Hearing to Examine Opportunities and Challenges Associated with Advanced Nuclear Reactor Commercialization (U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources)

Hearing	Hearing to Examine Opportunities and Challenges Associated with Advanced Nuclear Reactor Commercialization
Committee	U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Date	November 30, 2023

 

Hearing Takeaways:

• Nuclear Power: Committee Members and the hearing’s witnesses expressed interest in promoting the U.S.’s deployment of nuclear power. They stated that nuclear power will be key to enabling the U.S. to achieve its energy goals because it can foster a stable power grid, bolster the U.S. economy, enhance national security, and support the U.S.’s clean energy goals. They emphasized that nuclear energy’s baseload capabilities do not present the intermittency challenges of other traditional clean energy sources (such as wind, solar, and storage). They expressed interest in pursuing federal legislation to promote the development and deployment of nuclear energy technologies and noted how public support for nuclear power has been growing in recent years.
  • U.S. Global Competitiveness within the Nuclear Energy Technology Space: Committee Members, Dr. Waksman, and Mr. Merrifield expressed interest in ensuring that the U.S. remains the global leader in nuclear energy technology space. They raised concerns over how Russia and China are seeking to challenge the U.S.’s global leadership in this space. They argued that the U.S. must work to promote the export of U.S. nuclear energy technologies abroad to prevent the loss of U.S. leadership in this space. They stated that a key element of promoting these exports will be the domestic deployment of nuclear power projects because these projects provide other countries with confidence regarding the performance of U.S.’s nuclear energy technologies.
  • Repurposing of Existing Energy Infrastructure for Nuclear Energy: Full Committee Chairman Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Dr. Wagner expressed interest in repurposing existing energy plants (such as coal power plants) for nuclear energy projects. They stated that this repurposing would leverage existing workforces and energy infrastructure (such as transmission and distribution lines) and minimize job, revenue, and energy disruptions for the communities that surround these energy facilities.
  • Leveraging of Federal Power Purchase Agreements to Support Nuclear Power Development: Sen. Angus King (I-ME) and Dr. Wagner suggested that the federal government consider lengthening the time of its nuclear power agreements to increase the attractiveness and deployment of nuclear energy projects. They raised concerns that the ten-year limitation on the U.S. Department of Energy’s power purchase agreements impedes the Department’s ability to pursue nuclear energy projects.
• Advanced Nuclear Reactors: Committee Members and the hearing’s witnesses expressed interest in the U.S.’s development of advanced nuclear reactor technologies, including small modular reactors (SMRs) and microreactors. They highlighted how these technologies can support new and more customizable energy production and heat capabilities for energy utilities and industrial users. They also stated that the fact that these technologies are smaller can enable faster and cheaper deployment of nuclear energy and support energy production capabilities and reliability for smaller communities and remote areas. They expressed support for federal efforts to promote the development and deployment of these technologies through public-private partnerships.
  • Industrial Applications and the U.S. Department of Energy’s Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program (ARPD): Committee Members, Mr. Stones, and Mr. Merrifield highlighted how advanced nuclear reactors can be deployed to provide heat, power, and steam for industrial users. Mr. Stones testified that his company, Dow, is pursuing an advanced nuclear reactor to achieve its zero emissions goals. Full Committee Chairman Joe Manchin (D-WV), Mr. Stones, and Mr. Merrifield expressed support for the U.S. Department of Energy’s ARDP. This Program provides federal matching funds to private companies to pursue advanced nuclear reactors for industrial applications. 
  • The U.S. Department of Defense’s (DoD) Project Pele: Committee Members, Dr. Waksman, and Mr. Merrifield highlighted how the DoD is pursuing Project Pele to develop portable microreactors for U.S. military installations. These microreactors will provide up to 5 MWs of safe and secure power for three years without needing to be refueled. These microreactors will reduce the risks associated with transporting additional diesel generators and large volumes of diesel fuel for the U.S. military. Dr. Waksman testified that the DoD’s Strategic Capabilities Office is on pace to have the Project Pele nuclear microreactor assembled by mid-2025. Mr. Merrifield also highlighted how the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is involved in a peer review of the DoD’s nuclear energy project designs and commented that this information sharing effort could be beneficial for civilian nuclear energy applications.
  • Impact of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 and Tax Credits on Advanced Nuclear Reactor Projects: Full Committee Chairman Joe Manchin (D-WV). Mr. Stones, and Mr. Merrifield highlighted how the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 had provided ten years of certainty for commercial advanced nuclear reactors through providing these reactors with a 30 percent investment tax credit (ITC) or a $25 per MW hour (MWh) production tax credit (PTC) for new nuclear plants. Full Committee Chairman Manch added that this law had made tens of millions of dollars in Title 17 loan guarantees available for nuclear energy projects and had provided a 10 percent bonus credit for advanced nuclear energy projects in coal and other energy communities. Full Committee Ranking Member John Barrasso (R-WY) stated however that Congress cannot provide limitless funding or tax credits for nuclear energy technologies.
  • Limited Utility Company Deployment of Novel Nuclear Energy Technologies: Committee Members and Mr. Merrifield lamented how many nuclear energy utility companies are reluctant to deploy novel nuclear energy technologies and appear to only want to deploy already tested nuclear energy technology designs. They stated that many utility companies are reluctant to pursue novel nuclear energy technologies after observing Southern Company’s challenges with bringing Plant Vogtle’s Units 3 and 4 online. They also attributed this reluctance to the need for utility companies to meet quarterly financial targets. Mr. Merrifield expressed concerns that existing tax incentives primary encourage the deployment of follow-on units and fail to sufficiently encourage first-of-a-kind nuclear energy technologies. He recommended that Congress consider establishing a financial backstop program to ensure that companies will not experience outsized risks when deploying first-of-a-kind nuclear energy technologies. 
  • Mass Production of Nuclear Reactors: Committee Members, Mr. Stones, and Mr. Merrifield lamented how the U.S. has historically deployed bespoke nuclear reactors, which has prevented the realization of cost savings that come from mass production. They expressed hope that advanced nuclear reactors would enable mass production (which in turn would lead to cost savings).
  • Nuclear Reactor Construction Consortiums: Mr. Merrifield suggested that Congress could provide financial incentives for utility companies that come together in a consortium to build a series of nuclear power plants and spread the costs among a larger pool. He commented that this risk sharing model had been used with mixed success in New England from the 1970s through the 1990s. He added that former U.S. Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz has worked to develop his own risk sharing model proposal.
  • Nuclear Facility Supplies: Mr. Merrifield also suggested that Congress could increase nuclear facility supplies through providing incentives to encourage existing non-nuclear supply manufacturers to enter the field. He indicated that this could include training funded by the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Department of Commerce to educate non-nuclear facility suppliers about potential opportunities within the nuclear energy space. He also indicated that this could include tax incentives for companies that seek to meet these qualification standards or expend training resources to prepare their workers in highly specialized nuclear trades.
  • U.S. Nuclear Energy Project Workforce Needs: Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) and Mr. Merrifield expressed interest in efforts to develop a robust U.S. nuclear energy workforce. Mr. Merrifield noted that while nuclear energy workforce conversations are often focused on ensuring a sufficient supply of nuclear engineers, he stated that other types of engineers are needed to support the deployment of nuclear energy facilities. He indicated that these other types of engineers include civil, mechanical, and electrical engineers. He also stated that the U.S. needs to focus on using high schools, technical schools, and technical institutes to train the welders and pipefitters needed to construct nuclear energy facilities.
  • Failure of the NuSclae-Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) Proposed Nuclear Energy Project: Committee Members lamented how NuScale had recently canceled its joint-SMR project with UAMPS and noted how this project had received a non-competitive $771 million federal grant. Dr. Wagner stated that while he could not speak to the procurement process related to this cancelled project, he highlighted how this experience has provided several benefits, including a design certification for an advanced small light-water reactor, experience with licensing processes, and experience with developing nuclear supply chains.
  • Recent Cancellation of U.S. Air Force Nuclear Energy Project in Alaska: Full Committee Ranking Member Barrasso and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) expressed interest in how the U.S. Air Force had recently rescinded a contract for an advanced nuclear reactor in Alaska. These Members and Dr. Waksman noted however that the U.S. Air Force still intends to pursue an advanced nuclear reactor in Alaska. Dr. Waksman indicated that he was not the project manager of this rescinded project and therefore could not address this project.
• Nuclear Fuel Availability: Committee Members, Dr. Wagner, Mr. Sounds, and Mr. Merrifield expressed interest in ensuring that the U.S. possesses a reliable nuclear fuel supply, which they called critical for expanding the deployment of nuclear energy. They expressed particular concerns over how Russia currently controls over half the world’s uranium enrichment capacity and is using sales of enriched Uranium to support its ongoing war against Ukraine. Full Committee Chairman Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Ranking Member John Barrasso (R-WY) expressed interest in attaching their fuel security bill, the Nuclear Fuel Security Act of 2023, to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) currently under consideration. Full Committee Chairman Manchin also highlighted how the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 had provided $700 million for high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU), which is the fuel that most advanced nuclear energy technologies need. Mr. Merrifield: He also called on Congress to create a federally-owned inventory of low-enriched uranium (LEU) and HALEU and expressed support for President Biden’s recent request for $2.2 to support domestic enrichment capabilities for LEU and HALEU. He further mentioned how he had also worked on bipartisan legislation to limit and eventually ban uranium fuel imports from Russia.
• Nuclear Energy Project Licensing and Permitting Reforms: Committee Members, Dr. Wagner, Mr. Stones, and Mr. Merrifield expressed interest in improving the U.S.’s processes for licensing and permitting nuclear energy projects (particularly for advanced nuclear energy projects). They stated that the current licensing and permitting processes can make nuclear energy projects more expensive and time consuming to deploy. Dr. Wagner also asserted that these processes should recognize and value the benefits of nuclear energy for public health, safety, and climate change mitigation and should encourage innovation.
  • The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Proposed Part 53 Regulatory Framework: Full Committee Chairman Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Mr. Merrifield raised concerns over the NRC’s efforts to develop a modernized regulatory framework for advanced nuclear reactors under a future Part 53. Mr. Merrifield asserted that the NRC staff’s Part 53 proposal would not be helpful to advanced nuclear reactor developers and called on the Commission to direct the NRC staff to redevelop their proposed Part 53 licensing framework.
• Nuclear Waste: Full Committee Chairman Joe Manchin (D-WV), Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Dr. Wagner, Dr. Waksman, and Mr. Merrifield expressed interest in reforming how the U.S. deals with nuclear waste. Sen. Cortez Masto and Dr. Wagner called on the U.S. to update its current framework for dealing with nuclear waste under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA). Sen. Cortez Masto called for the U.S. to incorporate the consent-based framework and findings of the 2012 Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future. Mr. Merrifield also stated that the U.S. must address the nuclear waste generated by the U.S. Navy.
  • U.S. Department of Energy Grants to Address Nuclear Waste: Dr. Wagner testified that the U.S. Department of Energy has been studying and collaborating with several other countries that have developed consent-based processes for nuclear waste storage and disposal. He indicated that these countries include Canada, Finland, and Sweden and commented that these efforts have had “considerable success.” He stated that the U.S. Department of Energy has taken the lessons from this study and collaboration to provide grants for communities to participate in a consent-based siting process for nuclear waste. He explained that these grants are helping these communities to evaluate whether they would want to host a nuclear waste storage and disposal site.
  • Waste Considerations for Advanced Nuclear Reactors: Sen. Cortez Masto and Dr. Wagner expressed interest in how the spent nuclear fuels from advanced nuclear reactors will be stored and disposed of. Dr. Wagner noted how molten salt reactors involve liquid-based fuels, which differ from ceramic-based fuels. He stated however that the challenges posed by these new fuel and waste types are surmountable. He noted how the U.S.’s current nuclear waste acceptance system only envisions ceramic-based fuels and commented that the U.S. would need to address this issue. Dr. Waksman and Mr. Merrifield highlighted however that spent nuclear fuel from advanced nuclear reactors can be largely recycled and indicated that several companies have expressed interest in entering the spent nuclear fuel recycling business. Mr. Merrifield stated that the U.S. would still require a repository for the remaining materials if it were to pursue spent nuclear fuel reprocessing.

Hearing Witnesses:

1. Dr. John C. Wagner, Director, Idaho National Laboratory
2. Dr. Jeff Waksman, Program Manager, Office of the U.S. Secretary of Defense
3. Mr. Edward Stones, Vice President, Energy and Climate, Dow Inc.
4. The Hon. Jeffrey S. Merrifield, Former Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Vice Chair, U.S. Nuclear Industry Council; Partner, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

Member Opening Statements:

Full Committee Chairman Joe Manchin (D-WV):

• He discussed how the U.S.’s conventional nuclear fleet of light-water reactors has provided the U.S. with reliable power for over 60 years and noted how this fleet provides about 95 gigawatts (GW) of generation capacity.
  • He indicated that this fleet accounts for approximately 20 percent of the U.S.’s annual energy production.
• He emphasized that nuclear power is available on a 24/7 basis and is emissions-free.
  • He commented that these features make nuclear power important to the U.S.’s energy security and help the U.S. to achieve its climate change goals.
• He noted how the U.S. Department of Energy estimates that 200 GW of new nuclear energy capacity will be needed by 2050, which is more than double the U.S.’s current nuclear energy capacity.
  • He asserted that reliable nuclear power is needed for the U.S.’s critical infrastructure, defense, homes, and economy.
• He remarked that there exists a “growing sense” that the next generation of nuclear power will have a “smaller footprint” and use different technologies than were previously relied upon.
  • He commented that these advanced nuclear energy technologies can help the U.S. to achieve energy security and independence.
• He discussed how advanced nuclear reactors have a range of end uses and highlighted how advanced reactors below 50 megawatts (MW) (which are often called microreactors) can provide off-grid energy for remote towns, villages, and defense applications.
• He also mentioned how SMRs, which can provide several hundred MWs of power, can provide traditional baseload power generation, as well as more flexibility for peaking during periods of high energy demand.
  • He further noted how SMRs can provide high temperature process heat for industrial applications.
• He discussed how Congress has provided “significant” investments through public-private partnerships to support the demonstration of novel reactors, such as the DoD’s Project Pele.
  • He mentioned how he had supported Project Pele as a member of both the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services and the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations.
• He explained that Project Pele microreactors will provide 5 MWs of safe and secure power for three years without needing to be refueled.
  • He indicated that these microreactors will reduce the risks associated with transporting additional diesel generators and large volumes of diesel fuel for the U.S. military.
  • He further noted how Project Pele microreactors are small enough to be transported anywhere in the world by C-17 aircrafts.
• He also discussed how Congress has supported commercial nuclear energy technology demonstrations through the U.S. Department of Energy’s ARDP.
  • He mentioned how the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) had provided $2.4 billion to support competitive U.S. Department of Energy awards for advanced reactor demonstration projects at commercial scale.
• He noted how the TerraPower project in Wyoming and the X-energy project in Texas have won grants under the ARDP.
  • He highlighted how TerraPower’s advanced nuclear reactor is being built at a retiring coal facility site and will be used to follow daily electric load changes.
  • He also mentioned how X-energy has partnered with Dow to provide heat and power for one of their manufacturing plants.
• He then discussed how the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 had provided ten years of certainty for commercial advanced nuclear reactors through providing these reactors with a 30 percent ITC or a $25 per MWh PTC for new nuclear power plants.
  • He added that this law had made tens of millions of dollars in Title 17 loan guarantees available for nuclear energy projects.
• He also mentioned how the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 had provided a 10 percent bonus credit for advanced nuclear energy projects in coal and other energy communities.
• He further discussed how the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 had sought to secure the U.S.’s nuclear energy supply chain.
  • He highlighted how the law had provided $700 million for HALEU, which he explained is the fuel that most advanced nuclear energy technologies need.
• He remarked however that advanced nuclear reactor projects have faced struggles and hesitancy when attempting to launch.
  • He highlighted how there exist large design, cost, and regulatory uncertainties associated with novel nuclear energy technologies and stated that Congress has created federal programs to reduce the risks of these technology deployments.
  • He lamented how many energy utility companies wish to see other companies first deploy these novel nuclear energy technologies before they deploy the technologies themselves.
• He stated that Congress must ensure that federal funds are being spent judiciously on nuclear energy projects and manage the risks associated with these projects.
  • He specifically called on Congress to take lessons from the recent partnership between NuScale and UAMPS, which he commented had not met Congress’s expectations.
• He remarked that the U.S. is at a “critical juncture” regarding nuclear power and commented that current actions will have long-term consequences.
• He stated that the U.S.’s historical leadership in civil nuclear engineering has allowed for the U.S. to export its expertise and standards for safety and non-proliferation around the world.
  • He noted however that Russia and China have sought to challenge this leadership and asserted that the U.S. must fight back against these Russian and Chinese efforts.
• He remarked that the U.S. must demonstrate that it can domestically deploy and develop the next generation of nuclear energy technologies to regain the U.S.’s global leadership in civil nuclear engineering.
  • He also stated that the U.S. needs to export its nuclear energy technologies to its allies and partners to help reduce their energy dependence on foreign adversaries.
  • He mentioned how he had introduced both the International Nuclear Energy Act of 2023 and the Civil Nuclear Export Act of 2023 with Sen. James Risch (R-ID) to provide strategic guidance and financing mechanisms to enable the U.S. to regain its global leadership in nuclear energy technology.
• He then expressed concerns over Russia’s control over the global nuclear supply chain and noted how Russia is currently the only commercial supplier of HALEU.
  • He mentioned how he had introduced the Nuclear Fuel Security Act of 2023 along with Full Committee Ranking Member John Barrasso (R-WY) and Sen. Risch, which would authorize a U.S. Department of Energy program to onshore U.S. uranium conversion and enrichment capacity for both traditional and advanced nuclear reactors.
• He remarked that the U.S. must reestablish a domestic nuclear supply chain and commented that Nuclear Fuel Security Act of 2023 would support this objective.
  • He also mentioned how he had worked on bipartisan legislation to limit and eventually ban uranium fuel imports from Russia.
• He called on Congress to include these nuclear fuel bills and associated funding in the defense and appropriations legislative packages currently being negotiated.

Full Committee Ranking Member John Barrasso (R-WY):

• He remarked that nuclear energy is “fundamental” to meeting the U.S.’s energy, environmental, and national security objectives and highlighted how the U.S. generates more electricity from nuclear power than any other country in the world.
• He stated however that the U.S. is “heavily reliant” on foreign sources of uranium to fuel its existing nuclear reactors.
  • He also lamented how the U.S. lacks the ability to fuel the new advanced nuclear reactors that developers are looking to build over the next decade.
• He mentioned how the U.S. Senate had voted 96 to 3 to adopt the nuclear fuel security amendment offered by him and Full Committee Chairman Joe Manchin (D-WV) to this year’s NDAA.
  • He called it “critically important” for Congress to enact this provision into law.
• He warned that Russia and China are on the cusp of obtaining a commanding share of the nuclear energy market and accused these countries of abusing their market positions to further their military and geopolitical objectives.
  • He noted how Russia controls over half the world’s uranium enrichment capacity and stated that Russian President Vladimir Putin uses the revenue generated from enriched uranium sales to support his “brutal and unprovoked” war in Ukraine.
  • He also stated that China seeks to steal U.S. nuclear energy technology for its own gain.
• He remarked that the world is eager to benefit from nuclear energy and asserted that the U.S. cannot permit Russia and China to dominate the global nuclear energy market.
• He stated that the U.S. is the global leader in nuclear energy technology development and asserted that the U.S. should also be the global leader in nuclear energy deployment.
  • He noted that while there exists global demand for U.S. nuclear reactor technologies, he indicated that other countries want to see how these technologies operate before they purchase them.
• He mentioned how more than 20 new nuclear energy projects were under consideration across North America as of May 2023 and highlighted how the U.S. Department of Energy is supporting several of these advanced nuclear reactor projects.
  • He indicated that one of these U.S. Department of Energy-supported projects is TerraPower’s Natrium reactor project, which will be built in his state of Wyoming.
• He acknowledged however that not all of these nuclear energy projects will be successful and mentioned how NuScale had recently canceled its nuclear energy project with UAMPS.
• He also mentioned how the U.S. Air Force had recently rescinded a contract for an advanced nuclear reactor in Alaska.
  • He indicated however that the U.S. Air Force still intends to pursue an advanced nuclear reactor in Alaska.
• He remarked that the U.S. must have several nuclear reactor options in development and construct non-bespoke nuclear reactors.
  • He noted how the U.S. nuclear energy industry has historically pursued first-of-a-kind nuclear reactors at the expense of mass producing existing nuclear reactor designs (which led the U.S. to forgo the cost savings garnered through repetition).
  • He also stated that nuclear reactor vendors need sufficient orders to justify mass marketing and mass manufacturing to make nuclear energy more affordable.
• He discussed how the U.S. nuclear energy industry is competing against state-owned entities in Russia and China and remarked that the U.S. government can support the U.S. nuclear energy industry.
• He asserted that the U.S. should make “strategic investments” in nuclear energy and stated that the federal government can serve as a customer for the U.S. nuclear energy industry.
  • He mentioned how the DoD is already considering procuring a microreactor for its operations in Alaska.
  • He also stated that the U.S. Department of Energy’s 17 National Laboratories could use advanced nuclear reactors.
• He remarked however that Congress cannot provide limitless funding or tax credits for nuclear energy technologies.
  • He also asserted that Congress should not enact policies that distort local electricity markets.
• He stated however that Congress can help to reduce financial risks for nuclear reactor developers and expressed interest in exploring how Congress can redirect existing appropriations and programs.

Sen. James Risch (R-ID):

• He first described the Idaho National Laboratory in his state as the “flagship laboratory” for nuclear energy and noted how this National Laboratory had built 52 nuclear reactors throughout its history.
• He then remarked that U.S. nuclear energy policy has implications for U.S. foreign policy and national security.
  • He highlighted how Russia and China are “aggressively” pursuing SMRs and microreactors and asserted that the U.S. must lead the world in these technologies.
• He stated that having the U.S. partner with foreign countries on nuclear energy projects can create both financial benefits and long-lasting relationships for the U.S.
• He remarked that there exists general consensus regarding the need for the U.S. to deploy nuclear energy.
  • He asserted that the Committee should therefore focus on how it should pursue this deployment.

Witness Opening Statements:

Dr. John C. Wagner (Idaho National Laboratory):

• He discussed how public opinion polls show increasingly broad support for nuclear energy and noted how nuclear energy now has bipartisan and bicameral support within Congress.
  • He asserted that the U.S. is on the cusp of achievements that can usher in a new era of nuclear energy and establish U.S. global leadership through both legislative and technical efforts.
• He remarked that the U.S. must support the development and deployment of new nuclear reactor technologies to foster a stable power grid, bolster the U.S. economy, enhance national security, and meet the U.S.’s clean energy goals.
• He stated that the U.S. must address the challenges associated with first-of-a-kind costs and schedule uncertainties that discourage first mover nuclear energy technology developers.
  • He asserted that these challenges would be significantly smaller if the U.S. electricity markets properly valued the firm, dispatchable, and non-carbon emitting attributes of nuclear energy.
• He suggested that Congress could encourage and incentivize first move nuclear energy projects that repurpose existing infrastructure.
  • He commented that TerraPower’s Natrium reactor project in Wyoming is a good example of such repurposing and noted how this project will be built at a site where coal plants are set to retire.
• He highlighted how these existing energy sites often have capable and supportive workforces and already built infrastructure (including transmission and distribution lines) that can be repurposed.
• He also stated that the U.S. government’s energy needs represent an opportunity for nuclear energy technology first movers.
  • He commented that the U.S.’s government and defense installations, national laboratories, and remote power needs in rural communities create an “ideal” environment for deploying nuclear energy technologies.
• He then suggested that the U.S. consider lengthening the time of nuclear power purchase agreements and stated that U.S. government entities (such as military installations and national laboratories) could leverage these agreements.
  • He commented that this use of nuclear power purchase agreements would enable the U.S. government to meet its clean energy goals with nuclear energy through leveraging the long lifetimes of nuclear reactors.
  • He noted how the U.S. Department of Energy is currently limited to ten years for power purchase agreements while the DoD has more flexible authority.
• He remarked that a more uniform approach to nuclear power purchase agreements can increase the attractiveness and deployment of nuclear energy at domestic U.S. Department of Energy sites.
• He then stated that the U.S. must quickly develop new uranium mining, conversion, and enrichment capabilities to enable nuclear energy deployment.
  • He commented that these actions would ensure the availability of a domestic nuclear fuel supply, provide certainty to existing nuclear power plants, and protect the U.S.’s domestic energy security.
• He also remarked that the U.S. must address the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle and described the NWPA as reflecting “dated” national priorities and concerns.
  • He noted how there have been various attempts to amend this law to better reflect current nuclear waste management realities, policies, and needs and commented that none of these attempts have succeeded.
  • He asserted that the U.S. requires a new waste policy framework.
• He lastly remarked that the U.S. requires an effective and efficient licensing process for nuclear energy projects to enable timely demonstrations and to support large scale nuclear energy deployment.
  • He acknowledged however that this topic falls outside of the Committee’s jurisdiction.
• He stated that the U.S.’s licensing process for nuclear energy projects should recognize and value the benefits of nuclear energy for public health, safety, and climate change mitigation, as well as encourage innovation.
  • He highlighted how advanced nuclear reactors face particular challenges because they often raise unique regulatory questions and are smaller in size (which can result in a higher proportional impact from regulatory and cost challenges).
• He asserted that licensing process reforms for nuclear energy projects can be accomplished without sacrificing safety or transparency.
• He concluded by expressing optimism regarding the prospects for nuclear energy deployment both domestically and internationally.

Dr. Jeff Waksman (Office of the U.S. Secretary of Defense, Strategic Capabilities Office):

• He mentioned how he serves as the program manager for Project Pele, which he explained is a prototype transportable microreactor with the Strategic Capabilities Office of the Office of the U.S. Secretary of Defense.
  • He noted how Project Pele is a nuclear reactor prototype between 1 MW and 5 MWs designed to ship within four 20-foot shipping containers that are capable of being transported by truck, rail, boat, and plane.
• He highlighted how the Project Pele microreactor can be set up and moved within “several days” and testified that Project Pele is designed to be passively safe in all failure modes.
  • He indicated that the DoD had initiated Project Pele in the fall of 2018.
• He remarked that modern warfare is “critically dependent” on large quantities of electricity to power all operations, including missile defense radars, command and control systems, and uncrewed weapons systems and platforms.
  • He commented that there exist “significant” mission impacts to the DoD without access to reliable and resilient 24/7 power.
• He stated that the strategic need for electrical power at defense installations is critical and noted how this electricity is currently dependent on the delivery of large volumes of fossil fuels to power generators.
  • He highlighted how the movement of fossil fuels had been a significant challenge during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
• He remarked that innovative clean energy technologies (such as nuclear power) are “true potential game changers” for addressing the U.S. military’s electrical power needs.
  • He also commented that transportable nuclear microreactors provide the capability to support remote outposts and to respond quickly when natural disasters destroy existing infrastructure.
• He mentioned how the DOD’s Strategic Capabilities Office had undertaken a design competition for Project Pele and had initially selected three companies in early 2020 to develop preliminary designs.
  • He indicated that the Office had eventually chosen a single prime contractor, BWXT Advanced Technologies, which is currently working to finalize the design’s details, manufacture fuel, and purchase long-lead hardware.
• He noted how the DoD’s Strategic Capabilities Office is working with the U.S. Department of Energy to gain approval of Project Pele’s engineering design by mid-2024.
  • He mentioned how the Office has already begun fabricating fuel, making moderator blocks, and forging the containment vessel.
• He testified that the DoD’s Strategic Capabilities Office is on pace to have the Project Pele nuclear microreactor assembled by mid-2025.
• He then remarked that the U.S. is focused on developing markets for U.S. nuclear technology exports to provide reliable and always-on emissions-free electricity and power.
  • He stated that the Biden administration (with bipartisan support) is working to scale up the U.S.’s nuclear energy technology deployment, including SMRs and microreactors.
  • He also mentioned how the Biden administration is working to secure and sustain the nuclear fuel supply chain, enhance energy security and resilience, strengthen nuclear safety, pursue non-proliferation, and support the U.S.’s global competitiveness.
• He remarked that the U.S. military may be willing to pay more for energy to obtain reliable 24/7 resilient power without a long logistics tail.
  • He also stated that the Project Pele microreactor will enable the DoD to collect data and perform safety analyses to help inform the regulatory and supply chain pathways to commercial reactor variants.
• He thanked Congress for its continued bipartisan support of Project Pele and specifically thanked Full Committee Chairman Joe Manchin (D-WV) for championing the Project.

Mr. Edward Stones (Dow Inc.):

• He mentioned how his company, Dow, had recently announced that it would build a SMR project with X-energy at its manufacturing site in Seadrift, Texas.
  • He explained that this SMR project is meant to provide the entire manufacturing site with safe, reliable, and zero emissions power and steam.
• He noted how Dow’s SMR Seadrift project largely centers around the installation of four X-energy’s Xe-100 high temperature gas reactors to replace the manufacturing site’s existing energy and steam assets.
• He testified that Dow expects to submit construction permit applications to the NRC in early 2024.
  • He indicated that Dow anticipates that it will commence construction on these nuclear assets in 2026 and that these assets will be operational by approximately 2030 (assuming that its construction permit applications receive NRC approval).
• He remarked that the use of advanced nuclear energy technologies is consistent with Dow’s strategy to decarbonize and grow.
  • He elaborated that Dow is investing both in growing its ability to serve its customers and in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions.
• He testified that Dow uses approximately 10 GWs of energy from fuel to produce heat, power, and steam at 25 major manufacturing sites worldwide.
  • He indicated that 10 GWs of energy is enough energy to power more than seven million homes.
• He remarked that the U.S. must replace end-of-life energy assets with known proven technologies that enable decarbonization.
  • He commented that Dow is a leading user of renewable energy sources and mentioned how Dow is among the top 20 global purchasers of renewable energy.
• He stated that while traditional clean energy sources (such as wind, solar, and storage) are a valuable resource to meet climate change goals, he noted that these energy sources present reliability challenges.
  • He noted how these traditional clean energy sources must be paired with traditional baseload energy sources, such as low emissions energy from natural gas or emissions-free sources like nuclear energy.
• He remarked that nuclear energy (especially advanced SMRs) constitutes a long-term and viable source of low carbon emitting sustainable energy.
  • He stated that advanced SMRs offer the advantage of baseload replacement and renewable supplement with better environmental performance and fewer issues than conventional nuclear energy.
• He discussed how Dow’s manufacturing operations require a constant 24/7 supply of heat, power, and steam and asserted that Dow cannot have interruptions.
  • He indicated that X-energy’s SMR technology provides clean, reliable, and safe baseload power to an electricity system and supports industrial applications requiring high pressure and high temperature steam.
• He remarked that advanced nuclear energy technology provides a “huge opportunity” for industrial uses of power and steam.
  • He asserted that navigating the deployment challenges with this technology will require continued engagement between the private sector and the federal government.
• He stated that there exist three key areas of risk and opportunity related to nuclear energy: fuel, timing, and budget.
  • He commented that these three areas are inextricably linked.
• He remarked that concerns about the uranium supply’s long-term availability and geopolitical challenges could impact the sustainability of nuclear power.
  • He commented that industrial customers need confidence that fuel supply will enable steady operations and operating costs.
  • He expressed appreciation for Full Committee Chairman Joe Manchin’s (D-WV) work to develop a nuclear fuel supply.
• He also noted how most industrial users will install advanced nuclear technologies to replace existing assets that are reaching retirement.
  • He asserted that advanced nuclear projects must therefore be delivered on strict timelines.
• He stated that ensuring that regulatory frameworks for advanced nuclear energy technologies are adaptable and efficient will be crucial to avoiding prolonged approval timelines.
  • He commended the NRC for their willingness to consider new advanced nuclear energy technologies (such as SMRs) while continuing to hold applicants to high standards for safety and operability.
• He further remarked that capital costs for nuclear energy projects must be clear, competitive, and constant.
  • He commented that significant changes in timing will impact these costs and noted how fuel source availability can impact timing (and costs by extension).
• He thanked the Committee for establishing the U.S. Department of Energy’s ARDP and stated that this Program’s 50-50 cost sharing approach enables Dow to pursue its advanced nuclear energy projects.
• He remarked that the federal government, the nuclear industry, and the research community must work collaboratively to address the aforementioned risks.
  • He commented that clear regulatory frameworks, strategic investments, and commitments to innovation are essential for the successful deployments of advanced nuclear energy technologies.

The Hon. Jeffrey S. Merrifield (Former Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; U.S. Nuclear Industry Council; Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP):

• He expressed appreciation for Congress’s “overwhelming” bipartisan support for nuclear energy.
  • He noted how this bipartisan support was not present when he had first began working for the U.S. Senate in 1987.
• He discussed how there now exists a diverse group of advanced nuclear reactor developers that are working on remote-sited microreactors, molten salt research reactors, data centers, steel mills, chemical complexes, mining operations, and offshore mounted platforms.
• He highlighted how various companies (including Dow, Microsoft, Google, and Nucor) are considering how nuclear energy can meet their needs for clean power and industrial heat.
  • He commented that these companies are not deterred by the complexity and patience associated with the deployment of nuclear energy because they possess large balance sheets and significant project management capabilities.
• He lamented however that many U.S. nuclear energy utility companies have not yet committed to new nuclear energy generation capacity.
  • He noted that these nuclear energy utility companies have instead indicated that they want to purchase nuclear energy unit designs that have already been deployed.
  • He commented that financial markets and public utility commissions are discouraged by Southern Company’s experience with bringing Plant Vogtle’s Units 3 and 4 online.
• He remarked utility executives (who are compensated based on meeting quarterly financial targets and managing public utility commission prudency reviews) have many incentives to not pursue new nuclear energy projects.
  • He commented that this inaction on new nuclear energy projects is in spite of the existence of government-backed loan guarantees and other federal tax incentives.
• He stated that utility executives fear that if they commit to building a first-of-a-kind nuclear energy plant, then they could be subject to financial and timing risks on the project’s back end.
• He suggested that a financial backstop program for first-of-a-kind nuclear energy deployment projects could share the risk between the federal government and the utility company for potential delays and unexpected cost increases.
  • He commented that this type of program would protect utility companies from bearing “undue” risks for deploying first-of-a-kind nuclear energy project designs.
• He also suggested that Congress could provide financial incentives for utility companies that come together in a consortium to build a series of nuclear power plants and spread the costs among a larger pool.
  • He commented that this risk sharing model had been used with mixed success in New England from the 1970s through the 1990s.
  • He added that former U.S. Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz has worked to develop his own risk sharing model proposal.
• He then remarked that the U.S.’s capabilities to build large infrastructure projects are “rusty” and asserted that the U.S. must make additional investments in university engineering programs focused on project management and civil construction.
  • He highlighted how the non-nuclear portion of nuclear energy plants represent two-thirds of the cost and materials needed to build the units.
• He stated that Congress should revisit the way it funds university-based programs supporting nuclear power to ensure that these programs cover the full scope of needed engineering disciplines.
• He then discussed how the U.S. has reviewed how it sources many critical components (including nuclear energy components) since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
  • He emphasized that nuclear energy-grade components cannot be instantaneously fabricated and manufactured.
  • He asserted that further work is required for the U.S. to achieve the economies of scale needed to efficiently and cost effectively manufacture SMRs domestically.
• He also discussed how new nuclear facility suppliers must adhere to rigorous and costly training and quality assurance requirements.
  • He commented that these requirements are “appropriately imposed” to meet NRC expectations.
• He stated that Congress could increase nuclear facility supplies through providing incentives to encourage existing non-nuclear supply manufacturers to enter the field.
  • He indicated that this could include training funded by the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Department of Commerce to educate non-nuclear facility suppliers about potential opportunities within the nuclear energy space.
  • He also indicated that this could include tax incentives for companies that seek to meet these qualification standards or expend training resources to prepare their workers in highly specialized nuclear trades.
• He also remarked that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has demonstrated that the U.S. has become overly dependent on Russian supplies of LEU and HALEU.
• He asserted that additional legislation will be vital to spurring further domestic enrichment investment.
  • He specifically called on Congress to create a federally-owned inventory of LEU and HALEU.
  • He also expressed support for President Biden’s recent request that $2.2 billion be included in the supplemental appropriations package to support domestic enrichment capabilities for LEU and HALEU.
• He lastly raised concerns over the NRC’s efforts to develop a modernized regulatory framework for advanced nuclear reactors under a future Part 53.

Congressional Question Period:

Full Committee Chairman Joe Manchin (D-WV):

• Chairman Manchin expressed disappointment over how NuScale and UAMPS had recently canceled their joint-SMR project. He noted how this project had received a non-competitive $771 million federal grant. He also mentioned how X-energy and TerraPower had been seeking a competitive federal grant two weeks prior to the NuScale-UAMPS project’s cancellation. He asked Dr. Wagner to explain how the NuScale-UAMPS project had been able to receive a non-competitive federal grant. He expressed frustration that the U.S. would not recover this money.
  • Dr. Wagner stated that he could not speak to the procurement process underlying the now-canceled NuScale-UAMPS joint-SMR project. He remarked that Idaho National Laboratory was proud to have been selected as the site for this now-canceled project. He indicated that Idaho National Laboratory’s role in this project was to provide the location for the SMR and to serve as a potential “power offtaker” for this SMR.
• Chairman Manchin interjected to note that X-energy and TerraPower had competed for a federal grant that would be decided on the merits of the proposed projects. He emphasized however that the NuScale and UAMPS had not undergone the competitive bidding process for their federal grant. He stated that the U.S. Department of Energy should consider why the NuScale-UAMPS project had ultimately failed.
  • Dr. Wagner reiterated that while he could not speak to the NuScale-UAMPS project’s procurement process, he asserted that this joint-SMR project had accomplished a lot of things (despite its ultimate cancellation). He noted that the NuScale-UAMPS project had resulted in a design certification for an advanced small light-water reactor. He also noted how this project had provided experience with exercising licensing processes and experience with developing nuclear supply chains.
• Chairman Manchin interjected to ask Dr. Wagner to indicate whether the X-energy and TerraPower proposals that recently underwent a competitive bidding process involve the same technology as the now-canceled NuScale-UAMPS project. He also asked Dr. Wagner to indicate whether the now-canceled NuScale-UAMPS project has helped X-energy and TerraPower to develop their proposed projects.
  • Dr. Wagner noted how X-Energy and TerraPower are proposing different technologies than the technology that NuScale and UAMPS had proposed. He reiterated however that the NuScale-UAMPS project did provide benefits related to exercising the licensing process for new nuclear reactor proposals, as well as tangential supply chain benefits.
• Chairman Manchin then expressed agreement with Mr. Merrifield’s testimony that many public utility executives are afraid to be the first to deploy novel nuclear energy technologies. He mentioned how these executives had observed Southern Company’s challenges with deploying new nuclear reactors and noted how Southern Company had experienced cost overruns and supply chain issues. He remarked that the U.S. must become the global leader in deploying nuclear energy technologies. He stated that the U.S. must also work to export these technologies to its allies so that allies are not dependent on “foreign entities of concern” for their nuclear power needs. He asserted that the U.S. must take a public-private partnership approach in deploying nuclear energy technologies. He commented that the private sector has a greater risk appetite and noted how the federal government is reducing much of this risk through its investments in the IIJA and the Inflation Reduction Act. He stated however that utility companies have not demonstrated a great risk appetite for deploying new nuclear energy technologies. He asserted that private sector companies like Dow will be key to ensuring the U.S.’s deployment of new nuclear energy technologies. He asked Mr. Merrifield to address how the U.S. can support the deployment of these new nuclear energy technologies.
  • Mr. Merrifield remarked that the U.S.’s nuclear energy technology deployment efforts fall into two categories. He indicated that the first category involves the deployment of nuclear energy technologies by industrial companies. He discussed how the ARDP is providing a significant financial commitment to support industrial deployments of nuclear energy technologies and noted how Dow is making use of this Program. He indicated that the second category involves the deployment of nuclear energy technologies by utility companies. He highlighted how these technologies include light-water and other advanced nuclear reactor designs. He noted how these technologies cannot access the ARDP, which makes utilities more hesitant to pursue these technologies. He stated that the adoption of greater risk-sharing measures could incentivize utility companies to deploy these novel technologies.
• Chairman Manchin interjected to comment that the federal government already provides numerous incentives to encourage the deployment of nuclear power. He asked the witnesses to provide suggestions for how the federal government could make it easier for entities to access existing federal nuclear power incentives.
  • Mr. Merrifield remarked that the existing nuclear energy ITCs and PTCs will accelerate the deployment of follow-on nuclear reactor units. He stated however that companies remain hesitant to deploy first-of-a-kind nuclear energy technologies. He remarked that a financial backstop program would ensure that companies will not experience outsized risks when deploying first-of-a-kind nuclear energy technologies.
• Chairman Manchin then asked Mr. Stones to explain why Dow had decided to pursue its nuclear power project.
  • Mr. Stones remarked that nuclear power will be key to enabling Dow to achieve its long-term goal of zero emissions. He asserted that nuclear power will be necessary for achieving zero carbon emissions by 2050. He then testified that Dow maintains a strong balance sheet, strong project construction capabilities, and strong risk management capabilities. He remarked that Dow is therefore well-positioned to take advantage of nuclear energy technology. He stated that nuclear energy technology is intrinsically safe and can provide high temperature steam, which makes it very attractive. He further stated that the ARDP and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022’s provisions have enabled Dow to pursue its nuclear energy project.
• Chairman Manchin lastly mentioned how his state of West Virginia has long been a significant coal producer and noted how many coal power plants are now retiring. He stated that SMRs can replace many retiring coal power plants and support the job and revenue needs of their surrounding communities. He also noted how SMRs can make use of existing coal power plant infrastructure. He expressed support for transitioning these retiring coal power plants to nuclear power plants. He stated however that this transition should not involve the premature retirements of coal power plants and commented that these premature retirements could undermine the reliability of the U.S. energy system. He further raised concerns over the significant amount of intermittent energy sources being incorporated into the U.S. energy grid. He warned that this intermittent energy can threaten the reliability of the U.S. energy system. He expressed his commitment to supporting the prompt deployment of nuclear power within the U.S.

Full Committee Ranking Member John Barrasso (R-WY):

• Ranking Member Barrasso noted how Mr. Stones had listed fuel availability, timing, and budget as the key areas of risk related to nuclear energy. He asked Mr. Stones to indicate whether nuclear fuel availability constitutes the greatest risk facing prospective nuclear energy projects.
  • Mr. Stones testified that Dow considers nuclear fuel availability to be its greatest risk facing its planned nuclear energy project. He mentioned how Dow wants to launch its planned nuclear energy project in 2030 and noted that Dow will need to shut down some of its existing assets to launch the project. He stated that a lack of available nuclear fuel will force Dow to continue its existing energy generation efforts and forgo its planned nuclear energy project.
• Ranking Member Barrasso mentioned how a lack of nuclear fuel availability is already impacting TerraPower’s Natrium nuclear reactor project in his state of Wyoming. He stated that the U.S.’s dependence on Russia for its nuclear fuel supply undermines confidence in nuclear energy projects. He remarked that the U.S. must “abruptly” reduce its dependence on Russian uranium. He expressed encouragement with the recent announcement that TerraPower and Uranium Energy Corporation are working to supply the Natrium nuclear reactor with domestic fuel. He also noted how Mr. Merrifield’s testimony had called for additional federal legislation and funding to ensure the availability of domestic nuclear fuel. He mentioned how he is working to include the Nuclear Fuel Security Act of 2023 in this year’s NDAA. He asked Mr. Merrifield to indicate whether a lack of nuclear fuel availability is creating uncertainty for advanced nuclear reactor developers.
  • Mr. Merrifield answered affirmatively. He expressed support for the Nuclear Fuel Security Act of 2023. He also called on Congress to provide additional funding to ensure the availability of domestic nuclear fuel.
• Ranking Member Barrasso reiterated his support for TerraPower’s work with Uranium Energy Corporation to address its nuclear fuel supply. He then asked Dr. Waksman to explain why the DoD is pursuing advanced nuclear reactor technologies that have not yet been commercially demonstrated.
  • Dr. Waksman noted that while domestic nuclear energy projects must compete against cheap electricity options, he highlighted how the DoD often operates in locations with very high electricity costs. He also remarked that the DoD is willing to pay a premium for resiliency and certainty because all of its operations must function all of the time. He further stated that the DoD’s mission-driven focus enables it to support many novel technologies. He highlighted how the U.S. Navy had built the first ever commercial nuclear reactor. He commented that there thus exists precedent for the DoD driving nuclear energy technologies.
• Ranking Member Barrasso then discussed how most traditional utility companies are cautious about investing in advanced nuclear reactors. He noted how Dow is eager to use advanced nuclear reactors to generate the electricity and heat needed for its manufacturing operations. He asked Mr. Stones to discuss the factors that had led Dow to decide to become a “first mover” within the nuclear energy technology space. He also asked Mr. Stones to discuss how nuclear energy could be used in industrial manufacturing.
  • Mr. Stones remarked that Dow had decided to pursue its nuclear energy project so that it could achieve its long-term goal of carbon neutrality. He asserted that carbon neutrality cannot be achieved without the use of nuclear power. He stated that Dow possesses inflation and megaproject management capabilities and that Dow’s partner (X-energy) makes its nuclear energy project feasible. He remarked that Dow needs certainty surrounding fuel supplies and permitting schedules so that it can confidently pursue its nuclear energy project.
• Ranking Member Barrasso lastly mentioned how the U.S. Air Force had recently rescinded a contract for an advanced nuclear reactor project in Alaska. He noted however that the U.S. Air Force still plans to pursue an advanced nuclear reactor project in Alaska. He asked Dr. Waksman to provide the Committee with an update on this project’s status.
  • Dr. Waksman stated that Ranking Member Barrasso’s question relates to procurement sensitive information, which limits his ability to discuss the project. He remarked however that the U.S. Air Force still intends to award funding for an entity to pursue an advanced nuclear reactor project in Alaska.

Sen. Angus King (I-ME):

• Sen. King first expressed interest in working to address the U.S.’s nuclear fuel supply shortage. He then mentioned how he had previously worked in the power production industry and stated that it is impossible to finance a power project using just a ten-year power purchase agreement. He asked Dr. Wagner to confirm that the U.S. Department of Energy has a ten-year limitation on its power purchase agreements.
  • Dr. Wagner confirmed that the U.S. Department of Energy’s power purchase agreement authorities are limited to just ten years.
• Sen. King asked Dr. Wagner to indicate whether this ten-year limitation on the U.S. Department of Energy’s power purchase agreement authority is statutory or regulatory.
  • Dr. Wagner indicated that he believed that the ten-year limitation is statutory and that Congress would need to pass legislation to modify or eliminate this limitation.
• Sen. King remarked that Congress must address the ten-year limitation on the U.S. Department of Energy’s power purchase agreement authority. He commented that this current ten-year limitation impedes the U.S. Department of Energy’s ability to pursue nuclear energy projects. He then asked Mr. Stones to discuss the extent to which permitting times and cost are a barrier to deploying nuclear energy projects.
  • Mr. Stones remarked that Dow could not afford to wait long to commence construction on its nuclear energy project. He indicated that Dow hopes to commence construction on its nuclear energy project in 2026.
• Sen. King interjected to ask Mr. Stones to indicate whether Dow has received the necessary permits to begin constructing its nuclear energy project.
  • Mr. Stones indicated that Dow has not yet received the necessary permits to begin constructing its nuclear energy project. He called these permits “absolutely critical” for enabling Dow to pursue its nuclear energy project.
• Sen. King commented that Congress must address the permitting process for nuclear energy projects. He then discussed how a major impediment to building conventional nuclear power plants is construction costs. He asked Mr. Stones to indicate whether the repeated deployments of nuclear power plants can lead to lower construction costs.
  • Mr. Stones stated that while he could not provide precise cost saving estimates that would result from repeated nuclear power plant deployments, he asserted that these repeated deployments would provide a path to reliable and lower construction costs. He also emphasized how nuclear energy technology systems are safer than conventional boilers and steam turbines. He further noted how advanced nuclear energy technology systems do not require as much land as traditional nuclear power reactors. He commented that these lower land requirements will reduce the costs associated with building these new nuclear energy technology systems.
• Sen. King then lamented how the U.S. had deployed a wide variety of nuclear power plants. He commented that this unfocused approach has prevented the U.S. from obtaining advantages from successive generations of a nuclear power plant’s design. He asked Mr. Stones to indicate whether the U.S. is repeating this mistake in its development and deployment of SMRs.
  • Mr. Stones answered no. He indicated that Dow plans to construct four SMRs in a parallel fashion (rather than a sequential fashion). He also stated that SMRs will likely be installed in groups (rather than individually).
  • Mr. Merrifield remarked that the U.S. had historically constructed large nuclear reactors because utilities were the sole entities building nuclear reactors. He stated that there now exists a diverse set of industrial users of nuclear energy. He remarked that a small set of nuclear reactor designs cannot meet all of the needs of these industrial users. He asserted that there must exist a variety of styles and sizes of nuclear reactors to support unique industrial heat, power, and remote uses.
• Sen. King interjected to acknowledge that while it would be infeasible for there to exist just one nuclear power plant design, he asserted that there should exist some level of consistency across nuclear power plant designs so that not every nuclear power plant is bespoke.
  • Mr. Merrifield interjected to comment that all nuclear reactor designers envision that their plant designs will be built in a modular and serial fashion. He stated that there will likely exist demand for nuclear reactors that have already been successfully deployed. He remarked that the U.S.’s previous problem was that all of its nuclear power reactors were individually designed, even if they all came from the same manufacturer. He stated that modern nuclear reactor designers plan to replicate their designs once the designs receive NRC approval.
• Sen. King remarked that the federal government and nuclear energy developers must share the risks associated with deploying novel nuclear energy technologies. He asserted that nuclear energy deployment is a U.S. national security priority. He elaborated that this deployment is key for the U.S.’s global competitiveness and the provision of emissions-free energy. He mentioned how the U.S. had recently passed the CHIPS and Science Act because it viewed semiconductors as a critical technology that must be developed within the U.S. He asked Mr. Merrifield to indicate whether the U.S. must pursue a similar strategy to promote the domestic development of novel nuclear energy technologies.
  • Mr. Merrifield answered affirmatively. He remarked that the U.S. faces challenges developing and deploying first-of-a-kind nuclear energy technologies. He stated that there should exist sufficient market demand for these novel nuclear energy technologies once they have been successfully developed and deployed. He remarked that the federal government must provide financial backstops for developing and deploying first-of-a-kind nuclear energy technologies so that the U.S. nuclear energy industry can remain globally competitive.
• Sen. King expressed agreement with Mr. Merrifield’s assertion that the U.S. should support the development and deployment of first-of-a-kind nuclear energy technologies. He commented that these technologies will become much easier to deploy once they have already proven successful.

Full Committee Chairman Joe Manchin (D-WV):

• Chairman Manchin noted how Dow had decided to move forward on its nuclear energy project based on existing laws. He asked Mr. Stones to explain why Dow had decided to move forward on its nuclear energy project.
  • Mr. Stones first remarked that inflation has made it more challenging for Dow to pursue its nuclear energy project.
• Chairman Manchin interjected to emphasize that Congress has provided many incentives for companies to pursue nuclear energy projects.
  • Mr. Stones remarked that Dow’s project management approach is focused on managing schedules and costs and eliminating stranded capital.
• Chairman Manchin interjected to ask Mr. Stones to indicate whether Dow believes that sufficient nuclear energy technology already exists to meet the company’s needs.
  • Mr. Stones answered affirmatively.
• Chairman Manchin interjected to ask Mr. Stones to indicate whether Dow believes that it can deploy nuclear energy technology at scale.
  • Mr. Stones answered affirmatively.

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA):

• Sen. Cassidy discussed how permitting can drive up the costs of nuclear energy projects and noted how the NRC is developing a new process for reviewing permit applications. He stated however that the NRC’s permitting reforms appear to involve building upon their existing permitting process rather than establishing a new permitting system. He expressed concerns that this approach would not be effective and noted how nuclear energy projects already face challenges moving through the existing permitting process. He asked the witnesses to comment on the NRC’s permitting reforms.
  • Dr. Wagner noted how the NRC had attempted to develop a Part 53 rulemaking that would create a new licensing framework for advanced nuclear reactors. He commented that this new licensing framework would be more general and performance-based. He indicated however that there are concerns that this framework will not meet these objectives.
  • Mr. Merrifield noted how Congress had directed the NRC to develop a risk-informed performance-based program for licensing advanced nuclear reactors. He stated however that the NRC staff’s proposal would impose additional complications on advanced nuclear reactor designs that are non-existent under the NRC’s previous Part 52 licensing process. He called on the Commission to direct the NRC staff to redevelop their proposed Part 53 licensing framework. He asserted that the currently proposed Part 53 licensing framework will not be helpful. He noted how most advanced nuclear reactor developers have indicated that they would not use the currently proposed Part 53 licensing framework.
• Sen. Cassidy interjected to ask Mr. Merrifield to clarify whether the NRC’s proposed Part 53 licensing framework would be mandatory for advanced nuclear reactor developers.
  • Mr. Merrifield indicated that the NRC’s proposed Part 53 licensing framework would not be mandatory for advanced nuclear reactor developers. He stated that most advanced nuclear reactor developers will use the NRC’s existing two-step program under Part 50 to permit their projects. He noted how this process had been used to license all of the U.S.’s current nuclear reactors (with the exception of the Plant Vogtle’s Units 3 and 4). He commented that this existing two-step program is working well in some instances and cited Kairos Power as an example of this success. He stated however that the back end of the existing two-step program (which involves the mandatory hearing process) is laborious and non-transparent. He asserted that this two-step program under Part 50 can thus be improved upon.
• Sen. Cassidy asked Mr. Merrifield to indicate whether the NRC faces obstacles when seeking to reform its licensing frameworks for nuclear energy technologies.
  • Mr. Merrifield mentioned how his tenure as an NRC Commissioner had ended in 2007. He recounted how the NRC had worked to reform the Part 52 licensing process during his tenure as a NRC Commissioner. He explained that the Part 52 licensing process is a one-step program and mentioned how the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station had used this licensing process. He stated that the NRC staff’s initial Part 52 licensing process proposal would have imposed onerous requirements, which had prompted the Commission to direct the NRC staff to develop an entirely new Part 52 licensing process proposal. He remarked that the Commission should not automatically approve the NRC staff’s proposals and should instead work to ensure that the NRC’s programs will enable new nuclear reactor technologies. He emphasized how Congress has provided significant incentives for nuclear reactors and how there exists market demand for nuclear energy. He remarked however that the NRC process is preventing nuclear reactors from being used for their intended purposes.
  • Dr. Wagner remarked that Congress would need to make statutory changes to address the NRC’s use of uncontested mandatory hearings.
  • Mr. Merrifield stated that the NRC could take unilateral actions to make the uncontested mandatory hearing process more efficient.

Full Committee Chairman Joe Manchin (D-WV):

• Chairman Manchin remarked that the U.S. is currently experiencing a “revitalization” in excitement for nuclear energy. He mentioned how his state of West Virginia had recently repealed a law prohibiting nuclear energy production within the state. He remarked that nuclear energy can enable fossil fuel producing states to smoothly transition to other fuel types. He also stated that the safety features of modern nuclear energy technologies must be better publicized.

Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-CO):

• Sen. Hickenlooper remarked that the U.S. is currently in the middle of a significant energy transition and stated that the U.S. will need to deploy clean, reliable, and cost-efficient energy to reduce its emissions. He noted how the U.S. Department of Energy estimates that the U.S. will need between 100 GW and 400 GW of new nuclear power transmission by 2050 to achieve the U.S.’s energy objectives. He commented that this would entail quadrupling the U.S.’s current nuclear power capacity. He asked Dr. Wagner to address why new nuclear reactor designs constitute a better use of federal funds.
  • Dr. Wagner remarked that new nuclear reactor designs provide firm, dispatchable, and non-carbon emitting electricity and energy. He stated that while the construction of existing nuclear reactor designs would be beneficial, he commented that these existing nuclear reactor designs often do not meet the needs of many customers. He elaborated that existing nuclear reactor designs can be very large and noted how the DoD and smaller communities are demanding smaller reactors. He also mentioned how many advanced nuclear reactor designs offer novel features, such as higher outlet temperatures for industrial processes. He stated that advanced nuclear reactors have been developed to offer options that are based on customer interests. He further highlighted how advanced nuclear reactor designs can be cheaper through offering more passive safety features, better fuel utilization, and thermal efficiencies. He stated however that traditional large light-water nuclear reactors will still be needed moving forward.
  • Mr. Stones noted how the failure of large nuclear reactors can have significant impacts on power grids in terms of power availability and prices. He remarked that a key advantage of smaller nuclear reactors is that they can provide better power grid reliability in the event of nuclear reactor failures.
• Sen. Hickenlooper expressed agreement with Mr. Stones’s assertion that smaller nuclear reactors will provide better power grid reliability.
  • Mr. Merrifield noted how nuclear power plants have an 80-year lifespan while wind and solar facilities only have 20-year lifespans. He added that wind and solar facilities necessitate backup generation capabilities. He remarked that many cost comparisons for nuclear power, wind power, and solar power fail to account for these differences between the power generation sources. He commented that policymakers and stakeholders should be cognizant of these dynamics.
• Sen. Hickenlooper also commented that cost of money and time should be accounted for when comparing nuclear power plants to solar and wind facilities. He then noted how there remains public resistance to nuclear power. He asked the witnesses to comment on the current public sentiment toward nuclear power and to provide recommendations for changing this sentiment.
  • Dr. Waksman remarked that there is increasing public support for nuclear power. He mentioned how the DoD had engaged the public on its proposed nuclear energy project and testified that the DoD had received local support (including from tribes) for its proposed project.
  • Mr. Stones testified that Dow has also received strong local support for its planned nuclear energy project.
  • Mr. Merrifield mentioned how public opinion polling indicates that between 60 percent and 65 percent of the American public supports nuclear power while about 15 percent of the American public opposes nuclear power.
  • Dr. Wagner remarked that there is occurring a “generational shift” in support for nuclear power for many reasons (including climate change concerns). He stated that this growth in support for nuclear power has been rapid. He recounted how communities had competed for a PacifiCorp nuclear energy project in Wyoming. He commented that this competition would likely not have occurred 20 years ago. He also highlighted how there had not been significant opposition to the nuclear aspect of the Carbon Free Power Project (CFPP).
• Sen. Hickenlooper remarked that his state of Colorado is experiencing a change in public opinion toward nuclear power. He noted however that opposition toward nuclear power can be pronounced in urban areas, which can impede nuclear power deployment efforts.

Full Committee Chairman Joe Manchin (D-WV):

• Chairman Manchin asked the witnesses to indicate whether the opposition to nuclear power is attributable to a lack of knowledge or some other reason. He commented that understanding the rationale behind this opposition would be beneficial. He highlighted how his state of West Virginia has significantly changed its attitudes toward nuclear power and is now supportive of nuclear power.
  • Mr. Merrifield noted how younger people are more likely to support nuclear power as compared to older people.
• Chairman Manchin interjected to request that the witnesses keep monitoring public opinion towards nuclear power and to share their public opinion insights with the Committee.

Sen. James Risch (R-ID):

• Sen. Risch first stated that concerns stemming from the Three Mile Island accident still undermine public support for nuclear power. He then lamented how the U.S. is lagging the rest of the world in its deployment of nuclear power. He specifically highlighted how eastern European countries are actively pursuing nuclear power to reduce their reliance on Russian energy. He remarked that Congress must update federal laws to promote nuclear power deployment. He specifically discussed how financing often serves as a barrier to nuclear power deployment. He stated that utility companies are “notoriously” risk averse and noted how the U.S. expects these companies to assume large financial risks when they deploy novel nuclear energy technologies. He then lamented the recent cancellation of the NuScale-UAMPS project and suggested that a competitive bidding process and increased oversight could have improved the project’s likelihood of success. He remarked that government partnerships are key to supporting the deployment of novel nuclear energy technologies given the scale of nuclear power projects. He stated however that the now-canceled NuScale-UAMPS project has provided lessons for policymakers and stakeholders on how to deploy novel nuclear energy technologies. He asserted that there exists a strong market demand for constructing smaller nuclear reactors. He noted that large nuclear reactors can be very expensive to build, which limits the potential customer base for these reactors. He remarked that policymakers should focus more on ways to better finance nuclear power projects and commented that progress in nuclear engineering is outpacing progress in nuclear financing.
  • Mr. Merrifield noted how utility companies are subject to prudency reviews from public utility commissions, which can make them hesitant to pursue novel energy technologies. He also called it “very exciting” that eastern European countries want to pursue nuclear power. He highlighted how “virtually all” of the nuclear power technologies that European countries are considering are American technologies. He stated that the U.S. has the leading advanced nuclear energy technologies in the world. He lamented how these advanced nuclear energy technologies are taking time to be deployed.
• Sen. Risch interjected to note that China and Russia are aggressively pursuing the deployment of advanced nuclear energy technologies.
  • Mr. Merrifield acknowledged that while China and Russia are aggressively pursuing the deployment of advanced nuclear energy technologies, he stated that the U.S. still possesses the best advanced nuclear energy technologies in the world.
• Sen. Risch expressed agreement with Mr. Merrifield’s response.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK):

• Sen. Murkowski expressed hope that the Committee’s public support for advanced nuclear energy technologies will lead potential users and financiers of nuclear power to pursue the technologies more actively. She mentioned how her state of Alaska had repealed its prohibition on nuclear power deployments and noted how Alaska is now considering additional nuclear power deployments. She discussed how Alaska has many microgrids to serve remote communities and remote mining projects. She noted how these communities and projects are reliant upon shipped diesel fuel for power. She commented that this situation is not sustainable. She then expressed interest in the DoD’s planned nuclear energy project at Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska. She noted how many U.S. military installations are located in areas with very high energy costs. She commented that nuclear power can support lower energy costs in these areas. She acknowledged that Dr. Waksman is limited in his ability to discuss this planned nuclear energy project. She asked Dr. Waksman to provide an update on how the U.S. Air Force’s recent rescission of its nuclear power contract might impact the overall timeline for deploying a nuclear energy project at Eielson Air Force Base.
  • Dr. Waksman indicated that he is not the program manager for the U.S. Air Force’s nuclear energy project at Eielson Air Force Base. He stated that he therefore does not want to comment on the project. He expressed receptiveness toward receiving a question on this project for the hearing’s record and working with the team responsible for this project on developing a response. He then mentioned how he had recently visited Alaska and noted how many U.S. military installations in Alaska have very high energy costs. He stated that microreactors would be well-suited for the deployment in Alaska and expressed hope that microreactors can be successfully deployed within the state.
• Sen. Murkowski expressed interest in following up with Dr. Waksman on the timeline for deploying the nuclear energy project at Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska. She commented that this nuclear energy project might support the eventual deployment of microreactors to smaller communities within Alaska and promote industrial nuclear energy projects. She then asked Dr. Waksman to discuss how the DoD is working with the U.S. Department of Energy to evaluate Project Pele’s technologies for non-military applications. She also asked Dr. Waksman to indicate whether there exist factors that can limit public adoption of mobile nuclear reactors.
  • Dr. Waksman first stated that microreactors will generally be more expensive than larger nuclear reactors, which means that they will be used for niche applications. He then remarked that the DoD is supporting commercial nuclear energy applications in several ways. He mentioned how the DoD is working with the Idaho National Laboratory and the U.S. Department of Energy to develop a regulatory process for Project Pele. He commented that other microreactor companies can learn from Project Pele’s regulatory experience, which will reduce regulatory challenges for these companies. He also discussed how there exists uncertainty surrounding how materials will behave in advanced nuclear reactors and noted how advanced nuclear reactors involve higher temperatures and higher levels of radiation. He stated that the regulatory process for Project Pele will need to be strict to account for these uncertainties. He remarked however that regulatory processes for subsequent technologies will be easier and cheaper because of the lessons learned from Project Pele.
  • Mr. Merrifield noted how the NRC is involved in a peer review of the DoD’s nuclear energy project designs. He commented that this information sharing effort could be beneficial for civilian nuclear energy applications.
  • Dr. Waksman noted that while the NRC does not regulate the DoD’s Project Pele, he indicated that the NRC sits in on the DoD’s design meetings. He noted how the NRC has cycled its staff through these design meetings so that the staff can learn lessons that can be applied to commercial nuclear reactor reviews.
• Sen. Murkowski remarked that the Committee must act on the suggestions for reforming the nuclear licensing and permitting process that had been provided at the hearing.

Full Committee Chairman Joe Manchin (D-WV):

• Chairman Manchin noted how Dow is working diligently to implement novel nuclear energy technologies and stated that Congress must work to ensure that companies like Dow can implement these technologies. He also remarked that Alaska could be a major beneficiary of microreactor technology and expressed support for deploying this technology.

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV):

• Sen. Cortez Masto expressed agreement with Dr. Wagner’s assessment that the present NWPA framework for interim nuclear waste storage and disposal is inadequate and that a new policy framework is needed. She stated that the “failed” Yucca Mountain project in her state of Nevada demonstrates the problems with a non-consent-based process for nuclear waste storage and disposal. She mentioned how she advocated that the U.S. incorporate the consent-based framework and findings of the 2012 Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future. She asked Dr. Wagner to elaborate on this consent-based framework for nuclear storage and disposal. She also asked Dr. Wagner to identify any new concepts and lessons from other countries that could inform consent-based U.S. nuclear waste repository programs.
  • Dr. Wagner testified that the U.S. Department of Energy has been studying and collaborating with several other countries that have developed consent-based processes for nuclear waste storage and disposal. He indicated that these countries include Canada, Finland, and Sweden and commented that these efforts have had “considerable success.” He stated that the U.S. Department of Energy has taken the lessons from this study and collaboration to issue grants for communities to participate in a consent-based siting process for nuclear waste. He explained that these grants are helping these communities to evaluate whether they would want to host a nuclear waste storage and disposal site. He also expressed appreciation for Sen. Cortez Masto’s remarks on the NWPA and stated that the U.S. must address several policy issues surrounding nuclear waste storage and disposal (including the Yucca Mountain project).
• Sen. Cortez Masto also asked Dr. Wagner to discuss the nuclear waste implications of the new advanced nuclear reactors under consideration at the hearing. She also asked Dr. Wagner to discuss how these implications impact the development of a “workable” nuclear waste disposal solution.
  • Dr. Wagner noted how several of the advanced nuclear reactors under consideration at the hearing have different fuel forms, which impacts their spent nuclear fuel forms. He remarked that these different spent nuclear fuel forms will ultimately impact their disposal and commented that policymakers will need to consider these impacts. He noted how molten salt reactors involve liquid-based fuels, which differ from ceramic-based fuels. He stated however that the challenges posed by these new fuel and waste types are surmountable. He indicated that these new fuel and waste types may impact costs and design-related matters (such as packaging). He also noted how the U.S.’s current nuclear waste acceptance system only envisions ceramic-based fuels. He commented that the U.S. would need to address this issue.
• Sen. Cortez Masto stated that the U.S. must proactively address the issue of nuclear waste as it considers novel nuclear energy technologies.
  • Dr. Wagner expressed agreement with Sen. Cortez Masto’s statement. He mentioned how the Idaho National Laboratory is working on several nuclear reactor projects on its site and is proactively considering how it will address the resulting nuclear waste storage for these projects.
  • Dr. Waksman testified that several companies and states have reached out to the DoD to inquire how it is using its spent nuclear fuel. He indicated that these companies and states want this spent nuclear fuel so that they can reprocess and sell it. He expressed hope that much of the spent nuclear fuel resulting from novel nuclear energy technologies can be reused (rather than just disposed of).
• Sen. Cortez Masto lastly expressed interest in ensuring that the U.S. creates a robust nuclear energy workforce. She asked Mr. Merrifield to discuss this topic.
  • Mr. Merrifield noted that while nuclear energy workforce conversations are often focused on ensuring a sufficient supply of nuclear engineers, he stated that other types of engineers are needed to support the deployment of nuclear energy facilities. He indicated that these other types of engineers include civil, mechanical, and electrical engineers. He also stated that the U.S. needs to focus on using high schools, technical schools, and technical institutes to train the welders and pipefitters needed to construct nuclear energy facilities.
• Sen. Cortez Masto asked Mr. Merrifield to indicate whether the U.S. is providing sufficient attention to the development of these workers.
  • Mr. Merrifield remarked that the U.S. could provide more attention to the development of these workers.

Full Committee Chairman Joe Manchin (D-WV):

• Chairman Manchin remarked that the top two nuclear energy policy items that the U.S. must address are nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. He stated that the U.S. requires access to HALEU and commented that the U.S. faces HALEU access challenges.
  • Mr. Merrifield noted how the U.S. only enriches 20 percent of its LEU domestically and asserted that the U.S. must therefore focus on ensuring sufficient access to both LEU and HALEU.
• Chairman Manchin asked Mr. Merrifield to elaborate on the U.S.’s current nuclear fuel enrichment capabilities.
  • Mr. Merrifield noted how the U.S. has one enrichment facility in New Mexico that can provide 20 percent of the enriched uranium needed for the U.S.’s currently existing nuclear fleet. He asserted that the U.S. requires more nuclear fuel enrichment capacity.
• Chairman Manchin asked Mr. Merrifield to project how long the U.S.’s current nuclear fuel supplies would last if the U.S. were prevented from accessing Russian nuclear fuel supplies.
  • Mr. Merrifield stated that the U.S. would need to make use of European and Asian nuclear fuel sources if it were prevented from accessing Russian nuclear fuel supplies.
• Chairman Manchin interjected to ask Mr. Merrifield to indicate whether the U.S. is taking sufficient actions to bolster its domestic nuclear fuel enrichment capabilities.
  • Mr. Merrifield remarked that the U.S. needs to construct more domestic nuclear fuel enrichment facilities and called on policymakers to send market signals to support this construction.
• Chairman Manchin asked Mr. Merrifield to indicate whether the private sector will play a role in bolstering the U.S.’s domestic nuclear fuel enrichment capabilities.
  • Mr. Merrifield highlighted how Centrus Energy is developing a HALEU enrichment facility in Pennsylvania and noted how other private sector entities are currently considering domestic nuclear fuel enrichment projects. He stated that these private sector entities want market signals to ensure that there will exist sufficient demand for enriched nuclear fuel if they construct their nuclear fuel enrichment projects.
• Chairman Manchin commented that these private sector entities are seeking out long-term agreements for any nuclear fuel they produce. He then expressed interest in addressing the problem of nuclear waste. He expressed frustration that the U.S. is currently spending large amounts of money to store nuclear waste at nuclear energy facility sites. He asked the witnesses to discuss how nuclear energy facilities can be made responsible for addressing their own waste.
  • Mr. Merrifield mentioned how he is aware of four companies that want to enter the nuclear waste recycling business. He explained that these companies want to accept spent nuclear fuel, take the 95 percent of the energy remaining in this spent nuclear fuel, and provide it for use in the U.S.’s nuclear power fleet. He stated that many advanced nuclear reactors enable this spent nuclear fuel recycling.
• Chairman Manchin asked Mr. Merrifield to confirm that the U.S. does not need to construct a large spent nuclear fuel depository if much of the existing spent nuclear fuel can be recycled. He highlighted how Nevada does not wish to construct a spent nuclear fuel depository in its state, despite the existence of national plans to construct such a depository in Nevada.
  • Mr. Merrifield remarked that the U.S. would still require a repository for the remaining materials if it were to pursue spent nuclear fuel reprocessing. He also stated that the U.S. must address the nuclear waste generated by the U.S. Navy.
  • Mr. Sounds remarked that the U.S. must develop a robust HALEU ecosystem. He stated that there would not exist enough advanced nuclear reactor consumers to use all of the nuclear fuel a startup nuclear fuel production facility will make. He commented that there would thus need to exist demand for this produced fuel outside of the initial advanced nuclear reactor consumers. He stated that the federal government should purchase this initially produced nuclear fuel to ensure a robust HALEU ecosystem.
• Chairman Manchin commented that Dow must have confidence that there exists enough nuclear fuel available for it to pursue its nuclear energy project.
  • Mr. Sounds remarked that Dow is willing to assume that there will exist enough nuclear fuel available in the near future to pursue its nuclear energy project. He stated that Dow is betting that the U.S. government and other nuclear energy stakeholders will provide this nuclear fuel supply when Dow deploys its nuclear energy project. He asserted however that Dow will not pursue its nuclear energy project if it does not believe that such a nuclear fuel supply will be available in the future.
  • Mr. Merrifield further mentioned how the U.S. has committed to supplying Australia with eight Virginia-class submarines (or equivalent submarines). He noted however that there does not currently exist a demonstrable source of highly enriched uranium (HEU) for these eight submarines. He stated that a domestic HALEU supplier could help the U.S. to meet this commitment to Australia, which would in turn drive demand for nuclear fuel.

Sen. James Risch (R-ID):

• Sen. Risch remarked that Congress has been “laser-focused” on the fragility of the U.S.’s supply chains since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. He highlighted how these world events have especially impacted the U.S.’s enriched uranium and semiconductor supply chains. He mentioned how the U.S. has provided $2.7 billion in supplemental appropriations to restart its domestic fuel industry and expressed interest in supporting demand for U.S. nuclear fuel supplies. He noted how there are at least four Senate Committees that are working to support the U.S.’s fuel supplies. He asserted that the Committee should take a leadership role on these efforts and requested a hearing on this topic. He also mentioned how the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation are working to address this topic.

Full Committee Chairman Joe Manchin (D-WV):

• Chairman Manchin remarked that the U.S.’s failure to address nuclear energy will lead other countries to overtake the U.S.’s global leadership in nuclear energy. He warned that these other countries may be unreliable and create problems for the U.S. He stated that the U.S. must therefore work to address this issue before it experiences irreversible damage.