Nuclear Permitting Reform: Legislation to Advance Efficient Licensing
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittings
Kathy Castor
However, the Government Accountability Office says that DOE is no longer capable of effectively managing those funds due to the staffing cuts. The Loans Program Office, which was providing low-cost financing for nuclear reactor construction, lost more than half of its employees due to voluntary resignation as well. Plus, even if a nuclear energy project can get licensed, financed, and built, it still faces challenges connecting to the grid. And the Department of Energy keeps making moves that waste taxpayer money and heap higher costs on our neighbors back home, like forcing old coal plants to remain open, even when plant operators are moving towards closure. Economically, that hurts nuclear power that could replace coal with more reliable energy.
The US Energy Information Administration advises what energy will come online this year: 86 gigawatts of generation made up of 51% solar, 28% batteries, 14% wind, and 7% gas. These are the energy resources that are poised to help America address higher costs and provide more reliable power. We need all of those resources now, in addition to nuclear power. Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of economic pain out in the world, and I think this committee should schedule a hearing on how the president's war on Iran is taking the cost of gasoline to sky-high levels and the fact that the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve is approaching its lowest levels in decades, with inventories expected to fall to roughly 300 million barrels, the lowest since the 1980s. Notwithstanding all that, some of the bills before this committee today can move us in the right direction.
I appreciate the chairman including my bill, the Department of Energy Nuclear Transparency Act.
Over the past year, the department has developed new authorization processes for research demonstration reactors, separate from the typical NRC licensing processes. The NRC has proposed giving DOE-approved reactors an accelerated licensing pathway. However, Secretary Wright has provided little information on how DOE will preserve safety and transparency in this new fast-track process. My bill ensures that Congress has appropriate oversight of these new processes, helping us ensure that we are using the most transparent safety safeguards and boosting public confidence in the industry. This is something that we can all agree on.
I have concerns with some of the bills that could limit important safeguards, as well as any attempts by the administration to turn the NRC into a rubber stamp. I hope that our colleagues will work with us to address these issues. We also need to make progress on building a 21st-century grid, particularly to permit and build new transmission lines. We can't afford to be complacent, and our neighbors back home are facing soul-crushing energy cost increases, and this committee holds the keys to helping them and providing relief, more reliable, affordable power that they deserve. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Speaker 3
Thank you. The gentlelady yields back, and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, the chairman of the full committee, for five minutes for an opening statement.
Brett Guthrie
Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for having this hearing, and thanks for our witnesses for being here. This past Friday, the Energy Information Administration reported that China's nuclear capacity nearly doubled over 10 years, adding 30 gigawatts of power since 2016. While impressive, as recently as 30 years ago, the United States built 80 gigawatts of nuclear power in 14 years, double the pace of China's. That pace has not yet been surpassed.
Given our urgent energy security and power needs, we should work to return to that pace, six new reactors a year or more. As with other federal permitting processes, the nuclear licensing process itself should not be the major impediment to building worthy projects. It should not unnecessarily delay the benefits of the projects for the public. Today, the subcommittee will examine legislation that adds to the bipartisan permitting reforms of the ADVANCE Act we passed two years ago. Those reforms aim to improve nuclear permitting so the public can safely enjoy the benefits of nuclear faster and sooner.
The goal is to make sure NRC licensing is efficient, predictable, and timely, and that its overall culture is aligned to maximize the benefits of nuclear for society, for our energy, our security, and our health. By all accounts, we are on the right track. The NRC is updating its regulations, environmental reviews, to cut months and even years off its licensing processes. It is working to focus on the most safety-significant matters and to discard procedures and requirements that take time and resources but do not have meaningful impact on safety. In the Trump administration, its ADVANCE, Accelerate the ADVANCE Act reforms, has helped accelerate the ADVANCE Act reforms, updating NRC regulations across the board with central focus on what is necessary for NRC to efficiently perform its core safety mission.
The bills before us today clarify pay authority, provide transparency, and eliminate unnecessary Atomic Energy Act requirements to ensure licensing runs more smoothly.
The result is a single-step process for operating permits, the ability to rely on updated environmental reviews, and the ability to move fast on well-understood technologies. Let me welcome the witnesses and all who have brought their experience and expertise on these topics to this panel and in the past, and I look forward to the discussion and I will yield back.
Robert Latta
Well, thank you very much. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, the ranking member of the full committee, for five minutes for an opening statement.
Frank Pallone
Thank you, Chairman Latta. This is our third hearing this year on nuclear energy, and I must again start by noting the Trump administration's troubling attacks on the safety of our nation's nuclear reactors. The president claims to support nuclear energy, but his administration's actions, whether carried out by the Department of Energy or his DOE minions at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, seem designed to make nuclear energy less safe. There's no path forward for the nuclear industry in this nation unless there's public confidence in its safety, and the industry and its regulators have worked hard to invest in that public confidence over the years. But President Trump has completely jeopardized these decades of work in just 18 months.
Any nuclear legislation that we consider must acknowledge that reality. And that's why I'm pleased that Ranking Member Castor's bill, the Department of Energy Nuclear Transparency Act, is among the bills we're discussing today. This is a critically important bill considering the administration's concerning actions on nuclear energy. Last year, President Trump issued an executive order directing DOE to authorize three test reactors and get them operational this year by the nation's 250th birthday. In response, DOE created the so-called reactor pilot program, which it began marketing as a fast pass, if you will, or a fast pass to any NRC license.
And let me be clear, DOE has no authority to issue a fast pass to an NRC license, but that's not stopping them from trying to. And then last week, DOE announced that the first reactor from the program had achieved a self-sustaining nuclear reaction. And that announcement was effectively the first public signal from the department on the progress of the program. A nuclear reactor licensed by the NRC would have had a license made available to the public for anyone to read, or should have. And while DOE has authorized safety analysis for these reactors, they're not available anywhere for public inspection.
So DOE also failed to publicly announce when Secretary Wright gave final approval to authorize this first test reactor. And while these actions do not mean that there's anything wrong with this individual reactor that achieved an important milestone last week, we simply have no idea about the rigor or quality of work that went into evaluating its safety. We would not find this acceptable with a commercial nuclear reactor, so why should we find it acceptable for a test reactor either? And Ranking Member Castor's bill would create critical transparency safeguards to ensure that safety analysis, final approvals, and the rules of the road for these reactors are made public. The NRC has been a model for transparency since Chairman Nee took the reins, but we must ensure that DOE follows in the NRC's footsteps, and that is a common-sense idea that I would hope we could all agree on.
Now, earlier this year, I said that it would be difficult for us to move forward on nuclear legislation while public confidence in our nation's nuclear fleet had been called into question. And advancing Ranking Member Castor's bill helps address many of my concerns. While some of the bills before us today are well-intentioned attempts to ensure that the NRC's licensing process works smoothly for all kinds of advanced nuclear technologies, I do have concerns with one draft bill in particular that I hope our Republicans will work with us on.
That's the Nuclear Advisory Committee Reform Act. It sharply limits the role of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, or ACRS, which provides a valuable independent technical perspective to the NRC and NRC licensees throughout the licensing process. So I'm open to ways to make the work of the ACRS more efficient and encourage them to focus on the highest priority reviews, but I'm uncomfortable, essentially I'm uncomfortable with the approach currently taken by that draft bill, which would prevent the ACRS from providing feedback on a license application unless explicitly requested by the NRC, even if the Advisory Committee itself felt that its review would be important. So I'm uncomfortable with that approach given the fact that the Trump administration has already targeted the ACRS, attempting to reduce its size and limit its functions. So I hope we can find a bipartisan path forward on the proposed suite of bills before us today.
Mr. Chairman, I mean obviously our major concern is safety, safety of nuclear reactors. And I just, I'm going to repeat again that if we don't have that confidence in the safety, then moving forward with many of these reactors is going to be a problem. So with that I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Robert Latta
Well thank you very much, the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. And before proceeding to our witnesses, I'd like to just a point of personal privilege, like to welcome members of Parliament from the United Kingdom who are here with the British-American Parliamentary Exchange this week. They're here for the next couple of days to discuss shared economic security, foreign policy priorities including nuclear energy, and just by coincidence that's what we're talking today, so we welcome you. Thanks very much for joining us today. This concludes member opening statements.
The chair reminds members that pursuant to committee rules, all members' opening statements will be made part of the record. Again, we want to thank our witnesses for appearing before the committee today to testify. Each witness will have the opportunity to give an opening statement followed by a round of questions from our members. Our witnesses today include Ms. Maria Korsnick, the President and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute, Mr. Jeremy Harrell, CEO of ClearPath Action, the Honorable Kathryn Huff, the Associate Professor and Director, Advanced Reactor Fuel Cycles Laboratory at the University of Illinois, and the Honorable Jeffrey Merrifield, Chair of the Board of Directors, United States Nuclear Industry Council. So thank you.
Again, we appreciate you all being here. Before we get started, just a couple of quick housekeeping, make sure that the mic's pulled up close to you. And you'll notice you have four minutes when it's green, it turns yellow with when you're down to about one minute, and red. So we appreciate you watching those lights. Ms. Korsnick, you are recognized for five minutes for an opening statement.
Again, thanks for being with us today.
Maria Korsnick
Great, thank you Chairman Guthrie, Ranking Member Pallone, Subcommittee Chairman Latta, and Ranking Member Matsui, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. The nuclear industry's appreciative of the committee's continued leadership. When I appeared before the subcommittee in January, I described a nuclear industry entering a period of renewed growth and national importance, and since then momentum has increased significantly. Congress and the administration have taken important steps to modernize regulation, strengthen domestic nuclear capabilities, and support deployment at home and abroad.
Utilities, developers, manufacturers, labor, and investors are responding with new partnerships, capital commitments, investments, and increased generation. These developments reflect growing recognition of nuclear's essential role in providing reliable, affordable electricity. Our existing fleet of 94 reactors provides nearly one-fifth of America's electricity and more than 40 percent of its clean generation.
They are the most energy-secure assets on the grid and economic anchors in communities across our country. Advanced reactor projects are moving from demonstration to construction, utilities are pursuing license renewals, power uprates, plant restarts, and new builds. Growing numbers of technology and industrial companies are looking to nuclear for that reliable, always-on power. The challenge before us now is no longer whether nuclear energy can play a larger role, it's how we move from promising first projects to repeatable deployment. To accomplish that, your continued leadership is needed in six areas.
First, regulatory modernization. The industry's commitment to safety is unwavering and non-negotiable. Modernization focuses regulatory attention on safety-significant issues while improving predictability and efficiency. The foundation laid by Congress through NEIMA and the ADVANCE Act, paired with the executive actions, is delivering measurable results. Continued focus is necessary to ensure those reforms are fully implemented and endure.
The Efficient Nuclear Licensing Hearings Act and the Nuclear Advisory Committee Reform Act can help further this. Second, addressing early mover risk. The principal barrier to large-scale deployment today is not technology, it's managing the cost and schedule risk associated with early projects. Targeted federal risk sharing can help unlock private investment and establish a pipeline for deployment at scale. We know that building at scale drives costs down when early lessons inform future projects.
The Department of Energy Nuclear Transparency Act would help ensure lessons learned from DOE projects are shared. Third, strengthening the domestic nuclear fuel cycle. Congress has made important investments in the nuclear fuel cycle, timely implementation is critical to reduce reliance on adversarial suppliers. The American Enrichment Deployment Act can help accelerate domestic enrichment capacity and strengthen US nuclear fuel security. Fourth, workforce and supply chain readiness.
Deploying nuclear energy at scale will require skilled workers, expanding manufacturing, qualified suppliers, and predictable project pipeline. Continued collaboration among all stakeholders will be key to ensuring projects can be delivered on time and at reasonable cost. Likewise, the NRC needs to ensure adequate staffing with the technical expertise and regulatory experience necessary to sustain modernization. The NRC Staff Pay Alignment Act can help further this objective. Fifth, establishing a durable used fuel management strategy.
Used fuel is being managed safely and securely today, your leadership is needed to establish a durable path forward. The REFUEL Act reflects an important effort to facilitate development of recycling technologies that can be part of an integrated solution. And sixth, strengthening US competitiveness and global leadership. Backed by state financing and government support, Russia continues to aggressively export nuclear technology while China is on track to surpass the US in nuclear generating capacity by 2030. To remain competitive, the US must successfully deploy new nuclear projects at home, demonstrating the viability of these to international customers.
We must act now to offer allies and partners a credible alternative to state-owned competitors and ensure the next generation of nuclear energy is deployed with the highest standards of safety, security, and non-proliferation. It's a national security imperative. The challenge now is how quickly and effectively we can build on the progress already underway.
Jeremy Harrell
And thank you for the opportunity to testify before the committee today. My name is Jeremy Herrell, and I'm the Chief Executive Officer of ClearPath Action. Seven years ago, the US was shutting down nuclear reactors. Today, we are restarting and building them. This committee deserves real credit for that.
Years of bipartisan congressional work, such as NEIMA and the ADVANCE Act, accompanied by action from the White House, the Department of Energy, the DOD, and the NRC, are putting policy into action and steel into the ground. Right now, Kairos is building reactors in Tennessee. Just last week, Antares was the first reactor to go critical under the Reactor Pilot Program at Idaho National Lab. Last month, our team was in Idaho in anticipation of the first test at the DOME facility at the Nuclear Reactor Innovation Center, a facility that finished a full year ahead of schedule. Earlier this year, TerraPower received its construction permit and broke ground on its reactor in Wyoming.
In under 12 months, X-energy completed its environmental review in Texas. Enrichment investments totaling billions of dollars are moving forward in Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, and New Mexico, and there are three major reactor restarts underway in Michigan, Iowa, and Pennsylvania, adding over two gigawatts of reliable clean power. These projects show that America's nuclear sector is not just talking about deployment, new nuclear is happening. Today, I will cover four themes. One, the importance of a predictable, efficient regulator.
Two, the growing portfolio of nuclear projects advancing towards deployment. Three, how legislation before this committee supports continued growth. And four, the role a strong domestic nuclear industry plays in enhancing US competitiveness on the global stage. For capital-intensive projects like nuclear, regulatory uncertainty is an investment risk. When developers and investors cannot rely on clear timelines and stable expectations, projects stall or never get off the ground.
The NRC must be ready to capitalize on this unique moment. That's why the legislation before this committee matters. These are practical, targeted proposals that complement everything you all have already accomplished. Each bill addresses a specific opportunity to further modernize the process without compromising safety. The Efficient Nuclear Licensing Hearings Act removes the requirement to hold an uncontested mandatory hearing.
These hearings unnecessarily require upwards of 1500 hours of NRC staff preparation, cost applicants up to millions of dollars, and delay approvals by an average of six months. The REFUEL Act clarifies the regulatory pathway for reprocessing technologies, which are more proliferation-resistant. This supports US fuel security and has the potential to reduce taxpayer liabilities on spent fuel. The DOE Nuclear Transparency Act seeks to provide transparency into the Department of Energy's authorization process for certain test reactors. The Nuclear Advisory Committee Reform Act refocuses the ACRS on novel, safety-significant issues directly related to reactor design, rather than mandating its review of every licensing proceeding.
This focuses these technical experts on what matters most. The American Enrichment Deployment Act allows new enrichment facilities to begin construction while simultaneously pursuing their NRC license, potentially saving 12 to 18 months. Nearly three billion dollars in task orders have already been issued to establish three domestic commercial-scale enrichment facilities, this bill helps them get built faster. The NRC Staff Pay Alignment Act ensures the Commission can compete for top talent as the market for nuclear expertise becomes increasingly competitive. These are the right next steps, and they work best when pursued in a bipartisan way.
Bipartisan policy is durable policy, and durable policy is what gives companies and investors what is needed to commit and drive forward our nation's nuclear future with confidence.
I'd like to make one final point. This is a strategic moment. The nations that build and export the next generation of nuclear technology will shape global energy markets and geopolitical influence for decades. China and Russia are working aggressively to dominate those markets. Every reactor we build, every license we issue, and every domestic fuel facility we bring online strengthens America's hand in that competition.
Thank you again for your leadership and for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to the discussion.
Speaker 9
Well, thank you very much for your opening statement, and Dr. Huff, you are recognized for five minutes for your opening statement.
Kathryn Huff
Thank you, Chairman Guthrie, Chairman Latta, Ranking Member Pallone, and Ranking Member Caster. I appear before you today in my personal capacity. I am delighted to be with the distinguished members of this committee, and my testimony does not represent the official policy opinion of the University of Illinois system. My perspective combines the technical research that I do in advanced nuclear reactors and their fuel cycles with some experience as the Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy in DOE. In that role, I worked very closely with Congress, industry, the national laboratories, and the public, as well as international partners, to advance reactor demonstrations, to move along the important work of this and other committees, and to implement efforts to accelerate the availability of high-assay low-enriched uranium, or HALEU.
The US is experiencing a promising moment for innovation in nuclear energy. Advanced reactors are being demonstrated, existing reactors are pursuing license renewals and uprates, and all of this growing electricity demand is increasing interest in reliable, carbon-free generation. Bipartisan investments in fuel production, manufacturing capacity, and workforce development are helping to establish the foundations for this future growth. And the legislation before this committee does recognize that nuclear energy must play an important role in our climate future, our energy security, and our economic prosperity. Together, I think these bills raise a common question about how the United States can ensure that our institutions can support nuclear energy deployment while preserving public confidence.
The long-term success of nuclear energy will depend on not only technological innovation but also that public confidence. Maintaining effective, transparent, trusted institutions is incredibly important. I believe the policies under discussion today are strongest when they do precisely that, when they strengthen regulatory effectiveness and transparency simultaneously. The Nuclear Refuel Act aims to provide regulatory clarity for nuclear fuel cycle technologies and facilities. There is merit in clarifying licensing pathways for innovative approaches that seek to recover additional value from spent nuclear fuel and improve the sustainability of this technology.
The American Enrichment Deployment Act would support development of additional domestic enrichment capacity, particularly for HALEU.
The NRC Staff Pay Alignment Act addresses a really growing workforce challenge that I see daily as a professor when my students go off for jobs, they have multiple opportunities, even interns. And this needs to be reflected in a flexibility within the NRC to provide appropriate compensation at the highest levels for that technical expertise. But workforce development cannot begin at hiring. It must also sustain the pipeline that requires kind of continued support for universities, fellowships, scholarships, community colleges, and workforce training programs that prepare the next generation of nuclear professionals so that I would I would recommend that in concert with this, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission reflect on their pause of such grants last year. The legislation concerning the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards seeks to modernize one of the nation's most important sources of independent reactor safety expertise.
These efforts intend to focus resources on the most safety-significant matters, but Congress should seek to preserve that committee's independence, particularly at a time when technical breadth over the last many decades in the commission of five commissioners itself has declined somewhat. Ultimately, draft legislation concerning Department of Energy transparency also is really important. I hold the Department of Energy in the highest regard, and we worked diligently during my time there to ensure that the public was brought fully on board with the actions that we were taking. I think that helped to set the groundwork for the enthusiasm around nuclear energy, and I would love to see more of that today. As Congress considers these legislative packages, I am encouraged to see attention on institutions making durable deployment possible.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to your questions.
Robert Latta
And thank you very much for your opening statement. And Mr. Merrifield, you are recognized for five minutes for your opening statement.
Jeffrey Merrifield
Chairman Latta, Ranking Member Capps, Chairman Guthrie, Ranking Member Pallone, and members of the subcommittee, it's an honor to testify before you today on the role nuclear power can play in securing the clean, reliable, and resilient energy that we need to power our nation's electric grid, decarbonize critical industrial capabilities, and power our nation's increasing data demands. I'm here today in my role as the chairman of the US Nuclear Industry Council, although I am also a partner emeritus in the nuclear energy practice group of Pillsbury Law Firm. I anticipate that my comments on behalf of USNIC represent the views of many of our members, but may not necessarily reflect the unanimous view of our association. Almost three years ago, I testified before this subcommittee on a variety of nuclear legislation pending at that time. In that testimony, I stated that while I was a big supporter of the NRC, I was a commissioner there for nine years after all, and its mission, I believe the agency had lost its way and was not meeting the mission as outlined in the Atomic Energy Act.
In my view at that time, the agency had become overly conservative and did not consistently apply common sense principles in regulating the technologies it was overseeing. Further, I felt that the agency and its senior managers, as well as the commission that led it, were not sufficiently risk-informed, effective, timely, and did not possess the technical competence needed to serve its vital mission. Mr. Chairman, rather than provide a fulsome repeat of those remarks, I ask that they be included in the record of today's proceeding. With that said, my views about the NRC are quite different today.
While I believe that there is additional work to be done for the NRC to again deserve its recognition as the "gold standard of nuclear regulators," it has come a long way from where it stood three years ago. This committee and Congress deserve credit and thanks for engendering this change. The passage of the Advance Act of 2024, which required the agency to change its mission to enable the safe deployment of advanced nuclear technologies, has resulted in a positive sea change in the way the agency behaves and regulates. As a partner in the world's oldest and largest nuclear law practice, I can attest firsthand that the management and staff of the agency have demonstrated a new determination to be more efficient, risk-informed, and results-oriented in the pursuit of its traditional safety mission. The executive orders that President Trump issued about a year ago have also resulted in some beneficial outcomes, particularly Executive Order 14300 that tasked the agency with reviewing and reinventing its regulatory framework.
Had this committee asked me to testify a year ago, I would have expressed reservations about the scope and pace of the reforms that were envisioned by the orders. While not all of the NRC's proposed and final rules in response to the EOs have been published, I can say with confidence the members of USNIC have been impressed by the degree to which these regulatory changes should enable the prompt and safe deployment of promising advanced nuclear technologies without sacrificing safety principles. Three years ago, I was very critical of the agency's efforts to create a new regulatory framework for advanced reactors under Part 53 as prescribed under the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act. This effort, which had dragged on for seven years, had resulted in a proposed rule that would have been neither used nor useful to the advanced nuclear community. In stark contrast, the final Part 53 rule that the commission issued and which became effective on April of this year addressed virtually all of the concerns raised by the members of USNIC and the nuclear industry, and I believe it can be a useful framework for future advanced reactor technologies.
In my prior testimony, I was also critical of the technical prowess and efficiency of the commission. My view today is quite different. I believe the current five members of the commission are working in a more cohesive, collegial, and technically informed manner than has been the case for almost 20 years, and I believe their spirit of collaboration to achieve a prompt revision of the agency's regulations is vastly different than was even a few short years ago. I also want to recognize both former Chairman David Wright and current Chairman Honie for their effective leadership through a time of immense change and adaptation at the agency. I firmly believe the commission works best when the chairman and the commissioners park their party affiliation at the door and render their safety decisions in an efficient and risk-informed manner, and I do believe that's happening today at the NRC.
I do have one note of caution. There are some in Washington who would urge that the NRC should evolve toward being a more chairman-focused agency, similar to the way in which the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission operates. I believe this would be an ill-advised mistake. Over the decades since its founding in 1975, the NRC has been a pillar of stability during a time when other federal agencies have swung quite widely from left to right and vice versa. For the nuclear industry to thrive and grow, it needs a commission structure that is collegial, efficient, risk-informed, and predictable, standards that absent further tinkering it is well-positioned to achieve.
In preparation for my testimony, I have reviewed all six pieces of legislation that are being considered today and support their general intent. In my printed remarks, I made a few suggestions for consideration by the subcommittee and look forward to working with you on this effort. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Robert Latta
I'm sorry, if you could just wrap up real quick. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thanks so much. And thank you to all of our witnesses, and so we will now move into the question and answer portion of our hearing.
I will begin the questioning and recognize myself for five minutes. Ms. Korsnick, last Congress we enacted legislation that aimed to decouple US reliance on Russian enriched uranium for our commercial fuel industry and to increase domestic fuel production capacity. Is the market responding to congressional action to bolster the domestic fuel industry?
Maria Korsnick
Thank you. Yes, I would say we are seeing progress. You used the word market, and I would say there hasn't been much added to the market just yet, but we are seeing construction. I would note that not only are we seeing government investment, but we're seeing also private sector investment, so it's good signs.
Robert Latta
Well, thank you. Would more streamlined licensing assist the build-out of our domestic nuclear fuel industry?
Maria Korsnick
Absolutely. In fact, one of the bills that's under consideration talks about having the ability to have some at-risk construction for enrichment facilities. That's an example of something that I think would be helpful as we're trying quickly to bring things on. As you know, we are off of Russian supply by January 1st, 2028.
Robert Latta
Well, one last question for you. You know, several of us on the committee have been looking at the recycling question of the spent nuclear rods. So for the back end of the fuel cycle, how would the Nuclear REFUEL Act benefit that expanded diverse nuclear fuel supply into the future?
Maria Korsnick
So the REFUEL Act, I think, does a very important thing, and it looks at reprocessing facilities and doesn't call them production facilities, but instead has them licensed under Part 70, a different part than what currently would be used to license. That new part is more appropriate and a more appropriate framework for recycling facilities because it's targeted at fuel facilities, which is the right framework for recycling because recycling produces fuel for other reactors. And so I think it's a nice step forward to help appropriately license recycling.
Robert Latta
Well, thank you. Mr. Merrifield, when you testified before the committee three years ago, you recommended focusing the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards on new, novel, and safety-significant licensing matters. Does the ACRS review matters today that are the best use of time and resources?
Jeffrey Merrifield
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Yeah, my testimony three years ago was a result of a study I had done with the Nuclear Innovation Alliance, really looking into the details of ACRS and how it operates. We do believe, we believed and continue to believe, that focusing the ACRS on those more novel issues, newer reactors, not re-looking at a lot of things, would be more efficient way of proceeding and would certainly enable a more prompt resolution of licensing for advanced reactors.
Robert Latta
Well, thank you. Mr. Harrell, how would you describe the NRC's public engagement process today, and does it make the mandatory hearing an unnecessary burden?
Jeremy Harrell
Thank you, Congressman, and thanks for your leadership on these issues. There are an immense amount of opportunities for public engagement, and let me underscore that that is critical to us getting from the President's goal of deploying 400 gigawatts of nuclear by 2050. The public has to be bought in. But public meetings happen during the pre-application period, notifications happen when the application is received, there are public meetings during the review, including the environmental review, there's notices of hearing opportunities, and documentation is posted on the NRC's website to really try to foster and engage more public input in the entire process. In the end, getting rid of the uncontested mandatory hearing does not eliminate any opportunity public engagement.
In the end, there's a lot of that throughout the beginning of the process, and so in our mind, this is a common sense reform that comes into place. And if there's a contested licensing proceeding, then absolutely we should have that back-end process, but this gets rid of an unnecessary step in the process.
Robert Latta
Well, just following along with that, you know, by removing the mandatory hearing, how much time, you know, this is kind of a conjecture, how much time, money, and overall resources can the NRC and the licensees save and apply to other licensing activity?
Jeremy Harrell
Yeah, at least one advanced reactor developer, the experience was over half a million dollars in fees just for this singular hearing and a delay that was at least six months. On average, we're seeing somewhere between that four to seven months and upwards of a million dollars. Not to mention a lot of significant staff time to prep for that, where we need to be allocating staff to be focused on more novel and complicated environmental issues or regulatory-related issues.
Robert Latta
Well, thank you very much. I know the clock got started a little bit late when I started, so I'm going to yield back the balance of my time and recognize the ranking member, the gentlelady from Florida, for her five minutes for questions.
Kathy Castor
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks again to our witnesses for being here today. Dr. Huff, when you served at the Office of Nuclear Energy, you were responsible for the Department of Energy's promotion of nuclear energy. Your testimony today says that a lot of that deployment has to be, when we're looking ahead, we're looking at technological innovation and public confidence. So what did you do in your role to ensure that projects your office supported centered on that confidence and transparency and safety?
Kathryn Huff
Thank you, ranking member. I really enjoyed this part of the job. It involved a lot of public engagement via videos and social media posts about all of our accomplishments, decisions that were being made, new programs that were being considered, testimony like this with Congress. And in fact, one of the very first instances of testimony that I gave before Congress, I committed to ensuring that all competed grants within my office, or all grants, discretionary grants within my office, would be competed openly rather than through sole-source grants. And we stood by that, and I think that is critical also because I believe that taxpayers and Congress and industry and the public all sort of need to have confidence that those projects are moving along, that they're getting updates, and that they'll be competed.
Kathy Castor
So under the current administration, they've really taken a step back from that transparency. What concerns you the most?
Kathryn Huff
Yeah, I think the thing that concerns me the most is that external public commenters are asked to comment on orders that are not fully brought together. We have a situation where, you know, DOE NE orders were released in draft form to the industry but not to the public. And this caused real media concern that led to folks being asked outside of DOE, what's going on inside DOE? And the answers have to become speculative at that point, which causes confusion, misinformation, and that misinformation is the enemy of nuclear energy.
I'm sorry.
Kathy Castor
How about the professional staff reductions and firings at the at the NRC?
Kathryn Huff
Even at the staffing levels that we saw when I was in the Office of Nuclear Energy, there was a great need for more program direction funding to boost up the staff that we had to continue doing the incredible amount of growing effort that we were committing.
Kathy Castor
So, Ms. Korsnick, last year the president issued an executive order to reduce the expert personnel and functions of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards to the minimum necessary. Now, that committee is one of the most important sources of independent expertise in reactor safety, safety reviews. They've been part of the safety review of virtually every generation of commercial reactor technology.
The Nuclear Advisory Committee Reform Act that we're considering today would constrain that ACRS. It would forbid the committee from taking any action, including review of a license application, without the NRC's explicit request. It just seems like at a time where we're pressing forward on technology and innovation, we need public confidence in the NRC, which has already been shaken. So do you think it's helpful to have less technological review by outside experts on this committee as we move forward?
Maria Korsnick
Thank you for your question. I think the goal of the legislation is around efficiency. I agree with you that it's important that we have confidence in the NRC. I do feel that bringing efficiency to the ACRS process is helpful and can be done with safety in mind. And so I believe the terms that they can look at new and novel issues at the direction by the commission, I do think that that can be done well with a high bar for safety.
Kathy Castor
I think that it's kind of a call across the industry for their input on this because we do want to move quickly on technological innovation, but if you undermine public confidence and you don't have the independent expertise in oversight, I think that will be problematic in future years. Dr. Huff, one of the reactors supported by DOE's Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program is built by a company called TerraPower. They just started construction in April. It's being built on the site of a retired coal plant in Wyoming. Why are old coal plants the ideal location for advanced nuclear projects?
Kathryn Huff
Thank you, Congresswoman. I think it starts with the workers. A lot of the same skills used in the secondary side of a thermal coal plant are also used in the secondary side of a nuclear power plant. Boilermakers, you know, turbine generator maintenance operators, welders, electricians, etc. Those workers and the communities around them deserve to have an opportunity to take part in this new technology, to be paid as well as many of those workers are paid in nuclear, which is extremely well compared to coal in many cases.
Ultimately, too, former coal sites also have something...
Robert Latta
And I'm sorry to interrupt, the gentlelady's time has expired and yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, the vice chairman of the subcommittee, for five minutes for questions.
Randy Weber
Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Herrell, I'm going to come to you first. Thank you for your testimony. To my knowledge, an overwhelming majority of our country's nuclear plants were built prior to 1990. Just for the record, I was also born prior to 1990, okay?
For some time, these plants were threatened with licensing renewal uncertainty to continue operating. We're all painfully aware. Your testimony highlights some recent regulatory clarity providing long-term policy commitments regarding plant licensing. However, with the growing energy demand of the future, how would the Nuclear Advisory Committee Reform Act allow the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC, to enhance plant licensing practices, therefore meeting our growing energy demands? Your thoughts?
Jeremy Harrell
Yeah. Thank you, Congressman, and thank you for your leadership both at this committee and at the Science Committee that really has been an important piece of catalyzing this nuclear innovation and the bipartisan policy that's got across the finish line.
I mean the crux of this issue is we need a nimble, predictable, and efficient regulator that enables innovation and deployment without sacrificing safety. And I think that bill navigates this bill navigates that careful line. We need to eliminate some of the duplicative steps in this process and ensure that independent experts who are in place ultimately are dealing with the novel and unique issues that are coming before the commission, not that it's a requirement on every step. And so I think making it discretionary at the request of the commission, narrowing these experts' focus on some of these novel areas, and ensuring that there's turnover over it and ensuring there's new talent. I mean, there's an immense amount of innovation that's happened over the last decade.
Two terms on these I think is an appropriate realm and let's ensure that we're getting new talent in who who know the new status of technology, are more comfortable with what's moving forward because this this industry's evolving rapidly.
Randy Weber
Well, I appreciate that. And Dr. Huff, I'm going to give you kudos for being at the American Nuclear Society meetings that we have over Capitol Hill Club for my colleagues that don't know. We hold those Michelle Harstein does a good job of holding those about once a month when we have the time. Ms. Korsnick, I'm going to come to you. You state that the primary challenge facing large-scale deployment is not technology development, rather issues such as cost, schedule risk, supply chains, and workforce challenges.
Would today's legislation provide some regulatory predictability, if there is such a thing, that at least mitigates permitting schedule risk?
Maria Korsnick
Thank you. Absolutely. I think the bills that we have in front of us are a good step forward to help bring that regulatory predictability. And again, I I want to share a strong industry needs a strong regulator. So we're very supportive of of having a strong and very capable regulator.
And I think the bills before us do a good job at managing that and yet bringing efficiency into the equation.
Randy Weber
So suffice to say we would like to see a day when the goal of reforms is to make sure licensing of worthy projects is not the main hold up. Would you agree?
It's a beautiful vision.
Randy Weber
Okay, all right. I love it when a plan comes together. And Mr. Merrifield, how about you, would you agree with that?
Jeffrey Merrifield
I do. And I want to go back to the ACRS for a moment. That institution was created at a time when there were, you know, the very earliest days of the industry and there was a need for a review of each and every design. That is not the case today. I think ACRS is an important institution.
I think it should remain. I think it should be available for the commission to have that second opinion. But frankly, if you look at every other industry in the in the country, oil and gas, other forms of generation, all of them have digitalized controls. The reactors that the NRC regulates are only getting around to doing some of that and ACRS and some of the members who were involved in that review are part of the reason why that's the case. I think I think sometimes ACRS can actually hinder the ability of technologies to move forward and I think the commission needs more ability to have a hand over reviewing it.
Randy Weber
I absolutely agree. We need an efficient, nimble, diligent regulator to move forward and enable this innovation and deployment.
Okay. Mr. Merrifield, I'm coming back to you. Your testimony highlights the needs to address the technical expertise. Do you believe the NRC Staff Pay Alignment Act will meaningfully improve the NRC's ability to retain top technical talent kind of like Dr. Huff here?
Randy Weber
Boy, that's easy. Yeah. So so let's see what can I do with 16 seconds left, Mr. Chairman?
Robert Latta
Have you heard the joke about well I won't go there. So listen, it's great to be with all of you all back.
Frank Pallone
The gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, the ranking member of the full committee, for five minutes for questions.
Thank you, Chairman Latta. Since President Trump took office, Democrats have been sounding the alarm on his proposals to dismantle our nuclear safety regulator. Over 50 years ago, Congress decided that the people in charge of promoting the nuclear industry and the folks in charge of making sure that that industry was safe should be two different groups of people. And I never thought we'd have to fight to keep it that way, but here we are. So, Dr. Huff, at the end of your testimony, you mentioned how deliberately separating out the parts of government responsible for promoting nuclear energy from the parts responsible for regulating it has increased public confidence in nuclear energy.
But can you talk more about that and how moves to undo that separation could endanger the public perception of nuclear energy?
Kathryn Huff
Thank you very much, ranking member. In 1974 and 1975, when Congress separated the Department of Energy from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to create it, they did so so that the Department of Energy could oversee research, development, and innovation and promotion of nuclear energy. The NRC became responsible for separately regulating and overseeing the nuclear industry. And it matters because history shows what safety oversight can be lost when an entity regulating a technical environment like this can lose independence. At Chernobyl, Soviet leadership had captured its regulator and prioritized national pride over security.
A known flaw in reactor control rods went unchecked, safety protocols went unheeded, and the worst nuclear power accident in history resulted. At Fukushima, regulation was entrusted to the same government bureaucracy responsible for its promotion. Operators failed to deploy countermeasures demanded by known seismic risks recently brought to that body and failed to plan appropriately for evacuation. They also failed to avoid the second worst nuclear power accident in history. These I do not raise to frighten anyone about nuclear power.
The intent is to concern this body with the importance of the independence of these two concerns. The public sees these items and recognizes this role, and it's important that we respect that independence.
Frank Pallone
I appreciate that. Thank you. I'm also concerned, another question for you, I'm also concerned about efforts to alter the authorities of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, or ACRS, which as you know is an independent technical body that advises the NRC. And one proposal in the Nuclear Advisory Committee Reform Act would prevent the ACRS from weighing in even if it felt its expertise was necessary. So my question, Dr. Huff, at the time when political considerations are clearly playing more of a role at the NRC, can you discuss the importance of having an independent body comprised of technical experts to evaluate emerging issues and new technologies, and how should we ensure that the ACRS can maintain its independence?
Kathryn Huff
Thank you, ranking member. There was a fantastic study in 2020 about the history of the backgrounds of the commissioners in the NRC. And I said earlier that that background has gone less technical over time. It's tended to prefer people with a policy background or a legal background over the last many decades, whereas the average before 2020 was around 74% technical background. Now that we're moving into this space where the current commission, which is actually quite robust in terms of technical background right now, is about 60% people with a technical background, the ACRS serves to provide a technical opinion to that commission body.
And the commission, if not imbued with technical backgrounds, may not know when it is critical to ask for that technical opinion. And so I do think that there's an important merited argument to ask in terms of whether or not the ACRS should, in circumstances when they deem it necessary, be able to investigate those things and make recommendations on their own. I recognize that these hearings can get extremely long and difficult, and I am very supportive of ways in which we could maybe limit the amount of staff time dedicated to them.
Frank Pallone
All right. We only have 45 seconds, but I did want to touch on Ranking Member Castor's bill because I believe transparency is critical to maintaining public support for nuclear energy. So in 30 seconds, is transparency from regulators critical to uphold public confidence in nuclear energy?
Kathryn Huff
Absolutely. Sunshine is the best disinfectant, and opening up the process gives the public a great deal of confidence in the Department of Energy.
Maria Korsnick
Absolutely. I would say there was one provision in that bill that they wanted the transparency within 24 hours, I believe was in the bill. I think that's a little restrictive, but the intent of the bill, I think, is well-placed.
All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yield back.
Brett Guthrie
Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, the chair of the full committee, for five minutes for questions.
Thank you, and thanks for our witnesses for being here. And starting with Ms. Korsnick, according to today's testimony and recent hearings, the NRC is working toward efficient, predictable, and timely permitting, and it is truly shifting its culture to better enable the safe expansion of nuclear power. So two questions. Can you elaborate on why streamlined licensing and risk-informed reviews are key to ensuring safety, and can all of this be achieved while increasing the pace of licensing?
Maria Korsnick
Well, thank you. Well, I think the NRC actually has demonstrated that it can all be done and increase the pace because they've actually done that. We're seeing subsequent license renewals now in much reduced time, many months more efficient than...
Speaker 17
But in the same time of being efficient, ensuring the safety together, I want to tie that.
Maria Korsnick
Absolutely. No, the bar for safety hasn't changed, and obviously it's being resulted in much reduced timelines. I want to say it was almost just one year for a second subsequent license renewal approval recently, and in the past it has been, you know, double that. And so the reality is, the most important thing, especially for risk-informing, is that risk-informing is telling you the thing you're working on, how important is it to safety? And so the risk-informing actually is a way to focus your time and attention on the most important issues.
And so in general, we are trying to move towards a risk-informed regulatory approach, and it's showing that we're paying attention to the right safety things.
Brett Guthrie
Great. Thank you. So Mr. Merrifield, you were an NRC commissioner for almost a decade, I understand. And then overall, would the bills today, overall, would the bills today ensure sufficient focus on safety and public participation in the process, especially for new technologies? So what would ensure safety and how would they ensure safety?
Jeffrey Merrifield
Yeah, I believe they would. I mean, the two that have gotten the greatest discussion today are obviously the ACRS piece. Again, the ACRS is accountable to the commission, the commission is accountable to Congress. And I think the commission itself needs to have greater ability to manage that, but it can be done in a way that does not erode public confidence. On the issue of, you know, the other legislation, I think having a mandatory hearing process is something that frankly I've been calling for the elimination of really since I was a commissioner.
There are layers and layers of additional opportunities for public input that were not available when that was put into legislation back in the 1950s. It really resulted from an attempt to try to put a reactor into Queens, New York, without any public comment at all. That is not the case now. The NRC is a very transparent agency.
It is meeting its safety mission. It's doing it more effectively thanks to the ADVANCE Act, and I think those can go hand in hand.
Brett Guthrie
Okay, thank you. So to Mr. Harrell, would you talk about how the reforms today, so we talked about we're ensuring safety. So that's understood because we just had the my first two questions were that. So would you talk about how the reforms today and those enacted last Congress enable innovation and deployment?
Jeremy Harrell
Yep. This is a test for our country. Ultimately, we've had 10 years of policy momentum driven by this committee in a bipartisan way by multiple administrations to modernize the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and prepare us to compete globally. The ADVANCE Act and NEIMA were the signature items that this committee drove forward, and we're starting to see these things come to fruition now. These bills before the committee today, and I'll use this analogy on Congressional Baseball Game week, are singles and doubles to keep that momentum going.
There's some targeted areas where it absolutely makes sense to make some reforms that will improve the process. And that positions our country ultimately to lead here because we are in a global race. Energy security is national security, and so us leading not only by building here, by investing in our fuel supply chain, and ultimately offering US products globally is essential to our long-term national security and energy security priorities.
Speaker 20
Okay. And so would you, so you sort of answered my next question, but just in just more in the context of national security, why are these important? I know we need to be the leader competing against China. You elaborate a little further on that?
Jeremy Harrell
Yeah, absolutely. I think particularly on the fuel side, these are some natural next steps that we have to do. I mean, Congress has made a very conscious decision ultimately to reduce reliance on Russian fuel products. We have put billions of dollars of taxpayer resources behind new enrichment projects. Why wouldn't we do some reasonable steps to ensure that we get project delivery on that timeframe?
I mean, that 2028 timeframe is coming here fairly quickly. And in the end, nothing in these bills prohibit us from or shortcut the process in which a facility ultimately has to get a license to then begin the fuel process. But let's absolutely get things started on an early basis because we're racing against the clock. China certainly isn't worried about unnecessary barriers, and so we need to modernize our process.
Randy Weber
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman yields back. Now the chair recognizes Mr. Peters of California for five minutes.
Scott Peters
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Clean baseload nuclear energy is and will continue to be a critical part of our energy generation mix, especially as demand continues to rise. Plans for more nuclear power plants across the country, which everyone is planning for, is a good idea and has virtually unanimous support here in Congress. The bills we're considering today would go a long way to making those plans reality. The one thing that's missing is a solution to the question of nuclear waste, specifically the long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel.
And the first thing that my constituents think of when they hear nuclear energy is SONGS, or the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. This decommissioned nuclear power plant is just outside my district in San Diego, right on the Pacific coastline. And right now, we're on schedule to fully decommission the plant by 2028. However, after the plant is demolished, the spent nuclear fuel will remain on site in dry storage, and a lot of people in San Diego and in Southern California remain nervous about it. The spent nuclear fuel at SONGS is within 100 feet of the Pacific Ocean.
It sits near dense population centers, an active military base, and multiple fault lines. The GAO has rated the flood hazard at this site as high and the wildfire potential as very high.
And my constituents know we need a long-term fix for spent nuclear fuel storage and decades of inaction have led us to where we are today. My Nuclear Refuel Act with Chairman Latta, which is being considered today, is a crucial part of that solution. Making it easier to recycle and reuse spent fuel keeps them in reactors and away from communities and it also helps us build a reliable supply chain of fuel, which is good for national security. I was encouraged to see the Department of Energy's recent request for information gauging interest nationwide on what states would be willing to accept spent fuel for nuclear lifecycle innovation campuses. I will closely monitor the follow-through, but Congress has to do its part to ensure recycling and permitting reform is part of the solution.
But that's not all, we've got to keep talking about how to safely store the waste away from populated areas and certainly away from the ocean. Ms. Korsnick, I appreciated the comments in your testimony about waste, specifically about how we should have a national strategy for fuel storage, transportation, and recycling. Can you talk about how nuclear fuel recycling specifically can be part of that solution?
Maria Korsnick
Yes, thank you. As some of the innovation that you've heard talked about in this testimony, there will be new types of reactors. The reactors we have today are light water or thermal reactors and there's ones that are being constructed now that are fast reactors. And in the recycling that you're talking about, it's an opportunity to use some of that recycled fuel and actually directly feed some of these fast reactors. It's a bit of a win-win, you're able to then fuel those reactors without using the today's uranium supply and it's actually using some of the used fuel.
And so it's a nice way to close the fuel cycle, so to speak. You can also use recycled processes to feed thermal reactors that we have today, but it's a little bit of a maybe more direct process to feed fast reactors. So as we're having all this innovation and we're making changes and we're bringing fast reactors into, you know, the reality, I think it's an opportunity for us to evaluate closing the fuel cycle through recycling.
Scott Peters
Great, I appreciate your organization paying attention to that as we go forward. And Dr. Huff, what do you think Congress should do to ensure that we make progress, particularly across presidential administrations and congressional majorities, on the long-term storage of nuclear waste?
Kathryn Huff
Thank you, Congressman. I believe that continued attention on the communities that might host such facilities is pivotal. The consent-based siting program, now called the collaborative-based siting program in this administration, is critical to that. It includes providing resources and engagement to the physical locations and the people around them so that they can be prepared to assess whether and if and when they want to host such facilities.
Scott Peters
Yeah, we've embarked on what some people call a consent-based process. I'm going to support that because that's what everyone's agreed on. I'm skeptical that a consent-based process is going to find consent in the same place where geological conditions are right, but I hope that it works. And if it doesn't work, I think we're going to have to make the hard choices here we've tried to avoid in Congress. Because this kind of material just can't sit next to the ocean, next to military bases, next to population centers.
And I know that my area is not the only place facing this kind of challenge. So thank you all for being here. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Alabama for five minutes.
Gary Palmer
Thanks, Chairman. Mr. Harold, getting the NRC to a place where they can effectively and safely move nuclear technology innovation into the commercial sector is imperative. Nuclear generation is both an obtainable and reliable option for meeting the power demands that we're going to have for building the critical infrastructure for processing and refining critical minerals and rare earth elements and so that we compete in the arms race for artificial intelligence and quantum computing.
In your testimony, you mentioned Antares achieving reactor criticality and the first private company to do that. How does this impact, how do you think it impacts the timeline for deploying SMRs?
Jeremy Harrell
I think it's a, thank you Congressman for your leadership and for the question. I think it's a one single piece of a broader pathway of how we demonstrate new technologies moving forward, how we show that in this country that we can build nuclear again, that we can build it efficiently, and then the data that we get from many of these tests are instrumental in our licensing processes, in how we deal with construction of facilities, how we orient. So that kind of learning by doing is essential in kind of building our muscle memory, which we're going to have to get much more efficient on to meet some of the goals and ultimately meet the rising demand that you've flagged as a national economic imperative.
Gary Palmer
Ms. Korsnick, in reading your testimony last night, you hit on some key points in the challenge of large-scale deployment because most of these companies don't want to be the first, and particularly problematic in terms of private investment. If we're going to invest in SMRs, we're going to need to build more than one at a time. We need a commitment to this, and I really, what I've really been pushing in committee is locating SMRs on abandoned coal-fired power plant sites, take advantage of the existing transmission lines and site these critical infrastructure that I mentioned earlier. What do you, how do you think that could help us in terms of eliminating that first-of-a-kind cost that you've mentioned in your testimony?
Maria Korsnick
Yeah, thank you for the question. Broadly, I think siting nuclear plants on existing coal facilities is a great idea. Dr. Huff mentioned earlier, and I know we had an analysis done on supply chain, of the people, how much could supply a nuclear plant versus the workers that were at a coal plant, and it was 75% of the workers at a coal plant would be easily, I would say, moved to a nuclear plant. Having worked in a nuclear plant before, I would tell you it's probably higher than that because, as Dr. Huff mentioned, there's a lot of similarity. And so, first of all, I think placing it there, you have a ready workforce, and quite frankly, we've seen the effects of shutting down some of these plants in local communities.
It's quite devastating. And so you have the workforce that's ready, and you have a community that will thrive as a result of the nuclear plant being there. In addition to your point, you have access to transmission because that same plant was also in need of transmission. And so it's a ready-made success story, I would say.
Gary Palmer
And it's expandable because you don't have to locate a number of SMRs there to meet the design capacity of the transmission line. You can add that later as you increase the power demand. One of the other things that I'm really focused on is recycling spent fuel. France is doing that. I think their government subsidizes it.
You mentioned some of the technical difficulties in that, but one of the things that I want to focus on is the fact that since 1980, we've collected about $44 billion from energy customers. We're spending about $1.5 million a day for storage. Doesn't it make, wouldn't it make more sense to invest those funds in recycling, developing that technology and building advanced reactors? I rarely compliment France, but.
Maria Korsnick
I think the challenge that we have, honestly, to kind of put a big picture around this, recycling makes a lot of sense. Technically, I think we have to understand its cost profile, and that's the work that we need to do right now, is to invest, to learn, to figure out if it's cost-effective to do. And at the same token, we have to currently share and store the waste that we have safely, which it is being done safely today. And so to your point, I think investment in recycling makes a lot of sense, and in the meantime, we have to make sure that the fuel we have is well taken care of.
Mr. Chairman, my time has expired, but I really wish this was one of those times when we had more time to discuss this with this distinguished panel. I yield back.
Speaker 24
The gentleman yields back. Why don't you get her cell phone? I'm just messing with you. The gentleman now recognizes the chair from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez, I mean, yeah, for five minutes.
Robert Menendez
Thank you, Chairman. Today's hearing is especially important as we see an increased utilization of nuclear power to meet growing energy demands. New Jersey is considering nuclear as a piece of the puzzle when it comes to reducing our constituents' energy bills and recently passed a new law that lifts long-standing barriers to increasing nuclear power in the state. And no matter where you stand on nuclear, we must be committed that safety remains the core pillar of this discussion. So just yes or no for all of the witnesses, is an adequately staffed Nuclear Regulatory Commission essential to ensuring safety when it comes to nuclear?
Just yes or no.
Speaker 27
And Dr. Huff, can you briefly touch on the role NRC staff play when it comes to ensuring safety of nuclear reactors?
Kathryn Huff
Yeah, absolutely. The NRC staff review the applications, engage the companies even before they submit their applications. The NRC staff are often tasked with being prepared to receive those applications and then engaging pre-application materials. All of that results in a lot of analysis and reports by those staff that go up to the commission for decision.
Speaker 23
I appreciate it, and the staff you were just discussing in terms of the roles that they play, they're largely professional staff, so they're public servants with subject matter expertise, they're not beholden to any political party or industry interest when it comes to carrying out their job duties. Is that accurate?
Speaker 26
However, since President Trump took office, over 400 professional staffers at NRC have left the agency. Teams that handle safety have experienced the most significant staff reductions. So I want to go over how we got here. Shortly after President Trump took office, Trump and Elon Musk stood up the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, to gut our federal agencies. At NRC, expert staff left the agency by choice or were forced out, and the agency has been struggling to rehire staff ever since.
A ProPublica article details DOGE's involvement at NRC and cites several instances where career staff at NRC were concerned about changes being made at the regulator. Here are a couple of examples. Steve Cohen, who was leading the DOGE charge at NRC, said the goal was to make the agency into a "rubber stamp" for the Trump administration and dismissed safety concerns raised by NRC staff. Several new officials at the agency have little to no experience of nuclear energy policy or law. NRC career lawyers working on key cases have left.
Trump signed a series of executive orders that directed NRC to reduce staff, speed up approvals, and rewrite safety rules. And in April, a Democratic commissioner testified before this committee that they were concerned about being fired for not approving a nuclear reactor that the Trump administration wants. And we've already seen President Trump do this when he fired Commissioner Hanson years before his term ended. So again, just yes or no, do these actions help the NRC recruit and retain the professional staff needed to enable the agency to achieve its mission and ensure safety remains a top priority? Just yes or no.
Jeremy Harrell
I would add that you all have leaned in on policy to give more authority and attract the right talent into the agency, and absolutely we need to be adding new talent.
Jeremy Harrell
We need competent staff moving forward to ultimately process these applications, absolutely.
Speaker 23
I think they complicated the commission's role. I think some of that number of people who left were because of the extraordinary opportunities in private industry, hence the reason for... Sure, 400's a lot, 400's a lot, right? And so I think, yes, people are going to leave agencies at any given time. 400 is a mass exodus.
I think these things are not helpful when you're trying to have the professional staff that's needed. So I'm going to move on because I want to talk about independence. Dr. Huff, when you hear the statement that I mentioned earlier, that they want to make the NRC a rubber stamp for the Trump administration, what does that mean to you?
Kathryn Huff
Yeah, that means to me that the technical analysis does not matter or that it is more about the sort of decision about which businesses succeed and which do not. This is unacceptable and I actually would applaud the commission for, especially some of their testimony, pushing back on that attitude.
Speaker 23
That's exactly right. And when you hear that Democratic commissioners at NRC are worried about getting fired for not approving a reactor that President Trump wants, does that sound like independence to you?
No, it does not.
Speaker 26
Yeah, and so like this is what's so terribly concerning. And with my last 30 seconds, I would like to go back to Dr. Huff, but I'm going to have to keep going. This is what's problematic because we want to have a conversation about nuclear energy and the role that's going to play to meet our increasing energy demands, but we can't have a siloed conversation without acknowledging what the Trump administration is doing and frankly undermining public confidence in the NRC, which is what's so problematic. We need to have both sides of the conversation so the American people know that we're taking these issues seriously and we want to ultimately deliver on our promise of safety. And with that, I yield back my one second.
Randy Weber
The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia for five minutes.
Rick Allen
Thank you, Chairman, and thank Chairman Latta for holding this important hearing to discuss nuclear energy legislation. Obviously, we've established that nuclear energy is critical for our energy security here in the United States, as it is affordable, reliable, and clean with lots of base... 100% base load capacity. My district is home to Plant Vogtle, where units 3 and 4 were the first nuclear reactors built in the United States in over three decades. And with unit 3 and 4 added, Plant Vogtle is the largest nuclear power station in the country. And I'm proud of everything the owners and co-owners went through and persevered through this project to finally show that Americans can do big things anymore.
And we're going to talk more about this, dive more into this permitting, and I'm going to ask Ms. Korsnick and Mr. Merrifield and Mr. Harold about my bill, the Nuclear Licensing Efficiency Act, which was part of the ADVANCE Act that was signed into law last Congress. Provisions in this bill amended the Atomic Energy Act to require NRC to provide efficient, timely, and predictable reviews for licensing and to periodically review and revise licensing metrics and schedules to provide the most efficient performance possible. My question is, can you share from your perspective how you are implementing these permitting reforms and how they are working in the practice at the agency?
Speaker 30
And Ms. Korsnick, could you comment on that, and then Mr. Harold, and then Mr. Merrifield?
Maria Korsnick
Absolutely, yeah, thank you. I think as I mentioned earlier, we've seen direct result from the words that you just mentioned to a more efficient regulator. And it's a combination of new things coming in, so think of construction permits or licensing permits. You know, Kairos Power showed improvement. I think X-energy showed improvement.
I think X-energy's was nine months ahead of schedule, still with the same high bar of safety. So we're not talking about cutting corners, we're simply talking about going through things and doing them in a more efficient manner. We've seen it on subsequent license renewals for the current fleet. We've seen it on licensing for the advanced reactors. So I would say across the board, real culture change at the regulator has occurred to be able to prioritize the important risk-significant conversations and get things approved in a timely manner.
Mr. Harold?
Jeremy Harrell
I would agree with Ms. Korsnick. I think we're seeing the tangible benefits of nearly a decade of your all's strong work here driving for modernization at the NRC and multiple administrations leaning into that issue. And it's going to be really critical so that we can capitalize on the Vogtle moment, right? Like in the end, Vogtle is a massive success story even with the cost overruns. I think the Georgia ratepayer is going to be very thankful for that long-term investment.
And we've got to find ways to build more of those reactors and leverage the lessons learned from Georgia and find ways to build new advanced reactors as well. And so these nimble processes are really critical to scaling and meeting our goals to meet rising demand, grow American manufacturing, and ultimately reduce emissions.
Jeffrey Merrifield
Let me give you two examples, real-world examples. One, frequently the NRC staff would have a particular piece of information they would want to get an answer. An applicant would provide that information and the NRC would say, well, that's not what we wanted, go back and give us something else. It was very much bring me a rock. That attitude has significantly changed.
The agency is actually more forthcoming about what it expects in the information to be provided and I think is being constructive. That is a direct consequence of the ADVANCE Act. The other one is the agency would frequently in the past have wave after wave of requests for additional information from a licensee. That took up extraordinary periods of time where that ping-pong match between the agency and the applicant took place. Now the agency has adopted more of an audit process where they'll actually sit down with the applicant, walk through those questions, address them on the spot.
Where more research needs to be done or more information needs to be provided by the applicant, they can do that. Saves an extraordinary amount of time.
Rick Allen
So it's important what Congress does to assist you in doing this in an efficient manner.
Jeffrey Merrifield
Congress and this committee have done an extraordinary job over the last 10 years of providing waves of legislation that have allowed this industry to thrive and for the NRC to be a more efficient regulator, yet at the same time meeting its safety mission.
Rick Allen
Okay, and what we need to know is what we need to do to go forward to make this industry reliable for the future. With that, I'm out of time and I yield back. Thank you very much.
Jennifer McClellan
Gentleman yields back. The gentlelady from Virginia is now recognized for at least five minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member Castor for holding this very important hearing today. A safe and well-regulated nuclear energy sector is key to a true all-of-the-above energy strategy that lessens our crippling reliance on fossil fuels and supports true American energy independence. And I appreciate the relatively bipartisan nature of the bills that are before us today, but I do have concerns with some of them and believe that we have a meaningful opportunity to work in a bipartisan manner to bring more nuclear energy safely online and meet our growing energy demand.
That being said, I continue to have concerns over the Trump administration's actions that are targeting the NRC and its independence. These actions inject an unnecessary level of uncertainty that could jeopardize projects that are currently in the works and also put safety at risk, as we've heard. And just to point out a couple of very serious concerns, we've had DOE-affiliated staff with no experience in nuclear safety who have forced out career safety experts throughout the government and tried to illegally make the NRC into a rubber stamp. And we have two current commissioners that have warned that they fear they could be fired at any moment if they refuse to approve a nuclear reactor due to safety concerns. As someone with a nuclear power plant in my district, safety is top of mind, and we need to be sure that we are maintaining the safety of these projects.
Work is also underway in my district to establish one of the first commercial-scale nuclear fusion power plants in the country. And this was made possible by the ADVANCE Act, which contained provisions related to regulating fusion and ensuring that this cutting-edge technology has a place in the future of American technology. So Ms. Korsnick, do you believe that the NRC is adequately balancing the need for regulation with facilitating the growth of this novel technology, which has a lot of potential to revolutionize energy production? And where do you think the NRC can improve its oversight and provide greater certainty for projects that are currently in progress?
Speaker 33
I'm interested in fusion if we have time, broader, but I also have one more question I want to ask.
Maria Korsnick
Okay, well, if I'm just going to say broadly for the NRC, I would say the NRC has demonstrated amazing resilience and has highly dedicated staff, and I have high confidence that the NRC is able to assess the safety of the designs that are coming at them, whether these are advanced reactors or whether they're the light water technology of today. So I remain highly confident in a strong regulator that we have at the NRC.
Jennifer McClellan
Turning to the REFUEL Act, I am generally interested in changes that ease the licensing burden on technologies that could help reduce the amount of spent fuel we have to deal with. But I do think that efforts to export those technologies overseas to overseas nations should still be subject to licensing. So Dr. Huff, can you speak to the importance of ensuring that bad actors do not get a hold of reprocessing technologies, especially from a non-proliferation standpoint?
Kathryn Huff
Thank you, Congresswoman. It is pivotal that nations and bad actor terrorist groups do not get access to the capability to build enrichment facilities or reprocessing facilities that would supply material for atomic weapons. We have a great deal of expertise and capability securing such facilities here in the United States, and we have a robust export control policy that, if maintained, prevents this. International cooperation and engagement also relies on our technical leadership here in the United States. And so we have a strong voice at those tables around nuclear energy, nuclear non-proliferation policy, especially at the IAEA, when we are leading in the nuclear power industry.
And so it goes hand in hand, those regulations in the export control space will strive to protect while we also strive to promote.
Jennifer McClellan
And in the remaining time, Dr. Huff, I want to explore a little more about the impact the administration's actions are having on the entire NRC workforce pipeline, including grant opportunities for students, research fellowships, and trade schools that are training the next generation of nuclear energy specialists. How do we stem the bleeding and restore staff expertise at the NRC to ensure we're protecting the talent pipeline going forward?
Kathryn Huff
Thank you so much for bringing this up, Congresswoman. The bill before you takes a good shot at fixing this at the hiring stage, but before that in the pipeline, the university community has been concerned with a pause on the discretionary grants due to an executive order by this administration that NRC has had to take, including discretionary grants that support scholarships and fellowships and faculty awards and community colleges and technical college awards to students from FY24 dollars that were appropriated. Those were never awarded. The community has been engaging with the NRC on that process, but it's still not resolved.
Okay, thank you. I thank you for the extra 14 seconds. I yield back.
Speaker 34
You're welcome. The gentlelady yields back. The gentleman recognized from Ohio for five minutes.
Troy Balderson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for being here today. My first question is directed to Mr. Harrell. Mr. Harrell, thank you for being here. Many advanced reactor companies are looking at using HALEU for their reactors.
One company, Centrus, operating in my home state of Ohio, is taking important steps to bring commercial HALEU capacity online to fuel America advanced reactors. Mr. Harrell, how does the legislation we are discussing today, specifically the Nuclear Refuel Act and the American Enrichment Deploy Act, help fuel enrichment companies set up businesses in the United States? And a follow-up to that would be, and what is the risk if we do not stand up to strong domestic fuel supply chain?
Jeremy Harrell
Yeah, thank you, Congressman, for the question. And as an Ohioan myself, I've been to Piketon a couple times and excited about what's happening there. There is strong alignment across government on investing in the nuclear fuel supply chain, in large part because of this committee's leadership. We put significant investments behind ramping up enrichment capability, Centrus one of the awardees that received resources there. We've got the Russian import restriction in place that kind of sets a shot clock here and drives some urgency to investment.
I mean, in the end, we want to see the US have energy security, and nuclear fuel security is energy security. Everything from taking the rocks out of the ground to enrichment capability to fuel fabrication, we need to invest in as much as possible here. I think this legislation makes a lot of sense, particularly if we're going to leverage those taxpayer dollars, that upwards of almost three billion dollars that you all gave DOE to drive forward here. We've got a tight timeline. 2028's coming here fast.
If we can get construction started faster, but then still maintaining that these enrichment facilities before they would have nuclear materials have to get a license, I think it's a no-regrets move.
Speaker 37
All right, thank you. I'll address the next question to you. In addition to the investments in enrichment, I'm excited about the future of advanced nuclear and small modular reactors. Can you discuss what you are seeing from the nuclear industry in terms of actual investment and deployment in these technologies as we move out of this hypothetical stages and into construction?
Jeremy Harrell
Yeah, the light at the end of the tunnel is very bright. New nuclear is happening now. We have multiple reactors under construction in this country. We're seeing investments on the first followers of those reactors as well. We're investing billions of dollars in the enrichment side.
We're seeing companies drive more private sector investment. And then I think what is a real critical driver and shouldn't be overlooked is we're seeing energy consumers say that they demand this product. They want reliable, baseload, clean energy in nuclear power. And so you're seeing everyone from Amazon, Google, Microsoft to heavy energy consumers like mining companies, Nucor and others, Dow in Texas, saying we need this product, we need to build it now. Those customers demanding the product is really catalyzing this unique moment.
Speaker 37
All right, thank you. Ms. Korsnick and Mr. Merrifield, would you like to add anything to that? Ms. Korsnick first.
Maria Korsnick
Well, yeah, I'd just say, you know, unprecedented investment is flowing from the private sector as well, and I think that's a real example of how we're sort of in a new day for nuclear. And so, yeah, just reinforce the comments that he made.
Thank you.
Jeffrey Merrifield
I would say it's, you know, when you contrast where we were back in the 2000s when we thought we were going to have a nuclear renaissance, we had one set of reactors and one set of customers. And what we're confronted with today with advanced reactors is something quite different. We have really four sets of potential customers and reactors: large gigawatt-sized reactors, which we will build; SMRs, typically in the 300-megawatt size, light-water reactors, we're seeing a lot of those ordered; advanced reactors, molten salt, high-temperature gas, sodium-cooled, which can not only provide electricity but also can provide industrial heat. And that's why we're seeing the interest of the oil industry, we're seeing the interest of the mining industry and others. And then finally the microreactors, both for military and for civilian uses.
Extraordinary panoply of technologies are coming forward. Not all of them are going to work, not all of them are going to be funded, but 10 years from now we're going to see a lot of reactors of a lot of different stripes.
Troy Balderson
Okay, thank you. Love that answer. Ms. Korsnick, and I know we're going to run out of time here probably, but in your testimony you note Congress should focus on strengthening the domestic nuclear fuel cycle and ensure timely development of mining, conversion, enrichment, and advanced fuel capabilities. Can you discuss how the American Enrichment Deployment Act will help streamline the licensing and construction process under the Atomic Energy Act to expand our enrichment capacity in a safe and secure manner? And I will let you turn that in because my time is out.
So, thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 38
The gentleman yields back. The gentlelady from California is now recognized for at least five minutes.
Doris Matsui
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the witnesses for being here today. I'd like to continue the line of questioning started by my colleague from California regarding nuclear waste. I also have a nuclear power plant that was actually shut down over 30 years ago. It's in Sacramento County, California, but the spent fuel is still there because the US government has failed to implement an effective nuclear waste program. And I'm really disappointed that we're here having this hearing today without considering legislation that would advance an effective federal nuclear waste program.
Now, many of my colleagues on this committee believe that recycling will solve the waste problem for us, but it remains to be seen whether recycling of spent nuclear fuel will scale in the United States. And even if nuclear recycling does take off, it won't fully eliminate the waste problem. Now, I support the continued development of nuclear recycling, but this can't be another excuse to kick the can down the road on a federal nuclear waste program. Now, Dr. Huff, can you explain some of the economic and technological challenges to scaling nuclear recycling in the United States?
Kathryn Huff
Thank you, Congresswoman. You're right, recycling does have real promise. It's not simple. I hope that it will become a part of a comprehensive waste management plan. In the United States, we have over 90,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel, making 2,000 more metric tons every year.
The current most mature recycling facility in the world at La Hague in France manages to run through a capacity of recycling about 1,700 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel a year. So if you're doing the math, that means that that facility, if it were deployed at that scale here, wouldn't quite make it through our annual amount. So we are going to have to think really big with any recycling capacity, and even those strategies result in spent nuclear fuel, which also must be managed. So it is no replacement for a spent nuclear fuel strategy, but it could really benefit.
Doris Matsui
Okay, so we still need a comprehensive federal waste program even under this scenario, right? Is that correct?
Yes, ma'am.
Doris Matsui
Okay. Now, earlier this year, the Department of Energy announced plans to support so-called nuclear lifecycle innovation campuses, which would host recycling, fuel fabrication, and waste disposal activities. Dr. Huff, if these sites were doing recycling at scale, they'd have to store waste before processing, and they'd still have to deal with the leftover waste after recycling. At what point does that become an interim storage facility?
Kathryn Huff
Thank you, Congresswoman. Your insight is correct. It would be immediately an interim storage facility, and in fact, I think a good reasonable strategy that has merit would be to begin such a facility as an interim storage facility and build adjacent to it such recycling strategies. This would immediately reduce the liability on the order of a billion dollars a year to the US federal government, which we pay in the nuclear waste fund.
Doris Matsui
Okay. So under what circumstances and for what activities would the Nuclear Waste Policy Act need to be amended to construct any of these sites?
Kathryn Huff
Yeah, at the moment, there is a linkage between the licensing of a repository and an interim storage facility being constructed, and so there does need to be a look at the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
Doris Matsui
Okay. The standard waste contract prioritizes oldest fuel and fuel from shutdown reactors. If these recycling sites are being supported by the federal government, do you believe these sites should prioritize spent fuel from shutdown plants?
Kathryn Huff
At the moment, I think they should certainly follow the law. I think it is the case that many recycling companies may prefer feedstock from more recently discharged fuel from the physics alone. Many of our more recent spent nuclear fuel discharges have higher initial enrichment and longer burnup. Both of those tend to contribute to a higher total fissile equivalent inventory, which makes it better fuel.
Doris Matsui
Better. So even this is not really a good solution here at all in a sense for the spent nuclear fuel. So we might have to figure that part of it out. But if we can somehow prioritize some of this old spent nuclear fuel, it would be wonderful. So anyway, I think my time is moving up, and so I yield back.
Speaker 40
Gentlelady yields back. Gentlelady from Tennessee is recognized for at least five minutes.
Oh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to the members for being here today, and thank you for your expertise in this area. This is very important. You know, the legislation we're considering today will build upon the success of the ADVANCE Act, and it's going to help meet our nation's growing energy needs. For example, the American Enrichment Deployment Act discussion draft is meant to help restart our domestic uranium enrichment capabilities.
And there are several companies, including BWXT, which is in my district, already working to restore this critical national capability. So Mr. Merrifield and Ms. Korsnick, how does enabling faster builds and licensing of enrichment facilities impact our energy security posture?
Jeffrey Merrifield
Well, we have a critical need for additional enrichment, particularly as it relates to high-assay low-enriched uranium, which is what many of these reactors will require. And so that legislation would streamline the licensing process in a way and allow construction to begin earlier, which would facilitate closing that gap.
Maria Korsnick
Yeah, I would agree with that.
We're in the process through a lot of your good leadership in really focusing on enrichment on the front end of the fuel cycle. It just all takes time. And so it's just nice if we have some of this flexibility that's outlined in the American Enrichment Deployment Act to allow construction to a point before the licensing is received.
Speaker 40
You know, I'd like to turn the discussion draft relating to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards. And Ms. Korsnick, Mr. Merrifield, you each have direct experience with this. Mr. Merrifield, you've seen both sides as a licensing process and as an attorney and an NRC commissioner. Ms. Korsnick, you're not only at the helm of the NEI, you served as chief nuclear officer for the largest fleet of nuclear reactors in the nation, which is pretty stealthy. So based on your experience, does NRC staff routinely evaluate highly technical safety and risk-significant issues as part of the agency's licensing and regulatory responsibilities?
Maria Korsnick
Oh, absolutely. The NRC staff is technically very competent, very strong, and absolutely goes through many technical issues. The conversation that played out earlier on the ACRS, again, it's a needed body, and I do think focusing it on new and novel issues can be accomplished with still keeping their curiosity and engagement on new processes. I think it can be done well.
Jeffrey Merrifield
Yeah, and I don't think anybody on this side of the table or anyone in the legislation proposes to get rid of the ACRS. I mean, I found the ACRS to be very valuable in many cases where the commission was struggling with a technical issue. We wanted to get that second opinion. We asked the ACRS to weigh in, and they did provide a valuable role. So I'm not criticizing the existence of the body.
I do think, having done a study where we interviewed over 35 people who were former commissioners, other senior staff, that there are efficiencies that could be put into that program to make them used and useful in a way that allow the agency to maintain its safety mission and not erode that independence. And I think the legislation as proposed would also achieve that goal.
Speaker 40
Well, that's exactly what I'm leading into because you've got 4,500 cumulative hours of reviewing and licensing permits that NRC has done. And given that fact, do you think, just as you said, the ACRS should focus its advice on matters that the commission and staff are not familiar with, like technologies and designs that are novel and risk-significant and haven't been examined before? So I assume you say yes.
Jeremy Harrell
Congresswoman, could I add? I mean, again, ACRS is a federal advisory committee. It is a federal advisory committee with additional teeth than the typical federal advisory committee because it brings technical experts. But we shouldn't misconstrue the ACRS with the staff who are doing the diligent review. This advisory committee is about bringing talented individuals who have either academic or technical or industry experience in there that they can advise the committee and ultimately contribute in these spaces.
But they are not a replacement for staff. And so I think that's why I think we are all in agreement on keeping the ACRS and staying focused.
Speaker 40
Stay in your lane. I have to deal with that in healthcare. You kidding me? Advisory committees take their own legs and start doing their own thing. So I got you.
I understand.
Yes, and that has occurred in the past.
Speaker 44
Well, it does. And I've got other questions, but I'll have to submit them for the record since I'm almost out of time and I don't want to go over my time, Chairman.
Speaker 43
And we shouldn't see the NRC as an obstacle to new nuclear development. It is a partner in building and preserving public trust and promoting safety, which are, I believe, very critical to allowing the industry to grow. And the NRC's work cannot happen efficiently or effectively without sufficient qualified staff. Now, Ms. Korsnick, how important is it for nuclear project developers to be working with a regulator with experienced and technically knowledgeable staff?
Speaker 42
Gentlelady yields back. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York for five minutes.
Maria Korsnick
Yeah, I'd say it's critical, right? These developers are investing time, energy, and effort to bring some new technologies to the market. I think it was mentioned earlier, a lot of conversation happens even before you officially enter the licensing process. There's a lot of pre-application conversation that happens, which is absolutely critical that you have, you know, competent and knowledgeable staff at the NRC to engage with these developers.
Speaker 43
Well, I appreciate that because I see this as a function of human infrastructure that is there to work to strengthen the outcome. And we need the NRC to be able to attract and retain staff, especially in limited and highly specialized fields that require technical knowledge. Mr. Harrell, your testimony mentions several private sector companies that are developing new nuclear projects. I think it is safe to assume that these companies will be competing with NRC for some of the same workforce. Now, I talk to all these younger students in college and you don't hear that many going into nuclear engineering or the nuclear energy field.
Are you seeing a growing competition for this specialized and limited workforce?
Jeremy Harrell
We are. I think we're seeing states and academic institutions invest more in their programs and we're starting to take that, that's starting to take off. But it's stiff competition. I mean, frankly, even our organization trying to bring in new nuclear talent, it's tough. And so I think Congress was wise both in the ADVANCE Act and now with this bill before the committee to give some unique hiring authorities and find new ways to compensate these folks to bring the right talent in that's necessary for this moment.
Speaker 43
Thank you. And Dr. Huff, do you agree that, you know, how do we get talented people with technical know-how into public service?
Kathryn Huff
Yeah, I think through example and additional engagement with the academic universe. The Congress and the staff at NRC, the staff at DOE can be great examples of what it looks like to have such an excellent job as being a public servant in the career staff. And I think the more engagement those institutions like NRC and DOE have with the public, the more visible it would be to undergraduates and graduate students interested in those roles.
Speaker 43
Thank you. And I noted in your testimony your mentioning of NRC's University Nuclear Leadership Program. These NRC grants have supported nuclear engineering education, including at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, RPI, located in my district. And, you know, I heard your exchange with Representatives Menendez and McClellan, but would you want to add anything to as to how NRC funding is essential to continue to help grow a workforce pipeline that can benefit the private sector, the Commission, and the Department of Energy?
Kathryn Huff
Thank you, Congressman. Yes, that University Nuclear Leadership Program, which has continued in DOE but was on pause in NRC due to the executive order on discretionary funds, that is pivotal to the creation of new nuclear engineers. We support American citizens and American persons through those awards routinely and it makes up a very large bulk of not only our graduate population but also scholarships for undergraduates. And when your scholarship says this scholarship came from the NRC or came from DOE, you're much more likely to consider that place as your final career.
Speaker 43
Well thank you. I certainly support allowing NRC to be able to offer competitive pay to be able to recruit and retain the personnel they need to carry out their mission. The proposal before us today is a good start in that regard but it must be said that NRC has lost nearly 500 employees as we've heard earlier today since the beginning of the Trump administration and competitive pay is only part of that story and it's important for members across the aisle to recognize how big of a disaster DOGE was. What were once seen as stable fulfilling careers in public service now have this black mark against them because we have real recent evidence that these jobs can be upended with no notice and no respect to federal employees and that will inevitably make it more difficult to recruit that next generation of NRC and DOE Office of Nuclear Energy staff. So Dr. Huff I'm guessing you may have stayed in touch with some former colleagues at the Department of Energy.
Can you explain how the uncertainty and disrespect caused by actions of DOGE have damaged employee morale?
Kathryn Huff
I will say a number of them took the prerogative to leave DOE of their own volition shortly after the change of administration and part of it certainly was morale but my understanding is that DOE is doing very well and is especially excited about some of the like new initiatives but that can't hold up some of the still empty positions especially in leadership.
Randy Weber
The gentleman's time has expired so the chair now recognizes the gentleman from the great state of Texas for five minutes.
Speaker 47
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I hear nothing but positive stuff about the NRC about the way that they're doing business about the way that they are evaluating things. I mean Mr. Merrifield we hear a lot from the other side of the aisle on this like the sky is falling but NRC seems to be doing pretty good right now.
Jeffrey Merrifield
Um there there actually has been an enabling of some folks who were more junior in the workforce they've been elevated they've shown an incredible enthusiasm about trying to re-energize the agency in alignment with congressionally authorized ADVANCE Act. I I I think there's a lot of good things going on over there. I understand the concerns and I understand some of the the comments that were made early on about a rubber stamp. I've seen no evidence that the NRC is a rubber stamp.
Speaker 47
Doesn't doesn't seem like that's true in any way shape or form. I'll stick with you I want to talk about Abilene Christian's molten salt reactor I've been working very closely along with other people both both sides of the aisle here on this committee. Very proud of what they're doing and what additional things need to happen to achieve criticality on the project?
Jeffrey Merrifield
Yeah for the sake of openness I am an advisor to Abilene Christian University it is a terrific school Phil Schubert the president has done an extraordinary job of of bringing forward a nuclear program in a university that never had one. They received really assurances from during the first Trump administration that it would be support for that program by the Department of Energy based on that they went ahead and they built a facility that would house their reactor it is complete all but the reactor itself and the control room. The issue that they're having is availability of of molten salt that was provided by Department of Energy they wanted to have provision of high high enriched uranium or high-assay low-enriched uranium to fuel that reactor that is underway there is a gap. And the gap is that there is the need for roughly 50 million dollars to provide the the preparation of that material for use in the reactor. That has traditionally been a role of of the university program at DOE.
There is a lot of money that has been deployed for providing HALEU and fuel for others. They are in a catch-22 they're told well we really want to support you but there's not enough money in the university program to do that. There are other moneys available.
I think it's a crying shame. I think a small university's made a huge commitment based on government assurances, and frankly, the government's letting them down right now.
Speaker 48
That's exactly what we're working on. This isn't public money. This is private money that was invested here at the request of the Department of Energy seven or eight years ago. They've done this and gone through these steps. So we're going to keep working on that.
I'm going to go to—
Jeffrey Merrifield
But I think the important point is every other university research reactor out there receives fuel from the Department of Energy. Abilene Christian should be no exception.
Speaker 47
That's a great point. Thank you for that. Mr. Hale, good to see you. Can you maybe discuss the importance of the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program in helping first-of-a-kind projects move across from the concept to deployment phase, just generalities?
Jeremy Harrell
Absolutely. Thank you, Congressman, and thanks for your support for programs like it that are critical to demonstrating an initial reactor design. So ARDP, ultimately catalyzed during the first term of the Trump administration, carried forward by the Biden administration, Congress continues to put the resource behind it to make it happen, is putting leading designs forward, putting them under construction, and ultimately showing their feasibility so then we can show and learn by doing and then ultimately build out an order book for it. And so really excited in particular about the Texas project, X-energy and Seadrift, that's benefiting from it, and it's driving forward their fuel supply chain as well.
Speaker 47
Just of the reforms that are being discussed here today, what is the most important one? And after you answer, I'll ask our other two witnesses the same thing. But what is the most important one?
Jeremy Harrell
I would say maybe two things. So one, we have to maximize the federal taxpayer dollars that we're already putting forward. This Congress has put upwards of three billion dollars behind enrichment. So I think the American Enrichment Deployment Act makes a ton of sense. We need to meet that Russia timeline.
We have to stay at speed. It's a national security imperative. And then two, I think the Efficient Hearings Bill to get rid of the mandatory requirement is a no-brainer. It takes a spot out of the process that is not necessary if there's an uncontested hearing. That's exactly the type of thing where we can reduce regulatory boredom at zero sacrifice to safety.
Thank you. That's the name of the game. Ms. Korsnick?
Maria Korsnick
Yeah, thank you. I would agree with his assessment on the American Enrichment Deployment Act. I think that's urgent and necessary to move forward. It's hard on the other ones. Everybody does a bit of tweaking here and there.
I don't know that I have a close second. The Hearing Act that he picked is easy. Even the NRC agrees that the mandatory hearings should be changed, so it can't get easier than that.
Ms. Huff, I ran out of time, but if you agree with those or if you disagree—
Speaker 51
I agree, and I think the Refuel Act is important too because I love recycling.
Cathy McMorris Rodgers
And if you'd like to follow up on anything in writing on that, we'd be happy with that. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Yield back.
Speaker 50
Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Washington for at least five minutes.
Cathy McMorris Rodgers
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all of our witnesses. As we pursue expansion of nuclear power, Russia has 45 percent of the world's uranium enrichment capacity and the US only has one enrichment plant. With the ban on Russian imports set to start in 2028, it's extremely urgent, as many of you have mentioned, that we accelerate our domestic enrichment capacity to ensure energy security for us and our allies. I am encouraged that this committee is discussing these bills, including the American Enrichment Deployment Act.
This bill intends to more efficiently license domestic enrichment facilities by bringing the licensing process for enrichment in line with the process for other fuels, which are allowed to start construction at their own risk before the issuance of a license, just knowing that they will be shut down or delayed if they are not in compliance.
And I brought this up with NRC Commissioner Weaver at a previous hearing, and he was supportive of this reform in concept. So now it's just a matter of getting this language exactly right to make sure that the outcome matches the intent. Commissioner, uh, Merrifield, thank you for your testimony and the acknowledgment of a sort of a changing situation and your, uh, perceptions. Widespread deployment of advanced reactors is just around the corner. What happens if we don't have a domestic, a sufficient domestic enrichment capabilities here in the US?
Jeffrey Merrifield
If we, if we do not have the ability to provide, uh, high-assay low-enriched uranium for some of these advanced reactors, it will hinder their deployment. We simply will not, we will be able to build the reactors but not have the fuel to do it. I think there's been extraordinary progress in this area. I would say there's one other thing that I would posit for you. We have a problem right now in providing uranium for US content.
Um, virtually all of it that we have comes from abroad. For the civilian fleet, that's not as big a problem. For the US military and the Navy, which are beginning to spin up their own enrichment programs, that has to be US-sourced. We need more attention to that as well.
Cathy McMorris Rodgers
Thank you, and that is also, um, on this committee's, uh, watch and, uh, and agenda. I wanted to thank you for that comment. I wanted to turn to nuclear licensing now. Um, reforming the licensing hearing process is another way that we can streamline licensing for fuel production and nuclear reactors. And, uh, when no one is even contesting, uh, the approval of a license for a project, NRC is currently still required to hold a hearing that takes thousands of man-hours to prepare for.
My bill with Representative Griffith solves this issue by only requiring a hearing when the issue is contested, and it allows NRC staff to really focus their energy where it should be, which is on disputed applications. Mandatory uncontested hearings have already slowed down the licensing of three advanced nuclear reactors where there is zero opposition. Three more have submitted license applications and will still need a hearing, again, even if there's no opposition to the projects. Um, dropping this hearing requirement when no one contests the project just seems like a smart thing to do. I'm seeing nodding, uh, with all of our witnesses.
Now, I just, um, want to make certain that we still preserve the public's ability to request a contested hearing if they want one. So, um, Ms. Korsnick, uh, this question's for you. The NRC in March proposed a rule that might change the public's ability to do so. Um, do your member companies believe this proposed rule, uh, would change or discourage public engagement or opposition, uh, to a project or limit access to information so that they would know whether to contest a project?
Maria Korsnick
Yes, just to be clear, the mandatory hearings don't even engage the public. So the mandatory hearings happen at the end of the process, and the public's not invited. So that's how crazy this mandatory hearing is when we say it has no impact on public engagement, it's because they're not invited to it. So there's like zero pain by having this mandatory hearing not happen. To your point, earlier in the process, the public is invited, there's all kinds of opportunity, and to your point, no, this will have no impact on the public having that ability to have a hearing process, a contested process.
They use this term mandatory hearing, it's simply at the end of the process, an NRC-only, uh, process that they named mandatory hearing so you have the feeling that somehow the public's involved, and they're not.
Jeffrey Merrifield
Congressman, I was a member of a commission 20 years ago that called for elimination of that requirement. I'm very supportive of what you're trying to do. I agree with everything that Maria just said. I would also say, frankly, the agency's trying to do some workarounds relative how those are undertaken. Legislation is important.
This is a great fix.
Cathy McMorris Rodgers
Thank you for your comments. I just want to make sure that we streamline and also protect public interest and the ability to speak up and contest if there is a problem. Thank you. I yield back.
Randy Weber
Gentlelady yields back. Chair now recognizes gentleman from Oregon for five minutes.
Speaker 54
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to the panel for being here. Ms. Korsnick, I very much liked the executive summary of your testimony. So thank you for that. You mentioned in answer to a previous question that you would allow construction to a point under the American Enrichment Deployment Act. I think I understand what you're saying, but why don't you explain to me how you would select that point?
Maria Korsnick
Yeah, basically you can do site preparation, you can do certain things, but you can't move forward by bringing special nuclear material on site. You can't actually begin enriching without a license. So the stuff that you can do in advance is construction type work, but not any operation or receiving of material.
Jeffrey Merrifield
Let me, I worked for the Shaw, after I left the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, I went to work for the Shaw Group. We built the Urenco facility for enrichment out in New Mexico. Those buildings are relatively straightforward civil construction. It's a pad, it looks a lot like a commercial building. The safety significant issues are really the centrifuges themselves and how they're piped together.
So that non-safety significant work can continue. It's not going to have an impact on public health. Obviously it's done at the risk of the applicant, but I think the common sense reforms included in the legislation make sense.
Speaker 53
Right. So it seemed to me that Ms. Huff, for example, suggested in her testimony, written testimony, that there could be a problem in bringing pressure on the agency because it had allowed the facility to go forward and then would be in no position to say stop. And that's an estoppel argument. I'm a lawyer, I know how that works. But I have to move on and but I appreciate...
You're in the position to do so, you're an expert.
Speaker 53
Let me shift over to the Crane Clean Energy Center, formerly known as Three Mile Island. I've read reports regarding the rejuvenation of that facility, but there seem to be some concern that once it gets up and going, there will be additional unforeseen costs that somehow the public, the ratepayers, or the taxpayer would end up paying. Who's in charge of making sure that doesn't happen?
Jeffrey Merrifield
Well, I don't know all the details that entail your question. I would say there's sort of two pieces. The NRC has under its authority the regulation of the reactor and to make sure that before it goes into operation that it is safe. You have an economic regulator potentially in the state that would have authority over how those, how that cost is shifted to ratepayers. And so those are two different, those are really two different arenas.
From an NRC federal standpoint, as an NRC regulator, I mean ultimately we were mindful of the costs that we imposed, but we did not reduce our safety mission for that reason.
If it needed to be done for safety purposes, the NRC required it to be implemented. I don't think that's changed.
Speaker 53
I'm not sure if that answers the question, but it seemed to me that someone should be looking into the rebuilding of these facilities and the enthusiasm that seems to accompany the initial investment when we need 30 or 40 years to actually pay the thing back and recognizing it's an older facility, it seems to me to be something we should be concerned about, at least the ratepayer should. I want to go back to Ms. Korsnick for several more questions. I'm looking at your second bullet point: accelerate new nuclear deployment by, quote, addressing early project cost and schedule risk and thus enabling private sector investment. I don't understand that. Can you explain?
Maria Korsnick
Yeah, I would say it's hard to go first in nuclear. It's hard to have the first-of-a-kind build, and there's additional risk associated with the fact because it hasn't been built yet. And so private investment is taking a look and they're wanting to have more confidence. And so one of the things that has been proposed, the ARC Act, is to help have a government participate in risk sharing. So you can imagine if you're running a project, the first part is on the owner, then there's a second part after say 20% that there would be some government-private sector risk sharing to a capped limit, after which it would be back all on the owner.
So some structure that would send a signal to the private investment that that early mover risk is being reduced, it's being ameliorated. And this isn't for all of them. This is just maybe for the first few of a kind so that it could demonstrate. Then that private sector money comes in. They see what the cost is, they see what the schedule is, they understand.
Speaker 57
Thank you for that clarification, and thank all of you for your testimony. I yield back.
Speaker 58
Gentleman yields back. Now the chair will now recognize the gentleman from the great state of Texas for five minutes.
Speaker 59
Thank you very much. I want to first of all say I'm proud to be the co-sponsor of both 5549 and 3978. I don't think that this is a partisan issue at all. I believe that advanced nuclear energy is going to be very essential to a reliable, affordable, cleaner grid. And frankly, the Chinese or the Russians or any other adversaries, they're not going to wait around for us to get our regulatory act in order.
They're going to be moving ahead, and we need to make sure that we're doing the same thing. And I think that 5549 is a very sensible fix to what we need to do. The mandatory hearings on uncontested applications consume a lot of hours of NRC staff and adds on about an average time of about six months. And that's just unacceptable. 3978, I think, clears real ambiguity standing in the way of domestic recycling technology that could go a really long way in helping us reduce waste and strengthen our fuel security.
I think both of these reforms have been called for across administrations and across party lines. And that said, I want to be direct, though. I think that everything that we're trying to accomplish here, the deployment, the investment, the international credibility, it really rests on one foundation, and that's a credible NRC. Not independent as a political talking point, but independent as a structural reality. Dr. Huff said well in her testimony that regulatory independence is most important when significant financial interests are at stake.
And so now we're talking about billions of dollars at stake. And I think the committee, that we have to make sure that we have efficiency reforms that don't inadvertently erode the credibility that makes American nuclear regulation the global gold standard, that don't erode that standard that we have here.
And so Dr. Huff, I wanted to ask you, because I am a co-sponsor of 5549, and I believe the case for these efficiency reforms are strong, but you raised something in your testimony that I wanted to explore further. And you noted that the ACRS has contributed to safety review of virtually every generation of commercial reactor technology that we've deployed, and that independent expertise is valuable when it's empowered to disagree. My question is about the implementation. As the NRC executes this reform, what should this committee be watching to make sure that the commission is actively and appropriately using ACRS, not just technically complying with the law?
Kathryn Huff
Thank you so much, Congressman. I really appreciate it. I think especially your comments with regard to financial pressure on NRC get back to Congressman Pence's concern of my testimony, which was intended to suggest that a redress plan may be a helpful component of that law. Moving on to your comments about the ACRS, I think everyone on this panel agrees it's valuable in precisely this way, that it provides a technical sort of second opinion for the staff for this oversight of all reactors. In terms of the efficiencies, I think it's been made clear that reducing the amount of unnecessary meetings that either NRC or ACRS has is great, but remaining flexible with regard to what ACRS believes is important.
If they feel strongly that there is a technical concern to be addressed, I think enshrining in law that they can't ask that question kind of goes against some of the intent for providing their technical expertise. In many ways, technical expertise sometimes comes in the form of a question.
Speaker 59
Yeah, yeah. I know you also flagged that the NRC has paused its discretionary grant programs, the undergraduate scholarships, the graduate fellowships, the community college assistance, the faculty advancement grants, and you said that that was unsustainable. And I agree. I think that that's not good at all for us trying to make sure that we're winning a competition. The bill addresses the pay bill addresses one in the pipeline.
Who addresses the other, and should this committee be asking the NRC directly why those grants are paused at exactly the moment we need to be expanding the technical workforce? Because that's an area where I've heard a lot of bipartisan agreement is that we this technical workforce is hugely important.
Kathryn Huff
Thank you, Congressman. Indeed, it's baffling to have those grants on pause. They were the result of an executive order associated with oversight on discretionary granting across the agencies, and the NRC still hasn't released those awards from FY24. DOE has moved forward many of those sort of awards under the same program in UNLP, the University Nuclear Leadership Program, and it has been baffling for the university community to see NRC not follow suit.
Speaker 61
Thank you, Mr. Bice. The chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Fry, for five minutes.
Russell Fry
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing today. Thank you to the witnesses for being here. I'm glad to see that this subcommittee is still continuing to focus intently on nuclear energy. As I've said before, the nuclear renaissance is here, and I believe that South Carolina has an important role to play in that. I support the efforts to improve the timelines, timeliness and predictability of Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing decisions, which are essential to advancing next generation nuclear technologies and strengthening grid reliability.
At the same time, I'm equally focused on ensuring that new nuclear development is cost effective for customers. I have had ongoing discussions with groups like Duke Energy and the Palmetto Nuclear Coalition and other stakeholders about how to better manage and contain project costs.
We have to take the lessons of South Carolina specifically V.C. Summer seriously, by ensuring that future projects are structured so as not to place an undue financial burden on taxpayers and the ratepayers of the Carolinas or really the United States. This is particularly important as Duke Energy actively evaluates the potential development of new reactors in South Carolina and the state continues to consider pathways for the partially completed V.C. Summer units. With that said, nuclear projects are certainly capital intensive, but operate for many decades, with some lasting 80 years. Unfortunately, as I talked about before, V.C. Summer shows that cost overruns and delays can have real big impacts on projects, oftentimes resulting in the abandonment of those projects, which saddled ratepayers with the cost of nuclear plants that actually weren't producing anything because they didn't exist. All this I think has scared investors probably away from nuclear right when we need it most.
Mr. Harrell, how can the bills that we discussed today, and you talked about a little bit about this earlier in your testimony, but how can these bills, which are focused on regulatory modernization, help companies with financing?
Jeremy Harrell
Yeah, time is money, Congressman. And so in the end, a predictable, efficient permitting process that the public has confidence in and that has strong safety protocols in place is good for innovation, it's good for deployment. Investors want to know that there's a schedule that's going to be followed, even on long-lead items like nuclear that are going to take longer than maybe your traditional investments, that they want to know that process is moving efficiently.
Russell Fry
Thank you, thank you for that. Ms. Korsnick, turning to spent nuclear fuel and our nuclear waste policy, you note in your testimony that we should advance an integrated fuel management and recycling strategy that preserves ratepayer interest and federal contractual obligations. Can you elaborate on what you mean here, especially about preserving ratepayer interest?
Maria Korsnick
Well, yeah, ratepayers have paid in to a fund directed from the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. And when they paid that money, it was for long-term storage, a deep geologic repository. We just want to ensure that the money that ratepayers put away specifically for the purpose of long-term deep geologic repository is spent in that way. We think it's part of closing the fuel cycle. And so we think that recycling is a wonderful addition.
And so those are the conversations, if you will, that are playing out now.
Russell Fry
South Carolina ratepayers from what I can see have contributed with interest about $3 billion to the nuclear waste fund. Should we make sure that this fund is used for credible, durable policies to address that nuclear waste?
Maria Korsnick
Yeah, absolutely. As I mentioned, I think the move towards recycling starts with, I'll say small scale, then it has to get raised to commercial scale. There's a lot I would say to learn and to discover. And so we just need to be thoughtful about what part of that that ratepayers pay for.
Russell Fry
Thank you for that. You know, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards was formed at a time when almost all nuclear technology was new and there was a need to have maybe a variety of expert advice. That's not necessarily the case today. I think some of your testimony has exhibited that with the NRC. Do you agree with that, Mr. Merryfield?
Jeffrey Merrifield
I absolutely do agree with that. I think they serve a viable purpose, but if we were to have more AP1000s built in South Carolina, that technology is well understood. Having ACRS review those would be to me a waste of time.
Russell Fry
But we should anticipate I think that there would be new designs, technologies and other matters that would still benefit the NRC and the public through this outside expert review and public comments. Would you agree with that?
Russell Fry
Mr. Chairman, you're going to cut me off here in a second and I'm not going to like it at all. I have more questions, but I really appreciate y'all's time today. Thank you for being here.
Speaker 68
That's exactly right. Thank you, Mr. Fry. Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from North Dakota, Ms. Fedorchak, for her five minutes.
Julie Fedorchak
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to my colleague from Colorado for letting me jump ahead of him in line. Appreciate that. Thank you all for being here to share your expertise on such an important topic. I watched as a state utility regulator 12 years, 10 to 12 years ago, our country, I watched our country turn away from nuclear, regrettably, and it's really encouraging to see how quickly we're pivoting back, a lot to do with all of your leadership and then some of the great work that has happened here in Congress in the last five, five or so years. Mr. Harrell, North Dakota is a state without nuclear.
We have a lot of coal-fire power. We have a lot of gas. We have a lot of oil and gas development. We have a lot of wind generation. So we are an all-of-the-above state, except for we don't have any nuclear assets.
There's a lot of interest in that and there's discussions happening. But can you talk a little bit about the changes that are being proposed with some of the legislation we're talking about today and talk about what you, how you think that'll help states like North Dakota sort of pursue nuclear resources, nuclear power development in the future?
Jeremy Harrell
Absolutely. Thank you, Congressman, for the question, Congresswoman, for the question. And I think it's spot on because I think there are a lot of states like North Dakota who in this moment want to explore adding nuclear into their mix. I think the reforms on the bills today continue to reinforce that there's a predictable regulatory process that includes public participation so that your constituents can have confidence both in the technical aspects of the technology as well as be certain that ultimately these projects can deliver power on a relevant timeframe as you all wrestle with rising demand in North Dakota. I also think that you're seeing states that want to be fast followers here on these first-of-a-kind do things like feasibility studies, siting and permitting work, workforce development areas.
A couple states like Ohio and Virginia have established nuclear authorities to try to foster these opportunities. I think that's the type of thing that North Dakota could do. And then of course Nick referenced earlier, I mean we've got to get regulators like your previous self over the hump. And so policies like the ARC Act are the type of thing that can ensure that the project two, three, four of a new design gets off the ground, that we share the risk on that and regulators can have confidence that that ultimately is going to be a good return for the taxpayer and be a long-term investment for the state's energy future.
Speaker 67
Excellent. Thank you for that. Ms. Korsnick, increased nuclear capacity means increased use of uranium fuels. As a country and a legislative body, we've encountered issues finding places to store our spent fuel. Can you describe how a built-out nuclear recycling supply chain limits the need to find and house spent fuel in a natural repository?
Maria Korsnick
Sure. Thank you for the question. So in a recycling process, you take some of that used fuel and you actually use it again to feed a reactor as new fuel. And so as you could continue to do that, you could lower the volume of fuel that you have that needs to be stored. That's a long-term vision.
And so it's going to take us a while to commercialize and scale up the idea of recycling. But that's in the main the reason that it is helpful to close the fuel cycle is because you can use today what is used fuel and turn it into new fuel for a reactor.
Speaker 67
So the the goal of getting a long-term repository has been something that has been out of reach for a quite a while. Do you think it's realistic that we might get the refueling process in place faster than a permanent storage solution?
Maria Korsnick
Actually, I think you need the whole picture. Even with recycling, you still need a geologic repository. Maybe that's boreholes, maybe it's a mined repository. I think it's probably a combination of those. So please don't think that it's one or the other, it's really both.
Jeffrey Merrifield
Yeah, I think the industry's really moved forward in this area, both recycling and other alternative means of disposing of fuel. We have the world's first nuclear repository that's opened in Finland. More movement's been made, so it we haven't been gathering dust.
Speaker 67
Okay, well I've got 30 seconds left. What else can this body do to support these this effort, both on the permanent and the recycling processes?
Maria Korsnick
I think the Nuclear Refuel Act is a good step forward in terms of bringing attention to it. As I mentioned earlier, would actually like to broaden it to all recycling and reprocessing methods to be considered non-production facilities and be licensed under Part 70, which is meant for fuel facilities. I think that would be appropriate for all technologies.
Okay, my time's expired. I yield back. Thank you.
Gabe Evans
Thank you. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Evans, for his five minutes of questioning.
I've got utilities in my district that are expecting to triple demand in the next 10 years, and that's after already doubling it in the last 10 years. And unfortunately, the energy policies in Colorado right now, not my numbers, the Democrat-controlled Colorado Energy Office say that their plan to get to net-zero emissions is going to cost 60 billion plus dollars. And as we're doing that, they're actually making less electricity per federal data, 58,000 gigawatt hours two years ago and only 56,000 gigawatt hours this year. So people are paying more money for less electricity, less reliable electricity. And one of the ways we can fix that is with nuclear.
Thank you, Chair, Ranking Member. Energy demand is rising rapidly. Thank you, of course, to the witnesses for taking some time to come out and talk to us today. I'm from Colorado. We know it's happening.
It's baseload, dispatchable, it's very low emissions, it helps keep prices stable, prevents blackouts, preemptive shutouts. And permitting reform is an essential piece of being able to bring this energy back onto the grid. I've been proud to work on a bipartisan permitting reform framework with some of my colleagues actually on this committee and across the aisle, Mr. Peters being one, which has got the support of about 50 bipartisan members of Congress. And one of the things in that platform is eliminating the uncontested mandatory NRC hearings for new reactors. And that's reflected in one of the bills before us today, Mr. Griffith's bill.
And in previous conversations, experts have testified that that could reduce permitting timelines by six months without compromising public safety or engagement. And so I'm super excited to see this bill moving. My first question to Mr. Harold is going to be to you. We've got innovation happening all over the nation and even in the state of Colorado. Buckley Air Force Base or Space Force Base, they're under a Department of War contract to bring microreactor technology in my district.
We've got the old Fort St. Vrain nuclear plant, which has now got nuclear storage for about 33,000 pounds of spent fuel. And so, Mr. Harold, what's the current status of the NRC's major rulemakings under the Trump administration, and how do today's proposals help build on that so we can actually get nuclear technology on the grid?
Jeremy Harrell
It's a great question, Congressman. And thank you for your leadership on permit reform beyond the things that are nuclear-specific here.
We need to be modernizing our grid and really bringing new generation of all types to the marketplace quickly to meet rising demand. On the NRC side, we are in a critical moment, right? A lot of the regulatory actions that have moved for or have come forth in the last three months have been a result of your all's bipartisan leadership over the last 10 years from NEIMA, from the ADVANCE Act. And so you're now seeing those come to fruition and there's some real-world examples of where we're seeing results coming from those those type of reforms. I mean, I would underscore in in Texas, the X-energy project, without the work that you all did over the last five years, there is no way the NRC would have ultimately landed on an NEA for that project and do the environmental in under 12 months.
And then these bills build on that type of momentum, right? We need to keep plugging forward and showing the marketplace that we've got a regulator that's nimble, that's predictable, that is diligent, and that is ultimately going to put US nuclear leadership in the forefront.
Gabe Evans
Thank you for that. Mr. Merrifield, I'm going to come to you next, Chairman. I mentioned that 33,000 pounds of spent fuel that we have in my district in Colorado. And so part of this whole nuclear conversation of course involves the supply chains from being able to produce the fuels, mill and refine the fuels, use them, but then obviously what's the end of life cycle for those fuels? And so the the question to you today, and I know we've already talked about it some, but if there's anything to add about what is the legislation today that we're talking about or are there other things that we need to talk about to help the US establish that complete fuel cycle, specifically including that that end of life fuel and can modern technology help reuse that?
Jeffrey Merrifield
I think the legislation today is is going to be helpful in helping to spur innovation in recycling of used nuclear fuel. There are, by my count, probably seven or eight different companies out there that are pursuing different types of potential recycling of that material. As Maria described, it would really help utilize that material in a very appropriate way, very and and frankly, the massive amount of energy that it still contains would be something that could help power our nation's future nuclear fleet. So that's an area I think we will see more coming out of the NRC, we'll see more that probably Congress will need to assist in that area. It's quite exciting.
I do think we need to put some attention to the front end of the fuel cycle, uranium production, conversion, having sufficient enrichment, all of these pieces come together for us to be able to build and sustain a nuclear fleet.
Speaker 72
I I also will get gaffled if I keep going, so I'm out of time and will yield back.
Speaker 61
Thank you, Mr. Evans. The chair recognizes Dr. Joyce from Pennsylvania for his five minutes of question.
John Joyce
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ranking Member Castor, for holding this important hearing. And thank you for our witnesses for being here today. Recently, I had the opportunity to travel with Chairman Latta as well as other colleagues from the Energy Subcommittee on a bipartisan congressional delegation to France looking at their nuclear energy. There we heard from companies and government officials on how successful their expansion and use of nuclear energy has been. Since their large-scale expansion plan started in the mid-1970s, France has transformed themselves from an energy importer to an energy exporter, bolstering their economy while also relying on nuclear generation for a significant portion of their domestic energy needs.
As we talk about achieving American energy dominance, I believe we can learn from the efforts in France. Already in places like my home state of Pennsylvania, we are seeing the expansion of nuclear generation. Just over 100 miles from where we're sitting here today, Constellation Energy is well on their way to bringing the Crane Clean Energy Center back online.
America has an advantage over France, though: vast fossil fuel resources like the natural gas that is underneath the feet of my constituents. This will allow us to even further leverage nuclear energy as it is brought online to improve our electrical grid and ensure reliable and affordable energy for all Americans. Ms. Korsnick, you mentioned in your testimony the momentum that is building up behind the deployment of new nuclear generation assets. How would the regulatory reforms under consideration today help bolster that momentum?
Maria Korsnick
Yeah, I'd say critical, because it brings that regulatory predictability, and Mr. Harold has mentioned that a few times today. If you want investment in nuclear, you have to demonstrate that you're going to take that great idea and it's going to actually turn into a power plant, it's going to turn into energy, and it's going to get on the grid, or it's going to turn into high-temperature steam and it's going to go to your factory and it's going to be put to use. And so the ambiguity around nuclear starts in the regulatory process: how long is it actually going to take for me to get that license or that construction permit? So the things that you're focused on here helps bring that predictability, which is crucial.
John Joyce
Is that ambiguity that you talk about, does that stifle innovation? Does that stifle the progress that is so necessary?
Maria Korsnick
Well, yeah, because it just takes too long to get to the marketplace, right? Innovation feeds on I not only had the great idea, but I turned the great idea into a widget that works that I can bring to the marketplace. Well, if you can't get it to the marketplace, clearly it stifles.
John Joyce
You mentioned the success of executive orders in helping improve regulations. Do you agree that codified regulatory reforms would provide further confidence for developers to invest in upgrades and new deployments of nuclear assets?
Absolutely.
John Joyce
Mr. Merrifield, do you agree that ensuring any regulatory improvements apply both to new nuclear generation and restarting or upgrading existing assets will aid the expansion of nuclear capacity of the grid?
John Joyce
Mr. Harold, can you discuss how effectively deploying nuclear energy domestically can ultimately affect United States global competitiveness?
Jeremy Harrell
Absolutely, sir. We have to first learn by or have to do first, right, and show the globe that we can build these reactors and designs and demonstrate these technologies. But in the end, the diplomatic partnerships that happen in nuclear are a century-long agreement. And China and Russia are going on offense on that. We're seeing those countries ultimately go to partners who are interested in nuclear, an immense amount of countries showing interest in new nuclear because of what it can bring to them for energy security.
And they're offering fuel take-back, they're offering investments in the technology to build out, they're even willing to staff it in many cases. We're never going to out-subsidize China, but what we can do is use better technology and ultimately the tools that we have in our tool belt, whether that's the Export-Import Bank of the US, which is up for reauthorization, the great work that Congress recently did in a bipartisan way to reauthorize the Development Finance Corporation, and other tools in the tool belt to provide US offerings and ultimately be competitive on the market.
John Joyce
Well, you talk about China and Russia both being on the offense. Is it time that we get off the sidelines and implement and allow the regulations to step aside so we can become part of that game again?
Jeremy Harrell
It's a national security imperative for us to lead. I wouldn't say that we need to step away from the regulations; we need to show that we're a diligent, efficient regulator and that the rest of the globe can trust the diligence we've done on US technology.
John Joyce
As we watch momentum build in the nuclear domain, I look forward to working with this committee to ensure that federal regulations are aligned with industry realities so that we can all benefit from affordable, reliable energy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to wave on, and I yield back.
Speaker 61
Thank you, Dr. Joyce. The chair recognizes myself for five minutes of questioning, seeing how there's no one left here right now, that doesn't mean someone may walk in.
But, Mr. Merrifield, can I follow up with you? I know Mr. Pfluger from Texas talked about the SMR in Abilene and you mentioned your involvement with it. Can you follow up on that? I understand there is a bump in the road that we hope to rectify quickly, but let's talk about nationally. What other SMRs are out there?
I think we're all in agreement that that is a future, that's something we're all excited about, both on the Republican and Democrat side. So what other SMRs out there and how close are we for them to come online?
Jeffrey Merrifield
Well, I think there's a lot of movement we're seeing. You have TerraPower, which has its site in Kemmerer, Wyoming, that's under construction. X-energy, which is a high-temperature gas, is moving forward well with the Seadrift site in Texas. I think a number of states have announced movement forward. We've got the restart of the Palisades plant, the Crane Energy Center announcement of Duane Arnold in Iowa, which were previously considered reactors.
State of South Carolina has an effort underway right now with trying to bring Summer Unit 2 and 3, which were the Westinghouse reactors that started, getting them back on board. I've talked to, you know, I talked to a utility executive of a large nuclear utility very recently. You know, they had brought in experts to look at, do we go with gas, do we go with nuclear, and they realized they really have to go with nuclear. So a lot of movement, all the advanced reactor work being done by DOE and elsewhere really bringing things forward. So there's a huge amount of activity underway.
Speaker 61
And so that's great news. How far do you think we are from cities being powered by SMRs?
Jeffrey Merrifield
Well, I think some of the microreactors are quite far along, and I think because they are smaller and easier to deploy, I think we'll see some of those put on the grid quicker. A large gigawatt-sized reactor like a Westinghouse AP1000, you know, you order one today, it's going to take you probably seven or eight years to get it up and operating with all the approvals and requirements and whatnot. But I think we're making real progress. The other thing I would just mention quickly, Ontario has GE BWRX-300s that are under construction right now. Those were developed in Wilmington, North Carolina, by GE Vernova.
We're going to see more of those in the US as well.
Speaker 61
And I was going to follow up with, are the economics there for them to compete, let's say, with natural gas?
Jeffrey Merrifield
Nuclear is a higher upfront investment, in part because of the interest costs, but I think if you look at the long-range value of nuclear, it beats everything, including gas, over the long range.
Speaker 61
Thank you very much. I'm going to yield back the balance of my time. I'll recognize Mr. Griffith for five minutes of questioning.
Morgan Griffith
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for letting me wave on. Sorry I haven't been here earlier, I was out doing other things, but and I'm not a regular member of the subcommittee, I'm waving on, I used to be, and it's a great sub. But one of the bills the subcommittee is discussing today is a bill that Dr. Schrier, Representative Veasey, and myself introduced, HR 6464, the Efficient Nuclear Licensing Hearings Act. And our bill amends the Atomic Energy Act to repeal the requirements for mandatory nuclear licensing hearings. Mr. Harold, do you believe that these hearings actually contribute to stopping unsafe reactor designs?
Jeremy Harrell
No, I do not. They're they're at the end of the process when they're uncontested and so by eliminating it, we've already had the diligence by the NRC before.
Speaker 74
It's it's kind of duplicative and it's something that's hung around since what, 1957? And if nobody asks for it, it really doesn't do much, isn't that correct?
Correct.
Speaker 74
And this would make things a little streamlined then without sacrificing any safety.
Jeremy Harrell
Correct. Exactly. It could save thousands of hours of preparation that happen by NRC staff, up to a million dollars for this process and delays application approvals by six months on average.
Speaker 74
So it causes delays, it runs up costs, and it has no net benefit for the public.
Exactly.
Morgan Griffith
Sounds like a good bill, I'm glad I introduced it. Thank you. Ms. Korsnick, when we talk about mandatory hearings, nuclear reactor applicants have to pay the NRC engineering staff to examine its application by the hour, isn't that correct?
That's correct.
Morgan Griffith
And so that's kind of the costs we were talking about, isn't that accurate when when we have these extra hearings that are not beneficial?
Speaker 81
And how much does an applicant pay the commission staff per hour to examine its application?
Not sure. No, I think it's on the order of $300 an hour.
Speaker 77
So not quite Philadelphia lawyer fees, but higher than your average worker in the 9th Congressional District of Virginia.
Jeffrey Merrifield
Well, and when you have a dozen NRC staff sitting around a table, it adds up quick.
Jeffrey Merrifield
That's right. And by the way, the NRC, I was a commissioner, we called for the elimination of these hearings over 20 years ago. This is long overdue.
Speaker 78
Does anybody disagree with that? I mean, I'll give the naysayers a chance.
Even the NRC agrees.
Morgan Griffith
All right. Well, Mr. Chairman, it sounds like without using up my whole five minutes that everybody's in agreement that the bill that Dr. Schrier, Representative Veasey, and myself introduced, H.R. 6464, ought to move forward, and I appreciate their testimony and their time here today, and I yield back.
Speaker 61
Thank you, Mr. Griffith. The chair recognizes Congresswoman Miller-Meeks from Iowa for her five minutes of questioning.
Mariannette Miller-Meeks
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and I thank Representative Griffith for waiving on. The current increased rates that people are experiencing right now are due to four years of a deterrence of energy generation and energy subtraction from the Biden administration. So let me also say that Iowans and Americans are very appreciative of this hearing. The United States is entering a new era of nuclear deployment, and the institutions responsible for licensing and oversight must be ready to meet it. Advanced reactors are moving from concept to construction, retired plants are seeking to restart, such as the one in Iowa, and domestic fuel infrastructure is being rebuilt from the ground up after decades of atrophy.
Congress has a narrow window to remove the remaining friction to clear the procedural backlog that slows restart applications, align enrichment licensing with the rest of the fuel cycle, and make sure the NRC has the staff to handle what is coming. The opportunity is real, but it's not going to wait indefinitely. Mr. Merrifield, you've been calling for the elimination of mandatory uncontested hearings since your time on the commission, and you support refocusing the ACRS on genuinely novel safety-significant issues. Duane Arnold is a proven boiling water reactor with decades of operational history, there's nothing novel about the technology and nothing contested about the community's desire to see it back online. Can you tell us concretely how much time and cost these two reforms together could save a restart applicant like NextEra, and is there any safety justification for requiring either a mandatory uncontested hearing or a full ACRS review for a plant that was operating safely just five years ago?
Jeffrey Merrifield
I would say in this case, I don't think either one is necessary. In terms of the total savings, it would likely range, you know, in the millions of dollars and certainly significant time both on the part of the NRC and of the applicant. Now, I would put one caveat. There may be a unique circumstance that could be identified where the commission might want to have the ACRS look at it. This legislation would not at all impose on the ability to do that if the commission felt that that review was needed.
Mariannette Miller-Meeks
So safety for the community would certainly be paramount in that situation.
Jeffrey Merrifield
Safety is paramount. I don't think this legislation does anything to erode that.
Mariannette Miller-Meeks
Mr. Harold, the conversation around nuclear energy is often framed as an energy policy issue, but increasingly it's also a matter of economic competitiveness, supply chain resilience, and national security. Today, Russia remains the dominant supplier in the global nuclear market, providing reactor technology, fuel services, financing, and long-term operational support to countries around the world. China is making significant investments to expand its nuclear footprint as part of a broader strategy to increase its economic and geopolitical influence. Given that reality, can you discuss why domestic deployment matters for American leadership abroad, specifically how does American success strengthen the ability of US companies to compete globally and provide allies with an alternative to Russia and China suppliers?
Jeremy Harrell
First and foremost, I think we've got the premier technologies here and folks want to work with the US. But the critical issue at the moment is we need to be able to deploy here and we need to be able to deploy efficiently. The NRC is a critical regulator that is recognized globally, so success going through that process is instrumental in confidence in doing this globally as well. So we have to do here first and meet our constituents' needs, obviously, or the US consumers' needs, and then we have products that we can then market abroad. Folks want to partner with the US.
These are century-long partnerships, and they're going to have confidence in this technology as entrepreneurs and innovators are racing to the commercial marketplace.
Jeffrey Merrifield
Congressman, I was in Rwanda two weeks ago at the ministerial meeting hosted by the President of Rwanda, 12 countries. The message was we want American technologies. Holtec, one I forgot to mention, a New Jersey-based company that has a 300-megawatt reactor, signed an agreement there for a cooperative agreement. That was great news. It wasn't a Chinese signing, it wasn't a Russian signing, it was an American company.
That's a good thing.
Mariannette Miller-Meeks
Well, I was going to say we used to be the leader in all nuclear energy and with the capacity to train nuclear engineers and then that stopped. I have a question for Ms. Korsnick, I'm going to submit it to the record to have you answer. And Mr. Merrifield, you testified that NRC is now more efficient, risk-informed, and results-oriented at any other point than in the past 20 years. Are restart applicants actually experiencing that cultural change in their interactions with NRC staff or is the improvement concentrated in the advanced reactor licensing divisions while the teams handling conventional license actions remain more conservative?
Jeffrey Merrifield
I think the licensing activities associated with Holtec's Palisades restart went quite well and were ahead of time. I would expect the lessons that the NRC staff learned from that would inure well to the benefit of the review that NextEra will have for Duane Arnold. I would expect that one would go very smoothly.
Thank you very much. I yield back.
Speaker 61
Thank you. With that, I want to thank Ranking Member Castor. We certainly want to thank all the witnesses for being here today and taking your time to spend with us. Members have additional written questions for you all. I'll remind members they may have, members may have additional written questions for you all.
I'll remind members they have 10 business days to submit additional questions for the record and I ask that witnesses do their best to submit responses within 10 business days upon receipt of those questions. I ask unanimous consent to insert in the record the documents included on the staff hearing documents list. Without objection, so ordered. Without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.