ 0:33:16Sen. Kelly: As two western senators, senator lummis and I have had the chance to work together a lot over the years, from truck parking to uranium cleanup and so much more. Her commitment to finding areas of common ground is commendable. I want to thank her for that work. I will try to do that again when we get back -- when she gets back. We have more ahead of us before the end of the year, including today's hearing where we hope to find some areas of bipartisan agreement.
▶ 0:33:45Sen. Kelly: With that I want to introduce our three witnesses. From left to right, Mr. loris is the president of c3 solutions focusing on how a free market can signal for innovation and emerging energy technologies like nuclear energy to serve our communities with baseload power and lead U.S. exports of advanced nuclear reactor designs.
▶ 0:34:16Sen. Kelly: Welcome, Mr. loris. I will introduce all three witnesses and they will start with Mr. loris for opening remarks. Our next witness this morning is Dr. adam stein, director of nuclear energy, innovation at the breakthrough institute.with over 20 years of experience in the energy sector, his advanced education at the intersection of engineering and public policy has led him to work in nuclear facility off-site risk analysis, published work with idaho national laboratory, and lead
▶ 0:34:48Sen. Kelly: The breakthrough institute's nuclear initiatives. Dr. stein, welcome. Finally, we will hear from Dr. patrick white, group lead for fusion safety and regulation at clean air task force. His phd in nuclear engineering has focused on licensing methods and regulatory frameworks for commercial advanced nuclear technologies.
▶ 0:35:16Sen. Kelly: He leads the clean air task force international working group aimed at creating a globally harmonized regulatory framework for commercial nuclear technology and U.S. exports. Dr. white, welcome as well. Let's start with Dr. loris five minutes of opening remarks. >> thank you. Thank you for this opportunity to testify this morning.
▶ 0:35:45Sen. Kelly: My name is nick loris, president of the conservative coalition for climate solutions and energy fellow with the abundance institute. After two decades of flat demand, power consumption is surging. Great strategies forecast 5% annual growth over the next five years, and the peak demand to be equivalent to 15 times new york city's peak consumption. Electricity prices are rising faster than inflation and families and businesses across the country are feeling the effects. It is clear we need more supply.
▶ 0:36:15Sen. Kelly: Nuclear power can be part of the solution. It is safe, clean, dependable and scalable. The key question is, is a cost competitive. While that is ultimately a question for the market to answer, there are reasons to be hopeful. The private sector is making big bets, investing across companies and technologies, directly financing projects and helping reduce the cost and risk premiums associated with advanced reactors.
▶ 0:36:44Sen. Kelly: Encouragingly, there has been bipartisan support and recognition that federal policy has not kept pace with private sector innovation and investment. Bills signed by president trump and president biden in recent years help address some of the government imposed regulatory burdens that increased costs and slowed deployment. This is a long-overdue shift. One towards a risk informed performance-based framework that preserves the nuclear regulatory commission commission's core safety mission while cutting unnecessary costs and delays elsewhere. Is already paying dividends.
▶ 0:37:18Sen. Kelly: Terrapower received its permit nine months ahead of schedule. The nrc will further improve the licensing power -- process and modernized outdated regulations. Now is not the time to be complacent. The bill and discussion drafts under consideration today would build on that progress. First, the build nuclear with local materials act.
▶ 0:37:48Sen. Kelly: The concrete, steel and rebar used in the plans must be strict quality assurance standards to be considered nuclear grade. These materials and components cost considerably more than alternatives, even when they are identical in performance and composition because the approval requires extensive analysis testing and documentation. The cost of nuclear grade concrete can be 50% higher than nonnuclear concrete and in some cases components can be 50 times more expensive. Another reason for the higher costs is the shortage of suppliers and less competition.
▶ 0:38:19Sen. Kelly: When nuclear grade materials are required, nuclear energy companies are in many respects captive customers, paying stadium and airport level prices unsuitable suppliers can offer grocery store level prices for the same product. Expanding the use of commercial grade materials will broaden the supplier base, increase competition, and enable local manufacturers and construction firms to participate in nuclear projects.
▶ 0:38:43Sen. Kelly: Second, the recharge act would accelerate the deployment of advanced nuclear technologies and retired fossil facilities and brownfield sites by categorically excluding nypa reviews while keeping the licensing requirements intact. The sites have the grid connections, transmission infrastructure, skilled work forces, and communities that understand energy development. The recharge act illuminates redundant reviews where the environmental trade-offs are already well understood.
▶ 0:39:10Sen. Kelly: We just saw a version of this this week where the nrc issued a finding of no significant impacts in cedric, texas. The comes after an environmental assessment that took months rather than an impact statement that would have taken years. More efficient reviews will spur private investment, strengthen tax bases, and position rural and industrial communities as hubs for the next generation of american energy and technological leadership.
▶ 0:39:40Sen. Kelly: The reality is that the federal permitting system is overly complex, often redundant, and prone to litigation. While wholesale modernization is necessary, the recharge act represents a step in the right direction. The enrichment licensing and modernization act addresses a vulnerability in our nuclear fuel supply chain. The U.S. imports roughly 80% of its enriched uranium and despite efforts towards a complete ban by 2028, 20% still comes from russia. Enrichment is safe and well understood.
▶ 0:40:09Sen. Kelly: America has a technology, capital, and human ingenuity to expand domestic enrichment capacity. Federal policy should help clear the path. The draft would allow at-risk construction to begin while licensing continues entirely at the developers on risk and with no taxpayer exposure. It would allow tailored environmental assessments rather than mandating full of our mental impact statements in eliminate hearings with no party requesting one. These are commonsense requirements and improve timelines without touching the nrc's core mandate.
▶ 0:40:41Sen. Kelly: If the U.S. wants to be a leader in nuclear energy to meet rising demand, revitalize industrial communities, and deliver clean, reliable power, we must build. To build on time and on budget we must fix the rules that make permitting and construction unnecessarily expensive and slow. The reforms under consideration will help empower the industry to invest with certainty and build with efficiency while maintaining strong public safety and environmental safeguards. Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
▶ 0:41:07Sen. Kelly: Thank you, Mr. loris. Dr. stein, you are recognized for five minutes.
▶ 0:41:13Dr. Stein: Thank you. Chair lummis, ranking member kelly, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to participate in his hearing today. I'm Dr. adam stein at the breakthrough institute. We work on continued use and safe use of nuclear and clean energy. We act in the public interest and not a line or receive funding from the industry.
▶ 0:41:40Dr. Stein: Nuclear power continues to simultaneously contribute to reliability, energy security, national security, missions and pollution reduction, and long-term electricity price stability. Reliable and affordable electricity underpins advanced manufacturing, defense readiness, artificial intelligence infrastructure, industrial production, and economic competitiveness.
▶ 0:42:06Dr. Stein: The united states needs a nuclear reglet to a system to protect health and safety in a way that is credible, predictable, timely, and proportionate to actual risk. Such a system is necessary not only to maintain safety but ensure that nuclear energy can benefit society. The central challenge facing nuclear regulation today is an implementation and decision architecture problem.
▶ 0:42:32Dr. Stein: Congress has already provided substantial directions to modernize nrc through legislation, including the advanced act. The nrc has begun to make visible progress. Modernization will be judged by implementation. Nuclear deployment exist in an ecosystem. Projects are simultaneously satisfying financing requirements, customer demand, supply chain readiness, public acceptance, permitting systems, environmental review, and regulatory approval.
▶ 0:43:05Dr. Stein: Any mono causal explanation of nuclear costs is incomplete. One challenge facing the nrc is a decision architecture problem to consider benefits to society as defined and reinforced under the advanced act.
▶ 0:43:23Dr. Stein: This committee, the subcommittee and larger committee, endorsed the advanced act and forwarded it.to adjust the nrc mission to ally with the atomic energy act to ensure bipartisan support of the nrc's actions continues. Considering actual benefits to society and decision architecture is imperative to continue implementation that remains in the best interest of society.
▶ 0:43:53Dr. Stein: There are currently approximately -- the rulemakings at the nrc and although it is impossible to say exactly what is going on in those rulemakings, many relate to the bills in front of the subcommittee today. There may be some overlap but due to reduced transparency by the engagement at this point, it's unclear whether the bills will be duplicative or exactly the direction the nrc needs in the moment.
▶ 0:44:25Dr. Stein: Implementation of this is critical and depending -- dependent on the nrc's commission decisions. Another challenge is radiation protection coherence. This committee has stressed reducing safety would be counterproductive to the bills at hand. Safety must be maintained while streamlining the rulemaking process.
▶ 0:44:53Dr. Stein: Environmental review of licensing faces a similar challenge. While it has been mentioned that the U.S. enforces about -- imports about 80% of uranium, to increase demand we would need to increase enrichment production domestically if we move away from russian capacity by two to five times. 70 to 100 separated work units.
▶ 0:45:22Dr. Stein: That is a significant increase compared to the status quo and will require streamlining and logical expansion of environmental reviews. The committee is evaluating three specific bills that have been introduced to help address these implementation challenges.
▶ 0:45:42Dr. Stein: All work to enable smarter and performance-based regulations, reducing costs associated with nuclear grade concrete and steel, to use commercial when available and appropriate without cap revising public health and safety. The nrc has said in its own rulemaking that quality assurance costs at about 35% to a nuclear power plant cost.
▶ 0:46:11Dr. Stein: Enabling appropriate environment to review at brownfield sites can significantly reduce the times to deployed nuclear energy while protecting the environment. Regulatory barriers facility licensing to make them more aligned with other fuel facilities and other nuclear power production facilities.
▶ 0:46:32Dr. Stein: Ultimately, successful modernization will be measured by whether the united states has created a regulatory system capable of enabling nuclear technology at scale required for the nation's future. Thank you.
▶ 0:46:44Sen. Kelly: Thank you, Dr. stein. Dr. white, five minutes.
▶ 0:46:49Dr. White: Thank you. My name -- madame chair lummis. Fantastic timing. I'm Dr. patrick white, group lead for fusion safety and regulation at the cleaner task force in advance nuclear technology and regulation expert. I cover fission and fusion technology with a focus on regulation, safety and licensing. How do we get the processes right?
▶ 0:47:14Dr. White: It's a nonprofit organization that focusing on clean energy solutions and delivering at scale in the U.S. and around the world. I lead the work on licensing regulation and I think anyone that knows me and my friends and my colleagues will save nuclear regulation is one of my favorite topics to talk about. I'm excited to be here today to provide testimony on the bills and discuss it with the committee.
▶ 0:47:39Dr. White: Nuclear energy has great potential to help us meet our growing energy and climate needs. How we provide the affordable clean energy we need to see the continued growth of society. Efficient effective and predicable regulation will be absolutely critical to ensuring investment, helping facilitate new projects, build out supply chains, build out order books and maintain trust in nuclear technologies.
▶ 0:48:04Dr. White: I'm interested to the work the committee has been doing over the last several years and we expect the committee and congress to do in the next several years to create this predicable regulatory framework. The proposed legislation under discussion during the hearing helps address the outstanding gaps and weaknesses I think we see in the licensing and environment to reviews and construction requirements for new nuclear reactors and in rainy enrichment facilities.
▶ 0:48:30Dr. White: While I agree with the intent of the bills, there are specific targeted changes we can make to the draft legislation to provide greater clarity on the technical and legal justifications for some of the changes. Help enable more robust public engagement, and help ensure these regulatory changes don't have an inadvertent effect on other licensing processes we will need to complete to get nuclear energy deployed at scale in the united states.
▶ 0:48:58Dr. White: The first bill will direct the nrc to initiate a rulemaking on the use of commercial grade concrete for non-safety-related structures. While regulations are ready and use of commercial grade concrete for many non-safety-related structures, both this legislation and recent experience by the reactor in wyoming highlight gaps and weaknesses and some of the existing regulation and guidance.
▶ 0:49:22Dr. White: I believe a rulemaking can provide an opportunity for the nrc, private companies, and public stakeholders to provide input to update the topic and accelerate and lower the cost of new nuclear reactor construction. The second piece, the revitalizing energy communities by hosting advanced reactors and generating energy, the recharge act, will focus on licensing and appoint new reactors at brownfield sites and fossil fuel sites that can ultimately become the hub for the next generation
▶ 0:49:57Dr. White: Of energy technology. By streamlining environmental reviews there's a really unique opportunity to try to accelerate the deployment of new technology with a focus on re-powering the sites where we have had energy produced for decades. While I believe the reviews completed to meet the requirements can be streamlined for both nuclear energy and all energy technologies, I don't believe a legislative exclusion for all advanced reactors is necessarily the most effective way to address licensing timelines.
▶ 0:50:28Dr. White: Creation of a legislative category would risk public engagement and input and potentially applying categorical exclusion to all advanced reactors could be overly broad. I really support the intent of the bill and think leveraging nypa reforms could be used to accelerate licensing reviews in the near term and the proposed legislation potentially could be refocused to direct nrc rulemaking on of our mental assessments where it could
▶ 0:50:59Dr. White: Develop more specific or targeted exclusions for certain advanced projects, ultimately meeting the intent of figuring out how we can get more nuclear energy on the grid and prioritize the existing existing sites. It would update the statutory licensing requirement to help accelerate and expand U.S. domestic uranium capacity. Like senator kelly said, a lot of this was created in 1990.
▶ 0:51:28Dr. White: There's an opportunity to figure out how we can modernize the statutory requirements. While I agree with the need to enable certain licensed construction activities and remediation plans can be useful at ensuring public trust, I think there are changes we can look at and regulation as that of legislation that provides a more streamlined approach and gives opportunity for the agency to incorporate best practices on nuclear licensing and provide opportunities for stakeholder engagement.
▶ 0:51:57Dr. White: I think you offer the opportunity to testify on these rules under discussion and I look forward to questions from the committee.
▶ 0:52:03Chair Lummis: Thank you for your testimony. I will begin with senator kelly's questions so he can get them and and then he has to go to another committee. You are recognized, senator kelly.
▶ 0:52:16Sen. Kelly: Thank you, madam chair and thank you all three of you for your opening remarks and being here today. Dr. white, I want to start with you and get to a topic you mentioned at the end of your opening remarks. The enrichment licensing modernization act. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we need to rebuild this country's capacity to enrich uranium.
▶ 0:52:43Sen. Kelly: That is critical for our existing nuclear fleet and it will be even more important if we are serious about bringing more reactors online in the years ahead. The enrichment licensing modernization act makes sins of a get reform to streamline licensing. Each reform is balanced with a safeguard. For example, the bill eliminates the requirement for a hearing when nobody asks for one. Makes sense.
▶ 0:53:16Sen. Kelly: Why would we hold a hearing when nobody is asking for a hearing? But when the public does request a hearing, the bill makes that hearing mandatory. We preserve the public's ability to weigh in without adding more bureaucracy. Similar to that, the bill changes when a developer is allowed to begin building an enrichment facility.
▶ 0:53:46Sen. Kelly: Under current law, the nrc has to review the application and issue a construction license before any work begins. Then the nrc has to issue a second license per operation. This causes months of delay and drives up costs and creates a kind of uncertainty that holds back investment in these facilities. The bill changes the law to simply require an operating license. That is a real change.
▶ 0:54:16Sen. Kelly: At the same time, we should not allow the developer to start building something as sensitive as a uranium enrichment facility on the basis of an application alone. We can't rake ground without protections in place for the community -- can't break ground.
▶ 0:54:35Sen. Kelly: It requires a remediation plan in case construction stops or is not completed or the operating license ultimately is not issued. You are not just stuck with this facility. It also gives the nrc the authority to require implementation of that. Dr. white, do you believe this type of remediation requirement is appropriate to ensure the responsible development of an enrichment facility?
▶ 0:55:09Dr. White: Yes, I do. It's an opportunity to provide an additional public check on the creation of potential new uranium enrichment infrastructure.
▶ 0:55:14Sen. Kelly: Is it within the nrc's purview to require this type of remediation?
▶ 0:55:21Dr. White: Yes, I do. There are interesting opportunities to look at licensing activities that the nrc completes and see this president for trying to provide additional assurances to the public on creation of new facilities. The best example I will go to is the requirements that the nuclear regulatory commission has for limited work authorizations for essentially early construction of nuclear reactors.
▶ 0:55:47Dr. White: It's a similar process where you look at trying to proposed your construction activities and the a redress plan for if it's not completed, what activities you will take to help return that site back to its original condition for development.
▶ 0:56:02Sen. Kelly: There are similar requirements for other regular dated facilities question mark
▶ 0:56:09Dr. White: There are similar regulations in place for other facilities like commercial nuclear reactors. They are not the same exact requirements for other uranium facilities like conversion plans or fuel fabrication facilities. The one difference I would highlight is the regulatory requirements are implement it through regulation and author statute.
▶ 0:56:29Sen. Kelly: -- and not through statute.
▶ 0:56:33Sen. Kelly: Can you speak well maintaining independence over enrichment licensing is critical, especially if we allow pre-license construction of these facilities?
▶ 0:56:44Dr. White: As we start talking about the deployment of nuclear energy at scale, it will be something that requires societal acceptance and societal demand. We don't want to create nuclear technologies that can -- that they can be scared of.
▶ 0:57:04Dr. White: By maintaining nrc public trust, maintaining nrc independence and providing opportunities for public engagement with the nrc, to continues the momentum we have on nuclear energy is something that is broadly bipartisan supported as opposed to creating gaps in public support.
▶ 0:57:23Sen. Kelly: Thank you and thank you for working with my staff and this committee to draft legislation that's both practical and responsible.
▶ 0:57:33Chair Lummis: I will take the liberty to ask both of you a question. I don't obey the rules of chairman. You will have to forgive me for being the way I am. Senator kelly and Dr.
▶ 0:57:49Chair Lummis: White, if a nuclear facility of some sort or nuclear related facility is built on a brown site, does that relieve the initial polluter of liability? So, does the liability for cleanup shift entirely to the nuclear facility?
▶ 0:58:19Sen. Kelly: I don't know.
▶ 0:58:23Dr. White: This is a place but of a humble nuclear energy and not a lawyer -- engineer and not a lawyer.
▶ 0:58:32Chair Lummis: Do any of our witnesses know the answer? >> the liability could or could not be transferred depending on how the remediation plan would be defined.
▶ 0:58:49Chair Lummis: Ok. Thank you. Thanks, senator kelly, for your involvement in this topic. I have always enjoyed working with you on this topic. It is very productive working relationship. If you choose to come back when your next hearing is completed, we will see you again. I will take the liberty to take more than five minutes.
▶ 0:59:13Chair Lummis: [laughter] again, thanks, witnesses, for being here. Mr. loris, I will start with you. One of the goals of the recharge act discussion draft is to create a strong incentive for private industry to reinvest and retired fossil fuel sites in brownfields instead of leaving those communities behind.
▶ 0:59:40Chair Lummis: In many cases these communities are dealing with declining tax basis, stranded infrastructure, and costly cleanup needs. How can advanced nuclear development leverage private capital to accelerate site remediation, restore long-term economic activity, and bring new investment into communities that have power to this country for generations?
▶ 1:00:05Mr. Loris: I think it is critical given the infrastructure in place. The understanding of what energy means for these communities, as well as environment of protection.
▶ 1:00:18Mr. Loris: If you look at places like alaska who very much understand the benefits of energy production as well as environment the protection, a lot of the states in the west, wyoming, this represents really critical opportunities to be new hubs of technological growth and given the data center demand we are already seeing I know there is a lot of skepticism and hesitancy.
▶ 1:00:43Mr. Loris: The amount of additional revenue that can be generated for tax basis is not just from the energy investment itself but all of the additional investment that comes with it. Loudoun county ndc -- outside of D.C. is an example of what that has built. While the data centers don't employ a lot of people, they bring a lot of revenue. That is almost a sweet spot for these communities.
▶ 1:01:07Mr. Loris: That does not mean a huge influx of people for the schools with the roads but it does mean a lot of investment in the roads and the schools and all the businesses will stop having affordable, reliable, clean energy infrastructure as the driving force for that is really essential and that's why I think places like wyoming and texas another places are starting to get off the ground for what we can hope to continue to see across the country.
▶ 1:01:34Chair Lummis: It's my experience that the people of kammer, a town that would dried up except for terrapower's involvement is very supportive of its presence there and it was welcoming. Because wyoming has a history of uranium mining you don't have some of the same fears of the unknown. It is a known in wyoming.
▶ 1:02:04Chair Lummis: The reemergence of this new technology is something we have a tendency to welcome, especially those of us who are native to wyoming and have that legacy history. Mr. loris, opponents of permitting reform sometimes argue additional process automatically produces better environmental outcomes.
▶ 1:02:30Chair Lummis: Under the recharge framework we are incentivizing private investment into already disturbed industrial sites and brownfields instead of pushing development onto undeveloped land. One of the things I have seen with terrapower is their initial permitting process was completed in 19 months rather than the projected 27 months.
▶ 1:02:58Chair Lummis: Which I saw as an indication that permitting is working. Others I think feared because the time spent on the initial phase of the valuation -- evaluation was shortened that maybe steps were missed.
▶ 1:03:21Chair Lummis: How can we assure people that permitting that is expedited can still produce a complete thorough, safe permit process?
▶ 1:03:35Mr. Loris: It has to for the project to have opportunity to move forward. What companies do with pre-application processes and as Dr. white mentioned, it's incumbent upon not just industry but also the permitting process to assure the public to engage communities for sure. We can't get into a system of analysis paralysis or subject these projects to endless litigation and these litigation do loops -- doom loops.
▶ 1:04:13Mr. Loris: There's a goldilocks scenario we can have the public engagement and ensure we are not duplicating efforts if there is a reactor technology that's already been reviewed by the department of energy or the nrc or these brownfield sites that there's opportunity to make a more efficient process. Also rein in some of the excessive litigation we have seen. Sometimes it's a few bad apples that can upset the card and we have seen this not just with nuclear but with energy projects across the board.
▶ 1:04:43Mr. Loris: Even more industrial projects will stop one example in new york with a semiconductor fab and more upstate new york. They had excepted from the community, the public, a lot of investment and jobs coming but there were six people in the community who do not want it, resulting in trying to litigate it out of existence. Yes, we can have more efficient processes and reduce duplication but we need processes that allow the projects to move forward when the committee accepts them and the investment is there.
▶ 1:05:12Chair Lummis: Are there overlapping federal reviews and in the case of brownfields, remediation processes?
▶ 1:05:23Mr. Loris: With the process generally that is one of the hopes of reforming the national environment the policy act. At the federal and state level and not allow for some of the abuses of the laws for litigation. Looking at what previous analyses have done, what previous engagements with communities and tribes have already been accomplished.
▶ 1:05:50Mr. Loris: Those are things we can learn from and should build upon so we are not doing it over and over again.
▶ 1:05:55Chair Lummis: Reforming the way nepa is implemented transcends so many sectors. Hopefully that can benefit this sector as well. Again, Mr.
▶ 1:06:11Chair Lummis: Loris, does codifying a clear rulemaking standard provide more certainty for regional manufacturers and fabricators and construction firms that otherwise might cause them not to participate because of that kind of regulatory ambiguity?
▶ 1:06:35Mr. Loris: It does. Dr. stein talked about this in his remarks. Nrc has the ability for permitting commercial grade concrete, steel, rebar. Based on the nrc's report it seems like this is complex and unclear for both the developers of the power plant but also for these companies.
▶ 1:06:59Mr. Loris: Having the nrc provide more simplicity and clarity about what can be done and what can't be done opens up the opportunities for more local manufacturers, construction firms to participate and engage with nuclear companies and not be frozen out thinking because they don't want to go through the quality assurance checks or a constrained supply.
▶ 1:07:25Mr. Loris: If there is more clarity, that will open up this for more opportunities and that means more competition, more choice and lower prices.
▶ 1:07:32Chair Lummis: You mentioned Dr. stein. Dr. stein, I'm sorry I missed your opening statement. I understand that you have noted the nrc is beginning to adopt right sized environmental reviews and cases where impacts are limited.
▶ 1:07:52Chair Lummis: What would it signal to private capital markets if congress codified that kind of streamlined review for redevelopment on previous energy sites?
▶ 1:08:03Dr. Stein: It would be a signal that the history of building nuclear power projects shows that the impacts are commiserate to other industrial sites and therefore disturbing the same land that's been disturbed would not increase and may actually leave the site better than found. It would also signal that the process should be scaled relative to the size.
▶ 1:08:34Dr. Stein: The environment will impact statement does become disrupted by litigation at times. But having an environmental assessment when the impact statement is not necessary because the site impacts would be minimal would also streamline the entire overall process. And reduce nrc resources that are necessary to complete such a study.
▶ 1:08:58Chair Lummis: Are there capital markets that are reluctant to engage in nuclear projects in the U.S.? Is it a problem? Is it hard to get money?
▶ 1:09:13Dr. Stein: Absolutely.
▶ 1:09:14Chair Lummis: Because it is nuclear?
▶ 1:09:22Dr. Stein: In part, yes. Capital markets understand the cause for nuclear materials alone because of regulation or because of citing costs, because of regulatory uncertainty all increases the uncertainty of the project being completed. That puts their capital at risk. That would be more at risk simply due to regulatory risks that it would be to invest in other projects.
▶ 1:09:46Chair Lummis: Thank you. You emphasized that credible nuclear development depends on a credible fuel strategy and reduces exposure to foreign supply chains. The U.S. has long-standing uranium resources in places like wyoming, yet domestic production is not consistently translated into fuel securitiy.
▶ 1:10:14Chair Lummis: From your perspective, what is the missing link between domestic uranium resources and a fully resilient nuclear fuel supp chain. -- supply chain?
▶ 1:10:26Dr. Stein: There are a few missing links. The first is a clear streamlining process for facilities enrichment facilities and conversion facilities. The standards we currently have are more restrictive than licensing for reactors that utilize this facilities. Instead of commiserate to the risk of the fuel facility itself. This is in part because they were last modified many years ago.
▶ 1:10:56Dr. Stein: The deterministic standards need to be reconsidered. The second is, the cost of uranium production in the U.S. is much higher than some other countries where the uranium is easier to get to than the united states. Therefore the market itself exposes the developer to more risk. But to have national security and energy security we need to have prioritized further exploration of grain production in the U.S.
▶ 1:11:24Dr. Stein: To move away from other countries that for the -- put the entire supply chain risk.
▶ 1:11:29Chair Lummis: Madam chairman has arrived. I'm going to ask one more question of Dr. stein. I have questions for Dr. white. I will postpone those so our chair has a chance to ask questions. I have had the wicked indulgence of having this witness panel to myself so I have -- I have used more time than that to which I am entitled. I will take another question with Dr.
▶ 1:11:57Chair Lummis: Stein before you ask your question, if that's ok. Dr. stein, you outlined a number of reforms that are already underway with nrc processes and rulemaking. Where do you see the remaining friction points that are sitting outside th agency's control? How does this address those constraints?
▶ 1:12:26Dr. Stein: Thank you for the question. There are several constraints particularly inside the atomic energy act that are outside the agency's control and the current response to modernize regulations are confined by what they can accomplish under the act.
▶ 1:12:44Dr. Stein: One example would be an one example would be a enrichment facilities required to have an impact statement in the atomic energy act, which is unique and exceptional compared to other industrial or even other nuclear facilities. The advisory committee and reactor safeguards is required to review every license application where instead if we had, for instance, 100 applications in a year that was simply form a bottleneck.
▶ 1:13:13Dr. Stein: I believe the advisory committee is important but to focus on new novel constraints instead of reviewing the 10th or 70th of the exact same license. I believe as senator kelly mentioned earlier while you were out that we should not necessarily require a hearing for a license where no one request a hearing. -- requests a hearing.
▶ 1:13:44Dr. Stein: That was a remnant for the atomic energy energy commission to the nuclear regulatory commission in the 1970's. There's a definition between a research and test reactor and a commercial or industrial reactor between section 103 and 104.
▶ 1:14:03Dr. Stein: It is unclear why c1 it is unclear if where the line is is the line in the sand, and wide research test reactors are subject to only the regulations necessary to protect the health and safety of the public and the environment. Commercial industrial facilities can be required to have regulations far beyond what is necessary to adequately protect the health and safety of the public.
▶ 1:14:32Chair Lummis: I want to thank the witnesses and now, madam chairman, you are recognized for as long as you want to talk. But don't use as much time as I did. [laughter] >> thank you, senator lummis. Thank you for your leadership. Thank you to the panel for being here. Congress has actively focused on addressing outdated statutory requirements that has limited the safe deployment of nuclear power.
▶ 1:15:02Chair Lummis: The cornerstone of those is the enactment of the bipartisan advanced act, with help from members of this committee including ranking member whitehouse, senators lummis and kelly. While we focused on securing the nrc and woman's the bill is intended, there are targeted legislative changes that need to be addressed. Those issues include and limited in what is known as the mandatory hearing. I don't know if that is what you were just talking about. Yes.
▶ 1:15:32Chair Lummis: Modernizing the advisory committee on reactor safeguards and building on previous efforts to provide sufficient compensation to nrc leadership to compete with the private sector. I appreciate you for calling this hearing on this conversation. We had a hearing last week, I think it was. Although weeks are starting to move together. Recently, I will say that. With all of the nrc commissioners.
▶ 1:16:00Chair Lummis: I was very encouraged in that hearing because, having set in past hearings, with the nrc, there has been a lot of -- there had previously been a lot more tension and a lot more disagreement among commissioners, and therefore a lot of stagnation.
▶ 1:16:19Chair Lummis: This particular commission has been put together, while there are differences, it appeared, and I think it is, and I will ask your opinion, as though they are cleaning out the cobwebs here in moving toward where they have like and possibility of reaching agreements to pick up speed, and to implement the advanced act at the same time. That, to me, is encouraging.
▶ 1:16:48Chair Lummis: So, I would be interested to know, we will just go through the panel here, Mr. morris, would you agree with that? The implementation of the advanced act and the -- how has the nrc been moving forward in your opinion on that?
▶ 1:17:02Mr. Loris: I think very well. Kudos to you and for the passage and ultimately signing advance into law. It builds a foundation that someday proponents of nuclear energy that we have been talking about for so long which is how do we reform and modernize the nrc and reform outdated rules and regulations. I think what the nrc is doing now is making progress on that.
▶ 1:17:34Mr. Loris: There has been talk about switching to these standards for how we approach different technologies and licensing. We are finally on the path to getting there and there has been a few hiccups along the way. I think now is the time where we are actually seeing the fruit worn of all of the work that has gone into what the nrc is now doing.
▶ 1:17:54Chair Capito: Dr. stein?
▶ 1:17:56Mr. Stein: I agree with that. I think the commission is working well together at this point. And they have mentioned that they are focused on enabling their technologies for the benefit of society. That is -- that difference has shifted how they are approaching what needs to be done. And the timeliness of how it needs to be done. There are around 70 rulemakings ongoing right now, which is a huge change from the past. As Mr.
▶ 1:18:25Mr. Stein: Loris mentioned, we are moving to a performance-based standard. They have been doing that since the 90's. They previously were taken one step at a time, and every rule they changed they were hesitant to change the next one in line. They wanted to have licensees to come in and test to see if that was the right change to move forward. That would require us to have dozens of licensees over the years, just to see if the regulations were appropriate.
▶ 1:18:55Mr. Stein: There it is the regulator's job to define what regulation should be, not the applicants to test them.
▶ 1:18:59Chair Capito: Dr. white?
▶ 1:19:02Dr. White: I agree with Mr. loris and Dr. stein. The change of pace has pushed -- has been unprecedented. I think if we had discussions of how quickly the nrc is completing these new rules, people in the industry who have been -- people who have been in the industry for years would not believe it. Really moving quickly on these things.
▶ 1:19:26Dr. White: The two items I would note, with the excitement that we have around the pace of these regularly -- regulatory change, let's make sure we are not rushing for the sake of rushing. To the point that Dr. stein made, with 70 rulemakings going on, there is a lot to review, both for nrc staff and for public stakeholders that want to provide the input from their own perspective. Whether it is members of the public or companies. How do we make sure the rules moving through meet the need of the industry of the nation?
▶ 1:19:58Dr. White: The other thing to keep in mind is let's not lose sight of the license reviews underway now at the nrc. Sometimes there can be a bit of a distraction on what is the new thing we are working through, what are the rules. Let's not lose track on the companies making progress and make sure they get the resources.
▶ 1:20:16Chair Capito: As I recall from the previous meeting we had, I think it is part of my remarks that it was noting that one of the license reviews had moved through in a much more timely previous license -- much more timely than it had been in the past. The other thing, obviously, the first thing, safety all the way through. And if you can say, we are rushing 70 regulations through, it could appear that you are forsaking safety.
▶ 1:20:46Chair Capito: They made it clear through the panel that safety is number one and remains number one. I was pleased with that. I have the last question because -- I have another comment on workforce because they all expressed that a lot of people left. And how to replace, and the competition in the private sector, because there's is so much more interest, and people are seeing light at the end of the tunnel.
▶ 1:21:11Chair Capito: This is a challenge that we are well aware of, so we may have to do something there to help incentivize that young talent. Not just come to the nrc but to stay there for a period of time to help move through what I think is an exciting time. The last question I wanted to ask.
▶ 1:21:30Chair Capito: The department of energy launched an initiative to use a previously unused authority to allow for construction and operation of privately owned and privately funded nuclear reactors. This was undertaken in part because of historic challenges we just talked about, about slow and expensive licensing. Dr. stein, what is your view of these respective tools for the doe? If you have talked about this, and sorry for being repetitive.
▶ 1:21:55Chair Capito: And the roles of each doe and nrc in terms of licensing test reactors and commercial power plants? Do you think any limits should be placed on doe's authority and had to make sure the current initiatives don't sacrifice long-term durability?
▶ 1:22:11Dr. Stein: Thank you, senator, for the question. I think the nrc has jurisdiction over commercial and industrial applications of reactor and nuclear powered technology. That was not removed from the nrc's purview when the energy split, and what became doe.
▶ 1:22:38Dr. Stein: Doe has the authority to develop technologies and test and research technologies. But there are authorities limited to what is under contract for department of energy. It is not primarily supposed to be for commercial or industrial uses. Atomic energy act under section 104 gives the nrc the authority for research and test react yours for a reason. Research and test reactors can be properly rock -- properly licensed for long-term use.
▶ 1:23:09Dr. Stein: The nrc has used that authority for both research and university and other test reactors in the past. For durability, my view is we need to fix the nrc, not bifurcate the licensing between doe to nrc process. That's not to say there is no pathway between the two. Technologies that are developed under doe should have a path to commercialization ultimately, there should not be a barrier there. I don't think that should be the primary pathway.
▶ 1:23:39Chair Capito: Dr. white, do you have an opinion on that?
▶ 1:23:42Dr. White: Yes, I do and it's always great when I have a colleague that can quote chapter and verse of the atomic act so I don't have to.
▶ 1:23:52Chair Capito: We already knew it anyway.
▶ 1:23:55Dr. White: Speaking to the choir here on that one. I would agree with Dr. stein here in terms of how do we think about the atomic energy act, and how we think about the role and regulatory jurisdiction of the department of energy and the nrc when it comes to these facilities. I think it support and to keep in mind when congress, in 1974, ended up splitting the atomic energy agency.
▶ 1:24:18Dr. White: The focus really was to say one organization should be looking at commercial applications, licensing activities, and the department of energy should support these research and development activities. As we try to think about how to accelerate, I agree with Dr. stein that folks should be on continuing the process at the nrc and not trying to create alternative shortcuts around the original intent of the atomic energy act.
▶ 1:24:43Dr. White: I think there are opportunities to think about how we leverage lessons learned from projects that are licensed under the department of energy. But we should not necessarily look for ways to get around that separation of the department of energy in the nrc.
▶ 1:24:57Chair Capito: Would you say are the lines blurred or are they clear?
▶ 1:25:01Dr. White: My personal opinion is in statute, the lines are clear with the way congress has separated out the department of energy's authority and the nrc's authority. As we talk about projects trying to move quickly, how do we make sure there is that clear division of responsibilities and authorities?
▶ 1:25:18Chair Capito: Thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you, manager. -- thank you, madam chair.
▶ 1:25:27Sen. Lummis: I'm going to ask some questions of Dr. white. When I'm done, if senator kelly has not returned to ask more questions, I will ask one final question of all of you, and that question is, is there something that you want to say on the record that you were not asked, but were dying to talk about today? Ok. Thank you, madam chairman. Dr.
▶ 1:25:54Sen. Lummis: White, thanks for being here. We are in a moment where demand for electricity is rising quickly. It is almost insatiable at this point. And someday, we may find a way to utilize the facilities being built right now more efficiently so they produce more energy.
▶ 1:26:16Sen. Lummis: Until that day comes, what do you see as the biggest practical bottlenecks into deploying nuclear energy faster, at scale, in our country?
▶ 1:26:31Dr. White: Thank you so much, senator. I would say my biggest -- my opinion on the biggest bottleneck is the economic questions we are facing and how we create the demand signal and order books for new nuclear technology. The history of nuclear energy in the U.S. shows if you keep the link first of a kind projects and one-off nuclear reactors, they will have cost challenges. They will take too long and cost too much.
▶ 1:26:55Dr. White: If we look in the united states and internationally, if we can build out order books of standardized technologies and get companies to not just build one reactor but 10, 20, 50, or 100, we can come down the cost curve and deliver it affordably and on time. As we start talking about nuclear energy in the next 5, 10, 25 years, how do we create the conditions where companies are willing to make the investments in new nuclear energy and build out these standard designs?
▶ 1:27:22Dr. White: Some of the work that clean air task force does is try to identify what are the company conditions, the government policies, and how do we get nuclear deployed at scale so we are not just building one or two of these reactors but we can build hundreds of these reactors to meet the demands of energy we have seen, and have the goals of quadrupling nuclear energy by 2050.
▶ 1:27:42Sen. Lummis: Do you think that is an attainable goal?
▶ 1:27:44Dr. White: I think it is a really important and ambitious goal. As we start looking at how we are going to need to power the united states by mid century, we are going to need more energy than we could possibly imagine. I think we want that energy to be clean and affordable. I think it is important to set these ambitious goals than to say what are the policies and what are the processes of partnerships that we can look at to hit that goal.
▶ 1:28:12Dr. White: If you only set your sides of, maybe we can build five reactors by 2050, are we dreaming big enough? Do you want to figure out what it means to play a meaningful role as part of our future energy mix.
▶ 1:28:22Sen. Lummis: I appreciate that response very much. You have discussed the importance of expanding domestic enrichment and the low enrichment uranium. What do you see as the most immediate step needed to reduce rely -- reliance on foreign supply chains?
▶ 1:28:45Dr. White: Great, thanks. The high assay low enriched and radium, heck of a term of the nuclear engineers came, but as we start talking about building on domestic uranium enrichment capacity, there are two big steps that we look at. The verses how do we create the market conditions necessary for companies to make major investments in uranium enrichment facilities.
▶ 1:29:11Dr. White: A lot of the work congress has done to put in the russian uranium ban is a good way to say, we want to prioritize uranium production from the U.S. and its allies, not just rely on russia. That helps create a strong demand signal in the future because we know we will have to make up that 20% of russian uranium enrichment capacity. As we look forward to things like hey lou, we need to actually set up the opportunity to produce it domestically. That is a really important first step.
▶ 1:29:41Dr. White: The second step is overcoming the chicken or the egg problem we have seen around this. Companies are unwilling to make investments in new nuclear energy uranium enrichment infrastructure until they know there is demand signal. Companies, make contracts for this fuel until they know the fuel will be there. I think there has been important work by the department of energy, to create through things like the advanced reactor fuels program, to try to provide economic support and contract companies to help facilitate that first investment.
▶ 1:30:11Dr. White: It is going to be interesting over the next couple of years as we see these private enrichment companies to stand up new infrastructure. We have had conversations about companies like global glazed enrichment in kentucky. General matters, centrist, and a lot of companies doing interesting work. Resolving those economic barriers will be there key to get this going.
▶ 1:30:32Sen. Lummis: A question for anyone on the panel who wishes to answer. Is the fact that we only have one facility to accomplish conversion in the U.S. now a bottleneck?
▶ 1:30:54Dr. Stein: Not for the current fleet but for expanding capacity, absolutely.
▶ 1:30:56Sen. Lummis: Anyone else?
▶ 1:30:57Dr. White: Not -- for marginal expanded capacity, yes. If we talk about Dr. white's wish and goal, which I share of the building hundreds of reactors or even dozens of reactors, it really becomes a challenge.
▶ 1:31:16Dr. White: I would agree with that. I think there is sufficient conversion capacity for the fleet we have today. But if we want to build nuclear energy out at scale, we will have to talk about where those different steps of the supply chain will come into play. Coming up with a plan of how we will have those facilities ready is important.
▶ 1:31:28Sen. Lummis: What is government's role in that? Is this something the private sector is contemplating and can respond to? Or does the government need to be involved in those discussions?
▶ 1:31:42Dr. White: My personal perspective on that is that the government can help serve as a catalyst for private investment. If companies have uncertainty around what the demand will be like in the future, they may want to hold off on a major capital investment, until they know there will be demand for the next 40 years on this. They might be hesitant to make those investments early. Where the united states government and other policies come into play this to help kickstart that process.
▶ 1:32:12Dr. White: We know this is the goal for the country, this is something we want to see for U.S. energy production. Let's get that infrastructure going today so it is ready when we needed as opposed to in 10 years, when we see a huge demand a spike in nuclear technology going, I wish we started that in 2026 because that facility would be ready today. That is where government policy can be most effective.
▶ 1:32:32Sen. Lummis: Thank you so much. Dr. stein.
▶ 1:32:34Dr. Stein: If I may add. Congress has already sent this clear signal by providing up to $2.7 billion for enrichment and conversion facilities, and for what was at the time dues -- determined as a bank to have an early offtake, because early developers and projects, it is difficult for a utility to allocate capital to a project when they don't think they can
▶ 1:33:04Dr. Stein: Get fuel for 40 years at a reasonable price. And it is difficult for an and richer to build a whole facility for a one off reactor. They need a large scale procurement to justify the investment. You need to invest five or 10 years before building an enrichment facility. We need net -- we need to have an enrichment facilities than we need for one-off reactors.
▶ 1:33:31Dr. Stein: This is a more long-term thinking that the government would be the appropriate source from instead of industry.
▶ 1:33:42Mr. Loris: I would quickly add that we don't need to be self-sufficient. Imports in and of themselves are not necessarily a bad thing. They are a bad thing if they are coming from russia. But if they are doing from our allied countries, we can rely on imports to some extent. Building up that domestic capacity is quickly important, but we should still maintain that open and free trade.
▶ 1:34:00Sen. Lummis: Thank you. Senator kelly is in another committee. There are multiple hearings going on this morning. So we apologize for coming and going. I do want to ask the panel this final question. And that is, what do you wish to put on the record, the written record of this hearing, that we did and ask?
▶ 1:34:28Sen. Lummis: What do we want -- what do you want the U.S. senate to know about the status of this industry, areas where congressional involvement could spark some progress? The floor is yours. Mr. loris, we you share that with us, please?
▶ 1:34:50Mr. Loris: Thank you for this opportunity to testify, and to build off Dr. white's one comment, my hope is really that we don't have an industry where we are building a handful of reactors that are dependent on tax credits and loan guarantees, but we are actually reforming and creating a framework that allows nuclear plants, large light water reactors, to be cost competitive with other sources of energy and technology.
▶ 1:35:15Mr. Loris: That is furtively important because affordability is what matters most. These reactors are not going to get built if they can't compete on cost with solar and storage or with natural gas. Their framework we are building off of, and what the nrc is doing and what this bill and discussion drafts are doing our great steps in the right direction. My hope is we continue to build on that and expand and think creatively.
▶ 1:35:41Mr. Loris: I am more open to alternative licensing processes, and may be the nrc can devolve even more responsibilities down to the state through the agreement state program when it makes sense to do so. If we are building hundreds of reactors, that could create a huge bottleneck at the nrc. We need to expand and build the resources at the nrc. But I don't want that necessarily to be the chokepoint for all of these reactors trying to get built. I think this is great positive momentum in the right direction.
▶ 1:36:09Mr. Loris: I think there's more to do and explore to how we can truly have that nuclear renaissance.
▶ 1:36:14Sen. Lummis: Thank you. Dr. stein.
▶ 1:36:19Dr. Stein: Thank you, chair lummis. I believe that the bill on categorical exclusions for existing or old industrial sites has an opportunity to significantly streamline licensing.
▶ 1:36:37Dr. Stein: The review of the terra power nutrient eis found small impacts, except for in two cases for historical preservation, and for a -- m4 socioeconomics. Socioeconomics was a positive impact. And historical preservation, while it is important is not as much of a factor for previously disturbed old industrial sites.
▶ 1:37:03Dr. Stein: Which would have either been already damaged or remediated previously. In terms of actions that only congress can take, there is what I will call a tangled web of radiation standards across multiple agencies in the U.S. government, with a 100,000 factor difference between the radiation standards and what is deemed acceptable.
▶ 1:37:32Dr. Stein: These agencies are implementing different statutes in different ways that were set up at different times. And because they are mostly in statute or derived from the language in the statute, only congress can help untangle some of these challenges. The final thing I would like to say is I completely share with Dr.
▶ 1:37:54Dr. Stein: White's vision that we need more nuclear energy for the future and that to get there, it should be a national priority for multiple reasons. But, the nrc is being more efficient. They are acting more appropriately, particularly since the advanced act.
▶ 1:38:16Dr. Stein: The terra power application you mentioned in wyoming, and that senator o mentioned was more efficient. It was more efficient by 30% than originally estimated. Under the existing regulation. Even before all of the rulemakings that are going on right now. There was always efficiency to be had. The nrc just needed to take the stance that they wanted to be more efficient.
▶ 1:38:44Dr. Stein: That being said, with the ongoing rulemakings, their implementation and the committee's oversight of the nrc's implementation will be important to make sure the public benefits are protected in this significant but important change.
▶ 1:39:03Sen. Lummis: Thank you, Dr. stein. Dr. white.
▶ 1:39:06Dr. White: Thank you so much for the opportunity. Just four quick topic so would love to get on the record. . The first, a recognition of the nrc on the work that has been done there over the last several years. A lot of this is come through the direction of congress, the direction of this committee. There have been real changes that have been made at the nrc and I think we are seeing the benefits of those changes, in terms of how quickly they are able to review and approve the advanced reactor licenses we are seeing today.
▶ 1:39:37Dr. White: If you had gone back and have this conversation 10 years ago, how long will it take the nrc to license a first of a kind sodium fast reactor or high temperature gas reactor, people would have said 48 months minimum. The nrc is doing it in less than two. That reflects a lot of the changes we are seeing, both with direction from congress, a better focus on licensing modernization, in the great work the nrc staff and commission have done to implement these changes.
▶ 1:40:04Dr. White: While we are always talking about how to improve regulation, there is a good opportunity to celebrate what is going on there. As we talk about trying to meet these deployment goals for nuclear energy, really recognizing a lot of the great work this committee and congress have done have made it so nuclear regulation is not the bottleneck should be talking about. There are still things we need to work on and make sure regulation is implemented correctly. It is starting to address now the policy and economic challenges late to deploy nuclear technology at scale.
▶ 1:40:36Dr. White: Let's not always think I'm a regulation is stopping us from deploying nuclear energy. Let's talk about the bigger suite of policies and opportunities to get us to deploy nuclear at this hundreds of gigawatts that we think we need by mid century. The third is to touch on something Dr. stein set around of our mental reviews. With both nuclear energy technology and other energy technologies broadly, let's keep the original intent in mind. It wasn't to try to figure out if something is good or bad.
▶ 1:41:06Dr. White: It's to try to document what are the environmental impacts of a major federal action. The process should ultimately result in a record of decision or other reports that allow people to understand what is this project going to mean for the human environment? I think there is sometimes a desire to figure out, how can we shorten this process as quickly as possible? Because we have seen a grow out of hand and some cases. I guess my thinking would be, let's not just for the baby out with the bathwater.
▶ 1:41:34Dr. White: Let's go back and think of how we can meet the original intent of nepa and denae build public engagement but all -- don't inhibit the technology we need. The final point if you will grant me the moment, is to emphasize the importance of nrc independence and nrc transparency in these discussions.
▶ 1:41:55Dr. White: I think the nrc is a regulatory agency that has an incredible history, especially since the energy reorg act of 1974, of showing their thinking of how they reach the decision on regulatory topics. As someone who was a nerd for regulatory history, I love to go to the nrc library and see, what was the nrc and the stop thinking about in the 1990's when they approved facilities? And how are those lessons still applicable today and what things have changed?
▶ 1:42:23Dr. White: As we talk about the nrc moving forward to meet the needs of the moment, I want to make sure we are maintaining that independence in maintaining that transparency. When I see the changes at the agency around not publishing all of the commission votes for certain activities, as someone outside trying to understand what is going on in the agency, it makes it harder to understand what is the commission doing?
▶ 1:42:49Dr. White: While I would love to trust the nrc is doing great work, and I do, it is good to verify that. More opportunities to provide that independence interview into what the commission is doing and what it decides is a effective way to get to good regulatory outcomes and maintain the public trust we have in the nrc. That independent nuclear regulator.
▶ 1:43:06Sen. Lummis: I must say, it warms my heart to know there are people that actually go and read the 1990 minutes of the nuclear regulatory commission. Because that just tells me that there are americans that, albeit nerds, are really watching out for what these agencies do, how they can do it better, what our history has been in areas like this, that are critical to our energy future.
▶ 1:43:38Sen. Lummis: But that the american people want to know and go forward with confidence that they are being done safely, efficiently, and our communities are going to enjoy not only the benefits of having things like brown sites, revitalized and communities revitalized with jobs and opportunities in any first century nuclear energy. But that it is being done more safely than ever before.
▶ 1:44:10Sen. Lummis: And the transparency that you advocated for is something that government owes its people. So I appreciate you bringing that up. I appreciate all three of you and your testimony. I appreciate your willingness to respond to an open-ended question like what do you issue could have said. And I can assure you, Dr.
▶ 1:44:30Sen. Lummis: Stein, you may be hearing from one of my staffers with regard to the tangled web of definitions regarding whatever my notes say. [laughter] anyway.
▶ 1:44:51Dr. Stein: Radiation protection.
▶ 1:44:52Sen. Lummis: That was it. Thank you. I didn't read -- didn't bring my reading glasses. But I have very good handwriting so I will be able to replicate this. Witnesses, thank you so much. With no further questions, I think you all, and thank my colleagues for their participation in today's subcommittee hearing. Senators who wish to submit written questions for the record have until 5:00 p.m. On wednesday, june 3, to do so.
▶ 1:45:22Sen. Lummis: The witnesses responses to those questions are due back to the subcommittee no later than 5:00 p.m. On wednesday, june 17, and will be submitted for the record. With that, with my thanks to our witnesses this hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit