U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

92–332PDF 2015

THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

December 11, 2014 

Serial No. 113–99 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY WEBER, Texas 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

DAN MAFFEI, New York 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

DEREK KILMER, Washington 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC VEASEY, Texas 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

ROBIN KELLY, Illinois 

KATHERINE CLARK, Massachusetts 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

HON. CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming, Chair 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

RANDY WEBER, Texas 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

MARC VEASEY, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

KATHERINE CLARK, Massachusetts 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

December 11, 2014 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Cynthia Lummis, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 6 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 7 

Statement by Representative Eric Swalwell, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. 

House of Representatives .................................................................................... 8 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 9 

Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 9 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10 

Witnesses: 

PANEL I 

The Honorable Peter Lyons, Assistant Secretary, Office of Nuclear Energy, 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 11 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 13 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 21 

PANEL II 

Dr. Ashley Finan, Senior Project Manager, Energy Innovation Project, Clean 

Air Task Force 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 37 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 40 

Mr. Mike McGough, Chief Commercial Officer, NuScale Power 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 47 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 49 

Dr. Leslie Dewan, Co-founder and Chief Executive Officer, Transatomic 

Power 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 60 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 62 

Mr. Daniel Lipman, Executive Director, Policy Development, Nuclear Energy 

Institute 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 66 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 68 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 81 
Page

IV 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

The Honorable Peter Lyons, Assistant Secretary, Office of Nuclear Energy, 

U.S. Department of Energy ................................................................................. 86 

Dr. Ashley Finan, Senior Project Manager, Energy Innovation Project, Clean 

Air Task Force ...................................................................................................... 88 

Mr. Mike McGough, Chief Commercial Officer, NuScale Power ......................... 90 

Dr. Leslie Dewan, Co-founder and Chief Executive Officer, Transatomic 

Power ..................................................................................................................... 92 

Mr. Daniel Lipman, Executive Director, Policy Development, Nuclear Energy 

Institute ................................................................................................................ 93 
(1) 

THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY 

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Cynthia Lummis 

[Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. The hearing of the Subcommittee on Energy will come to order. 

Good morning and welcome to today’s joint hearing titled ‘‘The 

Future of Nuclear Energy.’’ In front of each Member are packets 

containing the written testimony, biographies, and truth-in-testimony disclosures for today’s witnesses. 

And before I give an opening statement, I would like to say that 

it has been my pleasure for the past two years to serve on a Committee that is Chaired by one of the most distinguished Members 

of Congress who has been the type of Chairman that every Member 

of Congress hopes that they will have the opportunity to serve with 

and under. Lamar Smith is a gentleman’s gentleman and has been 

one of the most wonderful people that a Subcommittee Chairman 

could have the opportunity to tutor under. 

This Committee has conducted I believe 87 hearings during the 

course of the last two years under Chairman Smith’s leadership 

and we have done it in a manner that has been respectful, that has 

sought information, allowed us to be better advocates and more 

knowledgeable Members of Congress. 

So I would like to start before I give my opening statement to 

take this opportunity to thank Chairman Smith for his leadership, 

his mentorship, and for his many years in Congress from which all 

of us who have worked with him and under him have benefited. 

Mr. WEBER. Will the gentlelady yield? 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. I will yield. 

Mr. WEBER. I have got to get ahead of our Chairman here. I just 

want to say ditto. 

Chairman SMITH. You all are nice. Would the Chair yield just for 

a minute? 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. The Chair will yield. 

Chairman SMITH. I just want to thank Cynthia Lummis for being 

an outstanding Subcommittee Chairman. We will miss her but always support her in her other committee assignments. And she has 

not only been an outstanding Chair, she has been an outstanding 

Member of Congress. She is knowledgeable, she is conscientious, 

she is thoughtful, she is diplomatic, but she is also strong, and 

those qualities have made Cynthia Lummis one of the outstanding 

Members of Congress that we have today. 

So, Cynthia, thank you very much for all you have done and 

thanks for spreading good rumors about me. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Members of this Committee which will participate under 

your leadership during the next Congress are fortunate indeed to 

have you as their leader and mentor. 

Well, good morning. And I would like to welcome our witnesses 

for today’s hearing. Today, we will look at the track record and 

road forward for research and development within DOE’s Office of 

Nuclear Energy. We will also look at the progress of nuclear energy 

technology in the United States and the regulatory environment for 

licensing new reactors. 

Nuclear power currently accounts for approximately 19 percent of 

the United States’ electricity generation and 60 percent of our 

emission-free electricity. And my home State of Wyoming is the na-
7 

tion’s largest producer of uranium. Nuclear energy is reliable, resilient, and has safely powered America for decades. 

But the fundamental questions about the future of this technology need to be answered: When will we see the commercialization of small modular nuclear reactors that can be deployed at offgrid locations, something of particular interest I might say from me 

coming from the most sparsely populated state in the United 

States. When will we see deployment of advanced reactors that can 

reach much higher levels of thermal efficiency, recycle nuclear 

waste, and serve as hybrid energy systems? And what are the regulatory and market barriers slowing down progress of these technologies in the United States? 

As many of us know, the time frame for bringing a nuclear reactor online is unforgivably long and so we must work together to 

make sure that we can make it more time-sensitive. 

Nuclear energy was born in the United States. We have the best 

scientists and engineers in the world. We are fortunate to have 

some of them here today. Yet we are not seeing the pace of commercial technology advancement that we would expect. At the same 

time, other countries, including China, are surging ahead. 

We have to ask ourselves: Is the United States going to remain 

a global leader in nuclear technology? These are the issues that we 

want to discuss today. I look forward to further discussion and 

again, I thank the witnesses for participating in today’s hearing. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Lummis follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

CHAIRWOMAN CYNTHIA LUMMIS

Good morning. I would like to welcome our witnesses to today’s hearing. Today, 

we will look at the track record and road forward for research and development 

within DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy. We will also look at the progress of nuclear 

energy technology in the United States and the regulatory environment for licensing 

new reactors. 

Nuclear power currently accounts for approximately 19% the United States’ electricity generation and 60% of our emission-free electricity. And, my home state of 

Wyoming is the nation’s largest producer of uranium. Nuclear energy is a reliable, 

resilient, and has safely powered America for decades. 

But, fundamental questions about the future of this technology need to be answered: 

• When will we see the commercialization of small modular reactors that can be 

deployed at offgrid locations? 

• When will we see deployment of advanced reactors that can reach much higher 

levels of thermal efficiency, recycle nuclear waste, and serve as hybrid energy 

systems? 

• What are the regulatory and market barriers slowing down progress of these 

technologies in the United States? 

Nuclear energy was born in the United States. We have the best scientists and 

engineers in the world. Yet, we are not seeing the pace of commercial technology 

advancement that we would expect. At the same time, other countries including 

China are surging ahead. 

We have to ask ourselves: is the United States going to remain a global leader 

in nuclear technology? These are the issues we intend to discuss today. I look forward to further discussion and again, I thank the witnesses for participating in today’s hearing. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. The Chair now recognizes our Ranking 

Member Mr. Swalwell for his opening statement. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Thank you, Chairman Lummis. 
8 

And first, I would also like to express my good wishes for you 

going forward. I have enjoyed working with you. You were very 

kind early on when we both were selected to lead our respective 

sides on this Subcommittee. And we met and we have talked about 

what our mutual interests are, I think especially in an all-of-theabove energy approach I do think you have led this Committee 

every time with an open mind, with dignity, and it is something 

that I will miss. But I know that there are many great things 

ahead for what you will do and the work you will accomplish in the 

Congress. 

So thank you for just being so gracious. Even during contentious 

hearings, you never ceased to allow both sides to be heard and you 

were always open, I think, to whatever ideas were out there that 

could move our country forward and I really do appreciate that. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. Thank you. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. SWALWELL. Yes. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. I, too, want to acknowledge what a proper 

and important and dignified and lovely working relationship that 

I have had with the Ranking Member Mr. Swalwell. It has been 

a breath of fresh air. And we are good partners on this Committee 

and I have very much enjoyed our working relationship and my 

very best to you. 

Mr. SWALWELL. And, Chair, I will never forget you asked me one 

time during a meeting—I told you I believe when it comes to energy if we can make it safe, we should make it happen, and you 

looked me in the eye and you said do you really believe that? And 

I said yes, I do. And you said I am going to put the screws to you 

on that and hold you to that and you have, and I appreciate that. 

And I hope we can find more ways where we both believe we can 

make it safe, we can make it happen. 

And speaking of making it safe and making it happen, with respect to today’s hearing, for decades, the federal government has 

provided critical support for energy R&D. And from solar and wind 

to natural gas recovery, many of the technologies that are helping 

us transition to a clean energy economy and creating entire new industries wouldn’t be nearly as far along as they are today, or would 

not exist without the benefit of the partnerships between the federal government and public and semi-public partnerships and entities. 

I look forward to learning more today about nuclear energy, particularly from our witness from NuScale power, who we will be 

hearing from today, who has been working with Sandia National 

Laboratory, which is located in Livermore, California, in the 15th 

Congressional District, which I have the privilege to represent. 

This morning we are here to discuss the federal role in the development and deployment of the next generation of nuclear power 

plants and how this support may be better structured going forward. I am eager to learn about the costs and benefits of these new 

technologies over the course of the hearing, including ways we can 

improve the safety of new reactors to minimize the chance of another catastrophic event along the lines of the disaster that occurred at the Fukushima plant just a few years ago. 

I have stated a number of times that I just referenced that I believe and support an all-of-the-above ‘‘if we can make it safe, we 
9 

should make it happen’’ approach to clean energy, and achieving a 

safer, more cost-effective and environmentally friendly way to utilize nuclear energy, and how that can play an important role in 

this mix. We just need to make sure that we are making the smartest investments we can with our limited, challenged resources and 

that they are in the best interest of the American people. 

Again, I want to thank the witnesses, particularly Dr. Lyons, 

today for being willing to provide their insights. I look forward to 

working with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and with 

all of the stakeholders in this critical, critical area moving forward. 

Again, thank you, Chairman Lummis, and I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Swalwell follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

RANKING MINORITY MEMBER ERIC SWALWELL

Thank you Chairman Lummis for holding this hearing, and I also want to thank 

this excellent panel of witnesses for their testimony and for being here today. 

For decades, the federal government has provided critical support for energy 

R&D. From solar and wind energy to natural gas recovery, many of the technologies 

that are helping us transition to a clean energy economy and creating entire new 

industries wouldn’t be nearly as far along as they are today, or would not exist at 

all, without the benefit of federal support and public-private partnerships. The same 

certainly holds true for nuclear energy and in fact, NuScale Power, who we’ll be 

hearing from today, has been working with Sandia National Laboratories. 

This morning we are here to discuss the federal role in the development and deployment of the next generation of nuclear power plants, and how this support may 

be better structured going forward. I’m eager to learn more about the costs and benefits of these new technologies over the course of the hearing—including ways we 

can improve the safety of new reactors to minimize the chance of another catastrophic event along the lines of the disaster that occurred at Fukushima just a few 

years ago. 

I have stated numerous times that I support an ‘‘all of the above’’ approach toward a clean energy economy and achieving safer, more cost-effective, and environmentally friendly ways to utilize nuclear energy can play an important role in this 

mix. We just need to make sure that we are making the smartest investments we 

can with our limited resources, and that they are in the best interests of the American people. I want to thank the witnesses again for being willing to provide their 

insights today, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on the other side 

of the aisle and with all of the stakeholders in this critical area moving forward. 

Thank you again, Chairman Lummis, and I yield back. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Swalwell. 

I now recognize the Chairman of the full Committee for a statement. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Today’s hearing will examine both current and future challenges 

and opportunities that face nuclear power. 

Nuclear power is a proven source of emission-free electricity that 

has been generated safely in the United States for over half a century. However, our ability to move from R&D to market deployment has been hampered by government red tape and partisan politics. We are just now seeing the first reactors under construction 

in more than 30 years. This hiatus has diminished our supply 

chain and ability to build new reactors. In fact, the United States 

no longer has the capability to manufacture large reactor pressure 

vessels. 

Today, we will hear from NuScale, a company that is the closest 

to navigating the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s licensing proc-
10 

ess to build and deploy the first small modular reactors in the 

United States, a subject that our colleague Dana Rohrabacher has 

long been interested in. 

We will also hear from Transatomic, a company recently formed 

by two graduate students from MIT that could revolutionize the energy sector. Transatomic’s technology would recycle spent nuclear 

fuel, achieve higher levels of efficiency than existing designs, and 

yield minimum radioactive byproducts. 

The United States has not lived up to its potential when it comes 

to nuclear energy. The regulatory process is cumbersome and lacks 

the certainty needed for sustained investment in new nuclear energy technology. I am hopeful that this hearing can serve as a 

forum for how to enable nuclear power to meet more of our energy 

needs. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FULL COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN LAMAR S. SMITH

Today’s hearing will examine both current and future challenges and opportunities that face nuclear power. 

We will first hear from the Department of Energy on its research and development (R&D) strategy to ensure the United States’ nuclear energy industry remains 

competitive. Our second panel will discuss the challenges that developers face in today’s regulatory environment. Nuclear power is a proven source of emission-free 

electricity that has been generated safely in the United States for over half a century. 

However, our ability to move from R&D to market deployment has been hampered 

by government red tape and partisan politics. We are just now seeing the first reactors under construction in more than 30 years. 

This hiatus has diminished our supply chain and ability to build new reactors. 

In fact, the United States no longer has the capability to manufacture large reactor 

pressure vessels. 

Today, we will hear from NuScale, a company that is the closest to navigating 

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s licensing process to build and deploy the first 

small modular reactors in the United States. 

We will also hear from Transatomic, a company recently formed by two graduate 

students from MIT that could revolutionize the energy sector. 

Tranastomic’s technology would recycle spent nuclear fuel, achieve higher levels 

of efficiency than existing designs, and yield minimal radioactive byproducts.The 

U.S. has not lived up to its potential when it comes to nuclear energy. The regulatory process is cumbersome and lacks the certainty needed for sustained investment in new nuclear energy technology. 

I am hopeful that this hearing can serve as a forum for how to enable nuclear 

power to meet more of our energy needs. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. I thank the Chairman. 

If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening 

statements, your statement will be added to the record at this 

point. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. It is now time to introduce our first witness panel. Our first witness today is thw Honorable Peter Lyons, 

Assistant Secretary for the Office of Nuclear Energy at the Department of Energy. Dr. Lyons previously served as Principal Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for the Office of Nuclear Energy. Prior to joining DOE, Dr. Lyons was the Commissioner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission focusing on safety and operating reactors. 

As our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited to 

five minutes each after which Members of the Committee have five 
11 

minutes each to ask questions. Your written testimony will be included in the record of the hearing. 

So without further ado I now recognize our witness Dr. Lyons. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE PETER LYONS, 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY, OFFICE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Mr. LYONS. Thank you very much. 

Chairman Lummis, Ranking Member Swalwell, and Members of 

the Committee, thank you for your invitation to testify at the Committee’s hearing today on the future of nuclear energy. 

Nuclear energy continues to play a vital role in President 

Obama’s all-of-the-above energy strategy for a sustainable clean energy future. Nuclear energy has provided nearly 20 percent of our 

electrical generation over the past two decades and now produces 

over 60 percent of our zero carbon electricity. 

In order for nuclear energy to continue this role, the Office of Nuclear Energy, or NE, focuses on programs to improve the reliability, 

performance, and operating lifetime of current reactors, support the 

deployment of affordable advanced reactors, develop a sustainable 

nuclear fuel cycle, maintain key infrastructure, and manage international collaborations. 

The current light water reactor, or LWR fleet, is challenged by 

economic conditions that contributed to the early closure of four reactors in 2013 in addition to the imminent retirement of the 

Vermont Yankee plant. The shutdown of these power plants is a 

significant loss of low carbon electricity. Nevertheless, we remain 

optimistic with the current construction of five nuclear reactors, 

four of which are the Westinghouse AP1000, a new generation of 

passively safe reactors. Two of these plants received over $6 billion 

in loan guarantees, and for future assistance, the Department recently released a $13 billion loan guarantee solicitation for advanced nuclear energy projects. 

In conjunction with industry and, more appropriate, the NRC, 

the LWR Sustainability Program supports the current fleet for possible license renewals beyond 60 years, and this program also addresses the lessons learned from the Fukushima Daiichi accident. 

A high priority of the Department is to accelerate the commercialization and deployment of small modular reactors or SMRs with 

our Cost-Shared Licensing Technical Support Program. SMRs can 

promote American competitiveness, create domestic manufacturing 

jobs, and help reduce CO2 emissions. The two small modular LWRs 

supported by the Department feature extremely impressive passive 

safety. 

Future reactor systems may employ advanced designs to improve 

performance beyond what is currently available. Coolants other 

than light water may enable reactors to operate at higher temperatures with improved efficiencies and economics, as well as optimize 

their waste forms. The Department has supported industrial R&D 

on these advanced reactor designs through cost-shared agreements, 

as well as supported R&D at national labs and universities. In addition, we also continue to leverage international experience 

through the Generation IV International Forum. 
12 

Progress towards a consent-based solution to managing the nation’s nuclear waste and used fuel remains a challenge that must 

be addressed. In January 2013 the Administration released its 

strategy for this task. And pursuant to that strategy, my office is 

undertaking activities within its existing authority to plan for the 

eventual transportation, storage, and disposal of used nuclear fuel, 

as well as R&D on related topics. 

By way of conclusion, any programs encompass all aspects of nuclear power including support for the nation’s 100 operating LWRs 

which remain a vital national resource of safe, clean energy but 

new plants are also needed. Past programs like the cost-shared NP 

2010 program provided two certify designs for passively safe, large 

LWRs, and in an analogous way, our current licensing technical 

support program strives to provide design certification for two 

SMRs. If we are successful with that program, the nation will have 

two complementary approaches to new plant construction well 

matched to the wide range of our domestic needs, as well as addressing international markets. 

In planning for future advanced reactors it is appropriate to remember the words of Hyman Rickover when he discussed the differences between paper and real reactors. He noted the challenges 

of bringing a new reactor design online are substantial and are 

hard to fully anticipate as the project is planned. His words are not 

a reason to forgo development of advanced reactors but they should 

remind us of the challenges inherent in such endeavors even 

though several of the advanced concepts have some operational history. 

In the United States we have comprehensive knowledge of 

LWRs. We can design and regulate them with highest confidence 

for safe operations. Today’s advanced concepts will be deployed 

only if they are based on the same confidence that we have today 

for LWRs. Research today should focus on providing that level of 

confidence for these new concepts for tomorrow. 

To use advanced reactors in the future we need to maintain a 

strong domestic nuclear energy industry, including utilities, with 

operational experience on nuclear systems. In the near term the 

latest generation of LWRs and the promising new SMRs must 

serve as an essential bridge between the reactors of today and the 

future potential for new reactor designs. And without that bridge 

any path towards non-light water reactors will be challenging. 

Thank you and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lyons follows:] 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. I thank the witness for his testimony. 

I will remind the Members that Committee rules limit questions 

to five minutes and the Chair at this point will open the questioning. 

Now, I want to set this up, Dr. Lyons, to see if I understand this 

correctly. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 established the Next Generation Nuclear Plant project, and as I understand that, it was to 

develop a prototype reactor for an eventual hybrid energy system. 

And it was supposed to be accomplished through cost-shared R&D, 

as well as design, construction, and operation on behalf of the Alliance. Now, is that a quick summary, an accurate summary of the 

NextGen Nuclear Plant project? 

Mr. LYONS. Yes. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. Okay. Then, it is also my understanding 

that DOE and the NextGen Nuclear Plant Alliance have reached 

somewhat of an impasse over cost-shared distribution, that the Alliance is asking the Department to frontload its portion of costshare while DOE maintains a cost-share at 50/50 throughout going 

from day one until it comes online. 

I understand also that there have been some successes thus far 

in this program, including the development of TRISO fuel, so I am 

very interested in knowing is there an impediment for DOE to exercise its authority to host, for example, private development of 

prototype reactors at a DOE site? 

Mr. LYONS. Thank you for those questions, all very good ones. 

And there are several different questions inherent in what you just 

asked. 

Your description of NGNP I believe is accurate. Very successful 

R&D has been conducted on that program. You mentioned TRISO 

fuel. We now have very high confidence in our ability to produce 

TRISO fuel to the highest standards and TRISO fuel is capable of 

withstanding extremely high temperatures in any accident scenario. It is an incredibly robust type of fuel which we believe can 

have applications in many, many future systems. There are other 

areas of strong research for NGNP. I am sorry, other areas of 

strong research that were conducted as part of NGNP. 

Now, you are also quite right that as we came to the point in our 

R&D programs where it became feasible to look towards actually 

moving ahead with a demonstration reactor, we asked our advisory 

committee to evaluate the status of the research. At the same time 

we were discussing with the NGNP alliance their interest in moving ahead. 

I might note that when we started the NGNP program, there 

were a number of studies which pointed out the cost efficiency of 

this approach for gas greater than $8, and when we started 

NGNP—and I have to admit I was one of the co-authors of the language—when we started that program, gas was way over $8. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. Yeah. 

Mr. LYONS. At the time we got close to being able to move towards a developmental program; that was definitely not the case. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. Um-hum. 

Mr. LYONS. And while, when we initially wrote the language, 

there was very strong interest from industry in looking towards the 

50/50 cost-share, as we moved towards the point in time when we 
22 

could have started into development, as you described correctly, 

their interest was in the DOE frontloading the expenses and they 

might—they would pick it up later if they deemed appropriate. 

That is not my understanding of the Congressional intent on costsharing as written in EPAct ’05, and furthermore, to accomplish 

what they would have suggested would have taken essentially the 

entire R&D budget of my office simply for NGNP. 

So we have continued the research on the TRISO fuels, the 

graphites, we have continued to work with and even to some extent 

support the NGNP Alliance as they look towards possible opportunities in the future. But this question of what is the appropriate 

cost-share certainly could be the subject of more discussion within 

Congress and exactly how the intent was to formulate that costshare, but in my mind, it is important to have strong industry support, as evidenced by cost-share, before one moves ahead to actually build a prototype reactor of any of these. 

You also, right at the end, asked the possibility of utilizing—I 

think you said DOE sites in moving ahead with advanced reactors. 

I think that is also a subject of great interest. We can certainly discuss it further. I am not aware of any fundamental impediments 

to that. There would be a number of challenges and I think we 

could talk through what those challenges might be if you wish. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. I would like to go there. Can you tell— 

oops, my time is expired. That went really fast. 

Chairman SMITH. You can have more time if you want. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. Oh, well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I do think that I will recognize Ms. Bonamici for five minutes. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, and 

thank you for allowing me to join you this morning even though I 

am on the full Committee, not on this Subcommittee. I wanted to 

be with you today, especially because of Mr. McGough from 

NuScale. But thank you so much, Dr. Lyons, for being here. 

I wanted to ask you, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 created the— 

of course the Next Generation Nuclear Plant project along with 

timelines for completing each of the project’s three phases. Apparently, there have been some barriers that have arisen. Can you just 

talk a little bit about the reasons for the delays in that project and 

then I want to save time for another question as well, please. 

Mr. LYONS. Thank you for the question. I think I tried to address 

some of that on the previous questions. 

I think the research on NGNP has gone extremely well. We have 

made dramatic progress. But as I indicated, at the time NGNP was 

formulated, there were many studies saying $8 gas was the breakeven point. We don’t have $8 gas today and we are way below the 

breakeven point. 

There—I also just alluded to the I would say difference in opinion between the NGNP Alliance and me, my office, on what it 

means to cost-share. Their proposal was that we construct the reactor and they would—and I am paraphrasing this greatly—but that 

we would construct the reactor and that they would decide later if 

they wished to build the actual systems, operational systems, and 

that over the long run one would achieve a 50/50 cost-share. 

My understanding of EPAct—I think it is Section 988 perhaps of 

EPAct—was that a cost-share means a continual cost-share over 
23 

the life of the program. Now, that could be subject to interpretation 

and certainly for evaluation by Congress. I hope that is at least a 

bit of an answer. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Yes, thank you for expanding on that. 

And then Mr. Swalwell in his opening remarks talked about the 

issue of safety, which of course our constituents are concerned 

about as well. And I represent a district out in the northwest 

where we spend a lot of time talking about resilience and what will 

happen. We are—we have the Cascadia Subduction Zone off our 

coastline and we are having a lot of conversations about how we 

deal with the eventual earthquake and tsunami. 

So can you talk a little bit about the lessons that the Department 

has learned from the Fukushima disaster, what work is being done, 

not necessarily just in siting but in structure, to make sure that 

there is that preparation for sites in areas like the Northwest 

where there will eventually be earthquakes and tsunamis? 

Mr. LYONS. Thank you for that question as well. 

If I were to start with the lessons—well, I could talk for days on 

the lessons of Fukushima. However, if I were to start with the single most important lesson it was on the importance of having an 

independent regulator. They—Japan did not have an independent 

regulator like the NRC. While I was at the NRC, there were many 

advances that were made in U.S. plants, for example, to prevent— 

to respond to a station blackout. We shared that information with 

the Japanese regulator at that time. The Japanese regulator did 

not elect to make those requirements on Japanese plants. Japan 

has now moved to an independent regulator away from their previous system where their regulator was part of METI and the I in 

METI is industry. So, number one lesson, have an independent regulator. We have one and I was proud to serve with the NRC. 

In terms of lessons from the actual events at Fukushima, certainly the NRC has evaluated those but I think it is also fair to 

say that our plants are extremely well prepared because of any 

number of requirements that we have required—that we had demanded of the nuclear industry. 

But specific areas of research on which we have—what we have 

expanded post-Fukushima, one would be so-called accident-tolerant 

fuels. The current generation of fuel systems use a zirconium cladding. Under accident conditions that creates hydrogen. When you 

have too much hydrogen, things blow up and there were—and that 

took a very bad day at Fukushima Daiichi into an absolute crisis. 

We believe it is possible to generate—and to come up with a new 

generation of fuel systems that would greatly minimize the production of hydrogen under an accident scenario. That has been very 

well supported in Congress, about 60 million a year. We have been 

making dramatic progress. 

Introducing a new fuel system is a big deal in the nuclear industry and that is going to take more than a decade to do this but we 

are making good progress. There are good ideas and it is my hope 

that we will start testing probably in 2018 on the initial—we will 

make some down-selects in 2016. We will have the first testing— 

trenchant testing in 2018 for accident-tolerant fuels. And if we can 

develop that, that will be another significant step forward. 
24 

But on other points—and I am sorry I am probably taking too 

much time here—you mentioned an interest in NuScale in the 

small module reactors. The fact that NuScale and any of the SMRs 

are—that we are interested in—are sited underground, it gives 

them substantially more seismic resistance. In addition, the design 

of the NuScale plant increases—it is a long word, the probabilistic 

risk assessment of the plant, the probability of an accident is many 

decades lower in the NuScale design. That plant is dramatically 

safer than our existing plants, which are already very safe. And 

again—— 

Ms. BONAMICI. Terrific. I look forward to hearing from Mr. 

McGough about that. 

My time is expired and thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. I thank the gentlelady and yield to the 

gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Let me continue following up on that same subject that was mentioned by the Chair a few minutes ago, that is to say the cost, but 

on the way there, Dr. Lyons, thank you for your encouraging remarks. You are being very positive. You are talking about how we 

can improve things for the future and that is what this hearing is 

all about. 

We have been told that sometimes it costs up to $1 billion to get 

through our NRC’s licensing process. Is there any way to reduce 

the cost of that? I have several questions. Is there any way to reduce the cost? Is there any way to streamline the process? Is there 

any way to make it easier to construct safe nuclear reactors in the 

future? 

Mr. LYONS. Thank you for that question, and again, there are 

many ways I can answer that question. 

The billion-dollar number is frequently used but let’s remember 

that that billion is far more than just what—than just the actual 

work done by the NRC. In order—under Part 52, the new licensing 

approach at the NRC, the vendor—and NuScale if you want to use 

them as an example—has to prepare a very complete design. They 

have to go way into the engineering details of the plant in order 

to answer all of the questions from the NRC under Part 52. Now, 

under Part 52 the goal is that you end up with a certified design, 

and once you have that certified design, as long as you stay with 

it, then you don’t go back through the safety analysis again. And 

that is believed to be a very effective way of advancing nuclear 

power in this country. 

Chairman SMITH. So part of the cost is the design which they 

would have to do anyway, is that what you are saying? 

Mr. LYONS. Yes. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. 

Mr. LYONS. And I think it is fair that we talk about a billion that 

we recognize—— 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. 

Mr. LYONS. —that that is included but at the end of the game 

you end up with success with a certified design but then you can 

take to any site in the country and not go back through the safety 

analysis. 
25 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. And let me follow up again on those 

other questions. I think it takes close to, what, five years to get 

through the regulatory process now? I am not sure how many years 

but that is what I have read but how can we expedite the process? 

It just seems to me that if we are trying to accomplish the good 

designs, if we are trying to increase nuclear energy, there is bound 

to be a way to try to actually encourage companies to go that direction and to not unduly prolong the process. 

Mr. LYONS. As the NRC has evaluated the SMR designs, they 

have published a schedule of 39 months that they intend to follow 

once an application is filed. That remains to be tested and I am 

certainly hoping they will succeed. 

You asked what could possibly be done to improve that. I would 

note that NuScale, as one of the SMRs that we are supporting, has 

taken advantage of the so-called pre-licensing process in which 

they can submit white papers to the NRC on specific design aspects 

and gain comments back from the NRC. I think that is a very effective way of perfecting a design. 

If you ask me for one possible improvement in that, right now, 

the NRC delivers an informal opinion on those white papers. I 

think one could imagine that it could be even more useful to companies like NuScale or mPower if it was a formal decision, and that 

might be a question that you address through NuScale—— 

Chairman SMITH. How much time would that save? 

Mr. LYONS. Well, I think what it would do would be to provide 

far more confidence to a vender that what they have submitted in 

a white paper and had some pre-analysis is actually going to be accepted. Right now, there is 30 or more white papers that are put 

in, they have got comments on all of them, but they don’t have the 

confidence that there won’t be a change later when the commission 

evaluates it. 

Again, this is just a suggestion and it certainly would be appropriate to discuss with NuScale and with the NRC. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. And is this a subject that you are discussing with NRC? You have some control over what they do. Are 

you encouraging them to expedite the process and reduce the cost 

if it is possible? 

Mr. LYONS. Well, we continue to have frequent interactions with 

the NRC on all of our programs and keep them as informed as we 

can on the directions that we are going—— 

Chairman SMITH. Yeah. 

Mr. LYONS. —and asking how we—how our research can help 

them. 

Chairman SMITH. Yeah. I guess I am looking to see if you will 

go beyond just keeping them informed and actually try to spur 

them to take some steps to reduce the cost and the time involved 

with the licensing process. 

Mr. LYONS. The reason I am giving you a delicate answer is they 

are an independent agency. They highly value their independence. 

I know that having served there. And I think one probably wants 

to be a little bit judicious in how strongly one makes suggestions 

that could be interpreted as undermining their independence. 
26 

And I just made the comment, too, about the importance of an 

independent regulator to avoid a Fukushima, too, so it is important. 

Chairman SMITH. Independent agencies need oversight and suggestions as well so—— 

Mr. LYONS. And certainly that is—yes. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Dr. Lyons. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. The Chair now recognizes another Member 

of the Texas delegation, Mr. Veasey. 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I wanted to talk with you a little bit about the stages for licensing advanced reactors. We have received testimony that there 

should be stages of review by the NRC similar to how the FDA has 

three phases of review before a new drug is allowed to go out onto 

the marketplace. The argument is that this would provide much 

earlier and a clearer signal to investors that a new nuclear technology is meeting or failing criteria set by the NRC. As a former 

NRC Commissioner do you have any thoughts on this? 

Mr. LYONS. Well, thank you for that question and I would go 

back to my comment of just a few minutes ago on the pre-licensing 

reviews. I think those are an extremely effective way of a company 

testing the waters if you will, starting to raise appropriate questions with the NRC, and gaining feedback from the staff. 

Now, this—also the suggestion I made just a minute ago was I 

think it would be worth discussing with the NRC whether to carry 

it out a little bit further and instead of just a staff opinion that 

comes back maybe asking if that opinion have a little bit more 

weight so that the—a potential vendor would have more confidence 

that if they stay with a particular design aspect that it will be accepted by the Commission later on. So I think that is at least an 

approach towards the question you have asked. 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you very much. As far as the commercialization of advanced reactors again, what do you believe are the necessary components of a public-private partnership that can ultimately take these advanced reactors from the lab to the marketplace? 

Mr. LYONS. At least one example has been the NP 2010 Program, 

highly successful program that Congress supported for a number of 

years which was cost-shared with both Westinghouse and GE and 

has led to certified designs. We are trying to do exactly the same 

thing with the small modular reactors. We may get to the point 

where there is sufficient maturity of some of the non-light water 

designs that it would be—that Congress might want to consider 

that in the future. 

In any case, my point would be that the cost-shared—that the 

cost-shared work towards design certification has already proven to 

be very successful. In the case of NP 2010 in the case of the SMRs, 

at present we have not asked for support beyond the design certification anticipating that at that point there is sufficient information 

for industry to make their own decisions and, of course, the loan 

guarantee program that the Department has also consists in this. 
27 

Whether one can go still further, one could if that were deemed 

appropriate from a Congressional standpoint, and certainly cost 

would escalate appropriately. 

Mr. VEASEY. What about steps that commercial vendors and utilities need to take to ensure their ability to accept advanced reactor 

technology as part of their energy portfolio? 

Mr. LYONS. I think part of that answer will be addressed by Dan 

Lipman in his testimony on the next panel. I found his testimony 

very interesting where he notes that industry has formed a working group now devoted to advanced reactor technologies. That is 

somewhat analogous to what they did during the time when we 

were working on design certification of the Westinghouse and GE 

reactors. They have a similar model that they are using now on the 

small modular reactors and I think in general having industry organize to explore their own interests in any particular reactor design is highly advantageous. 

Mr. VEASEY. Madam Chair, thank you very much. I yield back 

my time. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman and recognize the 

gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you. 

Dr. Lyons, as you know, the United States has engaged in ongoing climate negotiations with the U.N., final agreement expected in 

Paris 2015. Do you believe that the benefits of nuclear power 

should be specifically recognized in the UNFCCC agreement to be 

reached in Paris? 

Mr. LYONS. I guess I would answer, Mr. Weber, that certainly 

the benefits of clean energy need to be recognized. Whether nuclear 

needs to be called out specifically in that, I don’t have an opinion. 

There are many, many studies showing that in order to achieve the 

clean energy desired in the future that nuclear will be a significant 

part. 

Mr. WEBER. Do you know of any other energy as reliable and capable of producing the kind of megawatts necessary as nuclear energy? 

Mr. LYONS. Well, that is why any of the studies that I am referencing, for example, the recent World Energy Outlook from the 

International—IEA, International Energy Agency, notes the importance of a strong nuclear component looking into the future for exactly that reason. 

Mr. WEBER. So that is kind of a roundabout way of saying yes? 

Mr. LYONS. Well, again, I am saying I don’t think that you can 

achieve what we need without nuclear but I also think—— 

Mr. WEBER. But I mean the importance of recognizing it in the 

agreement reached in Paris? 

Mr. LYONS. The only reason I am hesitating, sir, is that different 

communities, different regions, different countries are going to 

have different mixes of power appropriate to whatever their situation is. 

Mr. WEBER. Yeah, but let’s focus—— 

Mr. LYONS. So I don’t want to—— 

Mr. WEBER. Let’s focus on the United States, though. 

Do you think emissions—let me back up. What role will nuclear 

play in meeting global emissions targets that we can expect in the 
28 

agreement in Paris? I mean we have already talked about 60 percent of the energy would—basically zero emissions so would you expand on that a little bit for us? 

Mr. LYONS. Well, I would just again note that any study I have 

seen—I happened to reference the World Energy Outlook that was 

published just recently—certainly notes that nuclear is going to 

have to play a strong role—— 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. 

Mr. LYONS. —as we look forward into—to reach the goals that 

are in—that are—— 

Mr. WEBER. Sure. 

Mr. LYONS. —required. 

Mr. WEBER. So that is to say that you don’t believe those targets 

could be reached without nuclear when you say it has to play a 

strong role? 

Mr. LYONS. That is—I believe that is true and that is consistent 

with the President’s all-of-the-above strategy. 

Mr. WEBER. Do you know if the new Green Climate Fund for 

international mitigation efforts can be used to support nuclear 

projects? 

Mr. LYONS. I do not know, sir. . 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Do you believe it should be used to support 

nuclear projects? Noting your earlier comments, you can’t reach 

those targets without nuclear. 

Mr. LYONS. I know so little about that fund that I hesitate, sir. . Mr. WEBER. Yeah. 

Mr. LYONS. I mean in general, yes, I think nuclear should be recognized for its clean energy—. 

Mr. WEBER. But you do get paid to work—you do get the money, 

right, so you know a little bit about money, and so if we have got 

dollars being spent for Green Climate Fund and nuclear is—you 

said you can’t reach that target without nuclear, doesn’t that make 

sense that some of that fund should perhaps be used to support nuclear projects? 

Mr. LYONS. Again, I am not sufficient—nuclear is going to be a 

part of a future solution. I don’t know enough about that fund to 

give you a credible answer, sir. . 

Mr. WEBER. Well, it is dollars for Green Climate Fund and it 

seems like we ought to be including nuclear in that. 

Let’s change over to Yucca Mountain for a second. In a letter to 

NRC Chairman Macfarlane dated November 18, 2014, from Senator Patty Murray, she stated ‘‘Over the last 30 years, independent 

studies have pointed to Yucca Mountain as the nation’s best option 

for a nuclear repository for high-level waste. At the same time, 

Congress in every previous Administration have voted for, funded, 

and supported pursuing this option. The recent completion of Volume 3 of SER reaffirms that Yucca Mountain is the right solution 

for the United States.’’ Do you agree with Senator Murray? 

Mr. LYONS. The fact that the SER Volume 3 stated the safety 

from a post-closure standpoint of Yucca Mountain is not a surprise. 

The Department submitted our application for Yucca Mountain in 

2008. It doesn’t change the fact that we believe—I believe strongly 

that Yucca Mountain is not a workable solution and I would be 
29 

happy to go into that in as much detail as you would like. I have 

spent a lot of my career involved with Yucca Mountain. 

Mr. WEBER. Are you familiar with the Waste Control Specialists 

site low-level radiation out in Andrews, Texas? 

Mr. LYONS. I have visited them multiple times. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. What is the difference between a low-level radiation and high-level radiation, notwithstanding the obvious? 

When you use fuel rods, for example, we expend most of them and 

I understand France has a method for reclaiming a lot of that energy—what is the difference between low-level waste and high-level 

waste? Can you expand on that? And I am out of time but if you 

can do that quickly. 

Mr. LYONS. In this country we have a definition of high-level 

waste that refers to its use in a reactor and ties it to used fuel. 

However, the—a simpler definition is simply as you said; it is kind 

of obvious. One is low and one is high-level radiation. As far as 

France—and we could talk about France a great deal if you want 

in the future—— 

Mr. WEBER. But when you use fuel in nuclear reactors, do we not 

try to use up all of that energy and all of that fuel? 

Mr. LYONS. With our current generation of light water reactors 

we come nowhere close to using the full energy content of the fuel 

resource. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. 

Mr. LYONS. That is one of the advantages of advanced reactors. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 

Swalwell. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And, Mr. Lyons, as you know, I represent Lawrence Livermore 

National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratory in Livermore, 

California, and while these labs do not work directly on nuclear energy, I know that Sandia, for example, played an important role in 

the accident response and after-accident analysis with respect to 

Fukushima. And I was hoping you could tell us about the role our 

national labs are playing to keep us safe, as well as how important 

it is that our national laboratory system advances science, and how 

DOE is utilizing our national labs to ensure that we are doing everything we can to keep existing reactors safe. 

Mr. LYONS. Thank you, Mr. Swalwell. 

There is no question that our national laboratories are an incredible national resource for science and technology. I make extensive 

use of all of the national laboratories in my program. Livermore is 

not one of the predominant ones. Sandia is. You mentioned 

Sandia’s very strong capabilities in severe accident management 

and a number of other areas that are ongoing at Sandia and I have 

extensive funding at Sandia. 

But in general the national labs are a vital resource and I make 

extensive use of them. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Great. And, Mr. Lyons, I and many people in my 

district have strong concerns about the safety of nuclear energy 

and I was hoping you could tell us about the research that the De-
30 

partment of Energy is conducting to improve existing technology 

and make our nuclear plants safe. 

Mr. LYONS. The—I would first start with the Accident-Tolerant 

Fuel Program that I mentioned a little bit earlier. The national 

labs, industry, and universities are heavily involved in the Accident-Tolerant Fuels Program where we are seeking to develop a 

class of fuels that would ideally not emit hydrogen, at least emit 

far less hydrogen in an accident scenario. And it was the hydrogen 

explosions at Fukushima Daiichi that took a very bad situation 

into a catastrophe. 

Mr. SWALWELL. And, Mr. Lyons, could you talk more about 

Sandia’s nuclear accident modeling software MELCOR? 

Mr. LYONS. MELCOR has been vital throughout the industry. I 

was over at—in Tokyo within days of Fukushima, as were leaders 

from the Sandia Severe Accident Program. MELCOR was used extensively post-Fukushima. We continue to use MELCOR. MELCOR 

is the prime code used in this country for severe accidents and both 

we and the NRC use it extensively. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Great. Thank you, Dr. Lyons, and I yield back 

the balance of my time. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. 

Massie. 

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Chair, I just want to say thank you and 

thank you for letting me serve on your Subcommittee. It has been 

a pleasure serving here for you and with you on the Oversight 

Committee. I will note that one of your questions went viral on 

YouTube the other day on Oversight. If only we could get something in the Energy Subcommittee to go viral. Maybe we need to 

bring a working reactor here for that to happen. That might get it 

done. 

I have always been a supportive of an all-of-the-above energy 

plan both in public life and in my private life. I started a company 

right off the MIT campus and the directions to our company were 

take a right at the nuclear reactor and a left at the candy factory. 

So we were never worried about the safety of that. 

I was astounded; I looked at the cost of that nuclear reactor. It 

only cost $3 million to build that in 1956. Yeah. But even accounting for inflation that was astounding and there is something wrong 

about the price of nuclear energy right now, the fact that it costs 

so much to build a new plant these days. 

You know, in my personal life I drive a Tesla. It is an electric 

car but it has Friends of Coal license plates just so people know 

where the energy comes from. To balance out the karma there I 

live off the grid. I just added 3 kilowatts of solar panels to my 10 

kilowatt array, and I used to work in an oil refinery. 

But I find it disturbing that the State of Kentucky has a moratorium on building any nuclear plants and I think that is a problem, 

I think it is wrong, and I think it is to the detriment of the citizens 

of Kentucky unfortunately. 

But, there is sort of public opinion about this and the elephant 

in the room here is what do we do with the nuclear waste? And 

I think Mr. Weber asked you earlier about Yucca Mountain and 

that is sort of my question. We see trucks going through the dis-
31 

trict that have canisters that have nuclear material in them. What 

are we going to do about the nuclear waste? If the answer is not 

Yucca Mountain, what is the answer? 

Mr. LYONS. The Administration published a strategy in January 

of 2013 based on the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission. 

Mr. MASSIE. What is your recommendation? 

Mr. LYONS. I think the Blue Ribbon Commission had fabulous 

suggestions, to move ahead with a consent-based process. And I 

think that if there was a legislative basis to move ahead with a 

consent-based process—— 

Mr. MASSIE. What does that mean for my constituents back 

home, consent-based process? What is the answer is what we want 

to know? And I only have two minutes and I know it is more complicated than that. 

Mr. LYONS. I think consent basis means frankly exactly the opposite of the Yucca Mountain situation. I grew up in Nevada, worked 

in Nevada, worked at the test site, worked with Yucca Mountain, 

directed the research on Yucca Mountain. I know it rather well. 

But I also am well aware that the Nuclear Policy Waste Act 

amendments of ’87 are viewed in Nevada as the ‘‘screw Nevada’’ 

bill. There was never a consent basis at—in Nevada for the—for 

Yucca Mountain and it has led to a rather—to say it is polarized 

is putting it mildly. 

Mr. MASSIE. If the—— 

Mr. LYONS. On a consent basis we would avoid that. 

Mr. MASSIE. If nuclear energy is going to flourish and remain a 

viable option for us, we have to solve this problem. Do we have 

time to do this consent-based process? Or, I am sorry, consensus? 

Mr. LYONS. Well, I would submit that if we don’t do a consentbased process, we will have rate difficulties ever succeeding. So 

the—we—the current storage of the used fuel in pools and dry 

casks is safe but there is no question that that is not a long-term 

solution. And eventually we need to move, I believe, as the BR— 

Blue Ribbon Commission said, to centralized interim storage and 

to a repository but doing it on a consent basis. And there are a 

number of communities, in some cases even states that have expressed interest in being considered for housing such facilities. And 

I think if we tried on a consent basis, discussed how this could be 

done with the utmost attention to safety, I think we could succeed. 

Mr. MASSIE. I think we have to succeed with doing something 

with the waste because this is the elephant in the room, what are 

you going to do with it? And this is what drives public opinion I 

think. I am convinced that the safety issue has been solved but 

clearly dealing with the waste has not been solved. 

Let me switch to a lighter topic because I would be remiss if you 

were here and I didn’t get a chance to ask this question for my constituents who are always asking me about this. Does thorium have 

a place in our nuclear future? 

Mr. LYONS. We have evaluated thorium-based cycles many, many 

times. Given that we have made a massive commitment in this 

country to a uranium-based cycle, I see no compelling reason to 

move towards a thorium cycle. I— 
32 

Mr. MASSIE. If we weren’t so heavily invested though in this 

path, does it make sense? I mean does it make sense in other countries that—— 

Mr. LYONS. If you are starting from scratch, I think one could 

make a decision to go either way but some of the claimed advantages for thorium, which I hear frequently from people who would 

like us to put more money into thorium such as that it is proliferation-resistant, are simply false. There was a recent report done by 

the Nuclear Energy Agency of the OECD on thorium systems 

which certainly made this point, that they are anything but proliferation-resistant. 

Can you make them work? Yes, you can make them work. Is 

there an advantage to doing it? I haven’t seen it. 

Mr. MASSIE. Thank you very much. I—my time is expired. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman, recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Neugebauer. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Dr. Lyons, according to recent reports from some of the NGO organizations that there is a significant chance that nuclear power 

plants may close as a result of low natural gas prices and renewable energy subsidies, to what extent has DEO—DOE assessed 

those scenarios? 

Mr. LYONS. We have studied that, sir, in considerable detail. We 

are very concerned that the closure of any clean energy resource 

in the nation only complicates our eventual quest for a—an overall 

clean energy system. As we have evaluated the reasons for some 

of those closures and some of the economic pressures, we have yet 

to identify a federal lever that could be used to protect those plans. 

Most of what can be done is on a State basis and there are widely 

publicized negotiations going on in a number of States, certainly Illinois and New York would be two very prominent, where there are 

negotiations at the State level that might involve power purchase 

agreements as one example in order to keep marginally economic 

nuclear power plants online under the current market system. 

There also are efforts, for example, in PJM region to move towards a so-called capacity auction that would do a better job of valuing the attributes of nuclear, that it is always there, very reliable, 

highly resilient, very important in maintaining overall good stability. Those are not attributes that are currently valued as perhaps they might be and it is—these questions of how the markets 

value nuclear power remains a complex issue but I think that PJM 

in their region of the country are starting to ask these very important questions. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. So I guess one of the questions—and do we 

have conflicting policy in some way where we are subsidizing other 

renewables and so making it difficult to actually have price discovery of what is the market, for example, power because we are 

distorting that in some ways with some of these subsidies? 

Mr. LYONS. Well, I think it is fair to note that there is a number 

of different factors that are entering into these questions. Certainly 

low natural gas prices, while a tremendous boon for the country, 

also are at least challenging to any of the clean energy systems. 

There is also flat or decreasing electrical demand in many parts of 

our country as more and more efficiency measures are coming into 
33 

play. That, too, makes it very difficult, so there is a number of different stresses on the nuclear power plants. And particularly for 

the relatively small single unit sites, they are the ones under the 

greatest stress and those are the ones that, as I indicated, that we 

have been discussing whether there is a direct federal action and 

we haven’t found it yet. We are still—if we find it, that would certainly be interesting. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. So on one of the things that I guess—and I am 

always a little reluctant to point out France but one of the things 

that they have done over the years, they have a pretty robust nuclear presence over there and one of our opportunities to sit down 

with some of the people over there—and of course they recycle a 

lot of their nuclear waste and to the point where they—as I understand it—I am—don’t understand all of the science of it but they 

reprocess a lot of the—and what they basically said is that we keep 

reprocessing and reprocessing and reprocessing and so the volume 

ultimately that we dispose is much smaller. Is that something that 

the United States should be thinking about? 

Mr. LYONS. Well, first, we have robust programs looking at R&D 

on advanced reprocessing. 

Reprocessing certainly opens many questions, including nonproliferation and environmental ones. It is fair to say that the type 

of reprocessing that is done in France at La Hague would not be 

licensed in the United States with the level of emissions that they 

have. It also would be somewhat misleading to say that they reprocess over and over. They reprocess once, go to MOX fuel, and 

then they are storing the MOX fuel. 

Now, their eventual goal is to move towards fast reactors and 

closing the fuel cycle. They are a long ways from doing that but 

they are going at least one step of reprocessing and at least—I 

would—I think I have made the point that from—our concerns 

would be both from an environmental and nonproliferation standpoint, which is why we have the research programs to continue to 

evaluate options looking into the future. And I think the country 

may at some point want to evaluate whether they want to move 

towards a closed cycle, but in my mind that would be made after 

one has demonstrated a repository because you need a repository 

whether it is an open or a closed cycle. France still needs a repository. They are building one. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman. 

And the Chair without objection will recognize Mr. Rohrabacher 

from California for five minutes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

And let me congratulate you on a tour of duty here on this Committee and you have done us proud and served your country well 

with the leadership you have provided, and we wish you all the 

luck and we will be working with you on your new assignment as 

well. 

So I am a bit disturbed by some of the directions that we are 

talking about today and I know we have had this exchange before 

and it just seems to me that when we talk about the development 

of Next Generation Nuclear Power Plants and as we are stepping 

forward, the words light water reactor continue to be part of the 

game. And I have been told by numerous engineers, renowned en-
34 

gineers, people who know what they are doing and—who tell me 

that we now are capable of building nuclear power plants, for example, General Atomics has a plan for a high temperature gascooled reactor that can be done and that we have small modular 

reactors because—various sizes, but yet—and that reactor would 

be—and I am sure—and I have talked to other scientists and engineers about other approaches and they—I don’t know—you suggested that—this—oh, this thing about thorium is that some of the 

claims are not true, but there are a number of approaches that I 

have been told would eliminate the leftover waste problem, which 

is a huge challenge for us to overcome before the public is going 

to accept further investment into nuclear energy. 

But every time I hear about—coming back—what will be built, 

again, it is light water reactors. So this money that you are talking 

about now being expended will go to light water reactors which 

have some of the same defects that we have experienced with 

Fushimora? I guess I am not pronouncing it right—Fukushima. 

And I don’t understand what is going on here. Why are we spending money to build basically reactors based on the same concept 

that Fukushima was built on and that we have been building ever 

since World War II? 

Mr. LYONS. Well, thank you for the question, sir, and there certainly could be many answers to that. 

The reactors that we are—that we have supported through the 

NP 2010 program or that we are supporting through the SMR program—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Um-hum. 

Mr. LYONS. —are certainly very, very different from Fukushima. 

They are dramatically safer than Fukushima and we could certainly talk about those differences. 

However, they are light water reactors. I agree with you on that 

point. We have in this country, we have in the world tremendous 

expertise on light water reactors and I don’t question that there 

will be, I hope, a time in the future when we do move towards advanced reactors. They appear—by advanced I mean non-light 

water. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Mr. LYONS. There certainly are a number of attributes that we 

can list that they should be able to demonstrate but I also think 

there is going to be more research required to get to that point. 

And, as I said in my opening statement, I believe that the light 

water reactors for the foreseeable future will be a bridge between 

the industry of today and an industry of tomorrow that will be able 

to handle and utilize the advanced reactors. 

And I also—some of the other comments—there was the reference to the working group being formed within the Nuclear Energy Institute to explore advanced reactors, which I think is also 

very important to get industry— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. See, I don’t see that as a bridge to anywhere 

else. What I see is this is a castle around the current establishment. I mean what we have got is not a bridge to tomorrow but 

a protection of the status quo. I mean your very analysis of what 

is going on here is we have so much expertise in the current system that it—protecting their jobs of people who now have that ex-
35 

pertise and spent a lifetime developing it, there is something to be 

said to be humane to those people, but the fact is we need to have 

a step forward—human progress needs a nudge here, and I understand people are going to lose their jobs who don’t know the new 

type of way of producing electricity. 

It seems to me what we have, Madam Chairman, is a status quo 

of people who are credentialed, they have spent their lifetime 

learning about it, they are expert, they can be put on consulting 

contracts, and they don’t want to change the status quo and that 

is why we don’t ever come up with the money—we are coming up 

with a bridge but we never come up with the money to get across 

the bridge. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. By unanimous consent, the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Broun. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question or two, and I appreciate the opportunity to be here and thank you for serving on my Committee to 

and this same Committee. 

But, Dr. Lyons, I am a physician from Georgia, and as you know, 

Georgia Power Company is building the first licensed reactor that 

has been approved in I guess three or four decades, and it seems 

to me that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been a huge 

hindrance for Georgia Power to be able to build this and it is going 

to cost Georgians a tremendous amount of money. 

And it seems to me also that there should be a way for NRC and 

for DOE to have some basic schematic or preapproved plans that 

could be put out there for companies like Georgia Power Company 

or any of the Southern Company or any of the other power company in this country to be able to go ahead without having to expend so much money to get approval and have all the stoppages 

that have occurred over and over again. 

For the name of peace, please, I beg of you try to put together 

some way that the power companies can build these reactors. I am 

a huge advocate of nuclear energy and I want to see these advanced reactors, and as we go forward with these advanced reactors, the government can be a hindrance. That is what my friend 

from California was talking about. 

Is there any reason whatsoever that we cannot have some kind 

of a preapproved schematic or preapproved plans that NRC and 

DOE can approve and we can put these—not only the current type 

reactors in place but as well as the advanced reactors? 

Mr. LYONS. Well, thank you for your question, Mr. Broun. I can 

perhaps address some aspects of that, although the majority of 

your question really is appropriate for the NRC. 

However, as far as preapproved plans, the Vogtle plant is being 

built on a preapproved Part 52 design-certified AP1000. 

Mr. BROUN. I understand that but over and over again NRC has 

caused stoppage after stoppage after stoppage, and this kind of 

thing is going to cost Georgians a tremendous amount of money. 

How can we get through this? 

Mr. LYONS. Well, the idea of Part 52 is that once one has the design certification that it will be built per the way it is spelled out 
36 

in the design search. To the extent that there is a departure from 

that, then the—Georgia Power in this case has to go back to the 

NRC to ask whether whatever change is being made is acceptable. 

I know the NRC is working on ways to streamline this process. I 

don’t know the details since it is over in the NRC now and I am 

quite removed from that. But I do believe that the overall Part 52 

design certification approach is the best way for the country to 

move forward to have certified designs where it is agreed upon upfront exactly what is going to be built, build it, and then proceed 

to operate it. 

Mr. BROUN. Well, I promised the Chairman that I was not going 

to take a lot of time and I appreciate your answer. 

And I beg of NRC, as well as DOE, let’s make it so that we can 

build these nuclear plants, that we can develop the advanced reactors, and we can do so in a very cost-effective way without costing 

the taxpayers, as well as ratepayers, so much money. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. I thank the witness for his valuable testimony. 

And the Members of the Committee may have additional questions and we would ask you to respond to those in writing. 

So thank you, Dr. Lyons, and you are excused. 

And we will now move to our next panel. 

Now, let me give you a little notice about our schedule. It looks 

like we are going to have a vote series coming up in 10 to 15 minutes possibly. We would like to expedite the efforts to hear what 

this second panel has to say so we are going to move quickly into 

your testimony. 

This vote series is going to be long and rather than hold you here 

waiting for us to return, we would like to hear your testimony and 

then invite you back early next year so we can ask you questions 

about the matters to which you will be testifying. 

So without further ado, it is time to introduce our second panel. 

Our first witness is Dr. Ashley Finan, Senior Project Manager of 

The Energy Innovation Project at the Clean Air Task Force. Dr. 

Finan manages the Advanced Nuclear Energy Project. 

I would like now to ask Ms. Bonamici to introduce our second 

witness. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Lummis, for 

allowing me to participate in the hearing and I thank my colleagues on the Subcommittee who have invited Mr. McGough. 

Thank you for being here. Mr. Swalwell and Mr. Veasey were kind 

enough to invite me to introduce you. 

And to Mr. McGough, thank you for your willingness to share 

your considerable knowledge on this issue. Mr. McGough is a 36- 

year veteran of the commercial nuclear industry. He has overseen 

the development of nuclear facilities around the globe. Now, he is 

helping an innovative Oregon company develop a safer approach to 

nuclear power. 

NuScale Power is a leader in the developing field of small modular reactor, or SMR, technology. It is based in Corvallis, Oregon. 

My colleagues in the Oregon delegation and I have supported 

NuScale’s efforts to secure Department of Energy funding for their 
37 

design development because we see their approach as offering a 

safer alternative to current reactor designs. 

I was pleased to see that the funding bill for Fiscal Year 2015 

includes programmatic funding at the DOE that supports 

NuScale’s design development. Following the earthquake and tsunami in Japan in 2011, my constituents expressed serious concerns 

about safety issues and I am very proud to have an Oregon company working to develop a safe approach to this problem. 

And because I am also on the Education Committee I do want 

to point out that Oregon is home to the only research reactor operated primarily by undergraduate students. The research reactor at 

Reed College since 1968 has 40 licensed students operating it. 

So, Mr. McGough, thank you for coming here from Oregon and 

for appearing before us today. I look forward to your testimony and 

I yield back. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. I thank the gentlewoman. 

And our third witness is Dr. Leslie Dewan, cofounder and Chief 

Executive Officer at Transatomic Power. Dr. Dewan was recently 

named one of Time Magazine’s 30 people under 30 changing the 

world. Welcome, Dr. Dewan. 

Our final witness today is Dr. Daniel Lipman, Executive Director 

of Policy Development at the Nuclear Energy Institute. 

Now, as our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited 

to five minutes each. Hopefully, we will have time after the vote 

series to ask you some questions but that remains to be seen. So 

we are going to play it by ear. 

Thank you so much, panel. Your written testimony will be included in the record of this hearing. 

So I now recognize our first witness, Dr. Finan. Welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. ASHLEY FINAN, 

SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER, ENERGY INNOVATION PROJECT, 

CLEAN AIR TASK FORCE 

Dr. FINAN. Thank you. 

Chairman Lummis, Ranking Member Swalwell, and distinguished Members of this Subcommittee, thank you for holding this 

hearing and for giving me the opportunity to testify. 

My name is Ashley Finan, Project Manager for Energy Innovation at the Clean Air Task Force. Clean Air Task Force is a nonprofit environmental organization dedicated to catalyzing the development and deployment of low emission energy technologies 

through research and analysis, public advocacy, leadership, and 

partnership with the private sector. 

Climate change is an enormous challenge. To have the greatest 

chance of success, CATF’s position is that we will need all of the 

low carbon energy technologies available, including nuclear power. 

While nuclear technology has made big incremental improvements in the last decade and is suitable for deployment, it still 

faces obstacles. Advanced reactors can address those by reducing 

cost and construction time, enhancing safety, and better managing 

waste. 

The United States has an exciting opportunity to continue to be 

a world leader in nuclear technology. We have some of the world’s 

best innovators, a tremendous asset in the DOE and the national 
38 

lab system, investors ready to invest in advance designs under the 

right conditions, and a regulator that is considered the global gold 

standard. 

As with any energy technology, the development and commercialization of advanced non-light water reactors requires a suite of 

supportive policies from early research through demonstration and 

adoption. I will focus on two elements that need more attention: 

first, a testing facility that would enable private companies to build 

prototypes in a DOE-supervised environment; and second, a clear 

and predictable regulatory pathway for licensing advanced reactors. 

Historically, the Atomic Energy Commission developed and demonstrated new reactors with full public funding on government 

sites. Since that level of public support was scaled back, the United 

States has not seen successful commercialization of a major breakthrough in nuclear reactor technology but that is not for lack of 

ideas. We need a new model that better incorporates private investment while taking advantage of the important role that DOE plays. 

A testbed facility at a DOE site would provide technology-neutral 

support through public-private partnership arrangements. DOE 

has safety oversight authority, unique capabilities, experts, and experimental facilities that could dramatically reduce the barriers, 

costs, and delays involved in nuclear demonstrations. 

By controlling and defining many of the costs and unknowns, the 

testbed site would enable private investment in prototype reactors 

and pre-commercial projects. Not only could this unlock a great 

deal of private capital, it would enable U.S. innovators to move forward domestically rather than turning to foreign partners. 

In addition to demonstration activities, another crucial step in 

commercialization is licensing with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. The NRC’s experience base is with light water technology and it has established a clear pathway for licensing a light 

water reactor. The process for an advanced reactor is far less established and thus introduces a level of uncertainty that can be paralyzing to private investment. Advanced reactors don’t need a shortcut or less stringency but they need a well-defined, predictable 

process. This is another area where the model could be adjusted to 

enable more private and venture investment. 

One such adjustment would be introducing stages of licensing. 

The current NRC certification process is all or nothing without interim levels of approval or acceptance. By comparison, the FDA has 

orderly stage dates with preclinical trials, phase 1, 2, and 3 trials; 

and finally, a new drug application. A drug can pass or fail at each 

stage and this provides a clear signal to investors that a technology 

is meeting or failing criteria set by the regulator. 

It certainly isn’t trivial to stage NRC licensing. The NRC would 

need resources and will, but it would provide a more workable 

process for investors in new technologies. In developing such a 

stage pathway, it would be important to collaborate closely with 

the innovators and investors who would use this process. There are 

a variety of other actions that DOE and NRC could take to develop 

a risk-informed and technology-neutral licensing framework that 

would be more applicable to advanced reactors. NRC and DOE 
39 

have both taken steps in that direction but more resources and a 

clear mandate would ensure more timely action. 

Nuclear power can play a very large role in addressing climate 

change, as well as other global air emissions concerns. Private investors recognize that and are ready to move forward with advanced reactors if we can modernize the commercialization model. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I would be pleased to 

respond to any questions you might have today or in the future. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Finan follows:] 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. Thank you, Dr. Finan. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. McGough. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. MIKE MCGOUGH, 

CHIEF COMMERCIAL OFFICER, NUSCALE POWER 

Mr. MCGOUGH. Thank you. Good morning. 

My name is Mike McGough and I am the Chief Commercial Officer at NuScale Power, the leading developer of American small 

modular reactor, or SMR, nuclear technology. 

I want to thank the Committee for the opportunity to testify before you today and I want to particularly thank Representative 

Bonamici for her welcome and introduction. I would also like to 

thank Representative Veasey and Representative Weber for their 

continued interest and support for our work. 

For 15 years our innovative company, based in Corvallis, Oregon, 

and majority-owned by the Fluor Corporation, has been advancing 

a unique SMR design that can play a significant role in our future 

needs for baseload carbon-free electricity generation. The NuScale 

design offers the safest nuclear technology available today. 

[Slide] 

Mr. MCGOUGH. As you see on Slide 1, we have solved one of the 

most vexing problems of the nuclear industry with a design approach that we call the Triple Crown of Nuclear Safety. In the 

event of a station blackout resulting in a complete loss of electricity 

comparable to what occurred at Fukushima, the NuScale Power 

module shuts itself down and cools for an indefinite period of time 

with no electricity, no operator action required, and no additional 

water other than an existing 8 million gallon pool. This is possible 

because the NuScale design eliminates many of the electrically 

driven pumps, motors, and valves that large reactors rely on to protect the nuclear core. Instead, our reactor is safely cooled using 

three simple properties of physics: convection, conduction, and 

gravity to drive the flow of coolant through the reactor. 

[Slide] 

Mr. MCGOUGH. Slide 2 presents a visual description of this natural circulation cooling process and I am happy to provide a more 

detailed description of this process during the question-and-answer 

session. 

[Slide] 

Mr. MCGOUGH. Our deployment characteristics are unique, and 

as you can see on Slide 3, the NuScale Power module is dramatically smaller than today’s pressurized water reactors. It can be factory-manufactured and transported to a site via rail, truck, or 

barge. 

Our sites are scalable. As I mentioned earlier, each site can accommodate up to 12 NuScale Power modules. Therefore, the 

amount of electricity at a site is scalable to between 50 and 600 

megawatts based on site needs. 

Continued support from Congress and the DOE is critical to our 

progress. Tomorrow will mark the one-year anniversary of 

NuScale’s selection as the sole awardee for funding in round two 

of the DOE’s Small Modular Reactor Grant Program recently authorized by Congress. The SMR program provides NuScale with the 

vital cost-shared funding and support of the continued design of 
48 

our reactor, as well as the cost of NRC’s review of our license application. NuScale may receive up to $217 million of matching funds 

over five years. 

Of the two grant recipients under this program, we are the only 

developer proceeding at full speed towards near-term commercialization. Successful licensing of SMR technology depends on sustained Congressional support through continued appropriations for 

this program and we ask that you continue to prioritize this work. 

One of the highest risk components remaining in our project is 

the uncertainty of the time and the process for NRC licensing. In 

order to meet our customer’s urgent needs, we must be in a position for commercial operations in 2024. NuScale has been engaged 

with the NRC on pre-application review efforts since April of 2008. 

We expect to submit our complete application in the second half of 

2016 and the NRC plan reflects a 39-month review schedule. We 

are waiting for the NRC to issue the NuScale design-specific review 

standard, which will establish the basis for our technology review. 

Because of the unique technology, to ensure timely completion it 

is important that we have a team of NRC staff dedicated to reviewing the NuScale application. NuScale expects a robust market demand for our technology and a line of sight to our first project— 

projects. We are in active negotiations for our first project known 

as the Utah Associated Municipal Power System’s carbon-free 

power project, which will be sited in Idaho. We expect to deliver 

our first project to the owner for a price of about $3 billion with 

subsequent plans in the range of $2.5 billion. Energy Northwest 

has joined this effort and the company holds first right of offer to 

operate the project. 

The NuScale SMR is a key part of our nation’s energy future. We 

appreciate your past support and we ask that you continue to 

prioritize the development of SMR nuclear technology. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McGough follows:] 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. I thank the witness. 

And the Chair now recognizes our next witness, Dr. Dewan. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. LESLIE DEWAN, 

CO-FOUNDER AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

TRANSATOMIC POWER 

Dr. DEWAN. Thank you, Chairman Lummis, Ranking Member 

Swalwell, and Members of the Subcommittee. I really appreciate 

the opportunity to be here and to talk with you all today about the 

future of nuclear energy and the best ways for our country to retain its superiority in nuclear technology. 

I am the cofounder and CEO of Transatomic Power, a nuclear reactor design startup based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. We are 

developing an advanced nuclear reactor that can consume nuclear 

waste reducing its radioactive lifetime while generating enormous 

amounts of electricity. 

In addition to Transatomic, there is a flourishing of other advanced nuclear reactor designs in this country that can safely 

produce very large amounts of carbon-free electricity with minimal 

waste. However, this great technology will only be useful if we can 

find a way to develop and commercialize it. Currently, the largest 

areas are the following: first of all, the lack of a clear regulatory 

pathway for advanced reactor development in the United States; 

and secondly, the lack of facilities for prototyping advanced reactor 

designs. 

The commercial regulatory structure in the United States is currently set up only for light water reactors. The system works well 

for these designs but it needs to be broadened to successfully encompass advanced reactors as well. Informal estimates suggest that 

it would take approximately 20 years at a minimum before such a 

regulatory pathway for advanced reactors would be available in the 

United States. And furthermore, there is a great deal of uncertainty in how much regulatory approval will cost the company commercializing the design. Estimates for licensing just the prototype 

facility through the NRC—this is just a prototype facility—range 

from $200-$500 million and there are no good estimates for the cost 

of a commercial license for an advanced nuclear reactor. 

This high cost and long timeline and furthermore the uncertainty 

in the estimates of the cost and timeline effectively block largescale private investment in new nuclear reactors because no investor would want to put money into a project if they don’t have a 

good sense of when they are going to get a return or how much it 

will cost at the beginning. 

The current system incentivizes reactor designers to develop 

their first projects outside of the United States, and in fact this has 

already happened. Some existing nuclear reactor design companies 

are planning on building their first power plants overseas in Canada or China or the Philippines because they don’t think it will be 

possible to build an advanced reactor in the United States under 

the current regulatory system. 

A good path forward would be to move to a set of technology-agnostic guidelines based on performance criteria that would be 

equally applicable to all reactors. A similar set of functional guidelines, functional regulations were recently adopted in Canada and 
61 

they are driving significant advanced reactor progress in that country. 

Now, regulatory issues are closely tied to the ability to build prototype nuclear reactors. The great deal of uncertainty in the cost 

and timeline for regulating and licensing prototype nuclear facilities is a significant barrier to private investment. A clear way to 

solve this problem would be to establish a testbed facility ideally 

at a national laboratory site for building demonstration-scale advanced reactors. This solution would require clarifying the existing 

rules that say it is possible to build and operate demo-scale advanced reactors at national laboratory sites under the auspices of 

DOE without requiring an explicit license from the NRC ahead of 

time. NRC staffers could potentially be stationed at the site so they 

could observe the construction and operation of the facility. And as 

they do this, the NRC staffers would be building up the necessary 

expertise in the technology to license commercial-scale plants in 

the future. 

Developing a better regulatory pathway for advanced nuclear reactors is vital for this country. The United States currently has the 

best nuclear technology in the world but I worry that this will not 

always be the case, especially if the most advanced reactor technology is forced to go overseas to be prototyped, licensed, and commercialized. A regulatory pathway for advanced reactors, coupled 

with the ability to more readily demonstrate reactor prototypes at 

national laboratories, will enable greater private investment in the 

suite of new nuclear reactor designs currently being developed and 

allow the United States to retain the extraordinary benefits of this 

new nuclear technology. 

Thank you all so much. I am very, very glad to have the opportunity to testify here today and I am really looking forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Dewan follows:] 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. And we are looking forward to having a 

little bit of time to do that. So I am glad that things on the Floor 

are slowing down. 

Our final witness is Mr. Lipman and he was nodding his head 

during some of the other presentations so I am looking forward to 

hearing his remarks. 

You are recognized, Mr. Lipman. Welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. DANIEL LIPMAN, 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, POLICY DEVELOPMENT, 

NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE 

Mr. LIPMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Mr. 

Swalwell and other Members of the Committee. 

I am Dan Lipman, Executive Director at the Nuclear Energy Institute. Before joining NEI, I spent more than 31 years with Westinghouse and a period of that time included leading the new build 

program, the new reactor business that brought the AP1000 advanced design nuclear reactor to market. 

We are keen to address the interests of the Committee. I think 

they are critical, particularly because they touch on three significant areas. These issues are global, these issues are long-term, and 

above all, they impact U.S. leadership. As for the statistics on nuclear energy is contribution in the United States, both the Chair 

and Dr. Lyons underlined them. I don’t need to repeat them, but 

I will say that nuclear power plants provide a number of other key 

attributes, including price stability, technological diversity, and 

grid stability. 

Nuclear fuel is not dependent on the weather or consistent fuel 

delivery by trucks or pipelines. During this year’s polar vortex, 

while other electricity sources faced the challenge of crowded pipelines or even frozen fuel, the nation’s nuclear power plants operated at a daily average capacity of 95 percent and no other source 

of electricity came close to achieving that level of reliability. 

In addition to being clean, safe, and reliable, nuclear power in 

the United States is a tremendous demonstration of U.S. leadership. U.S. reactor designs are the basis for many of the world’s nuclear power programs, yet today we face very serious competition 

in world markets. Major growth in nuclear energy in the near term 

will be outside this country, so we need to develop a program that 

meets this competition head-on by improving our export control 

processes, establishing 123 trade agreements with prospective partner countries, reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, and importantly, as you have heard today, continuing to develop the 

safest and most advanced nuclear technologies here. 

And while we need to compete abroad, leadership means we need 

to be building and developing more nuclear at home. Maintaining 

nuclear energy’ s share requires the equivalent of 12 new nuclear 

power plants by 2025, and if today’s nuclear power plants retire at 

60 years of operation, we will need 20 plants by 2030 and 45 by 

2035, so subsequent license renewal is critical. 

It is a strategic imperative to deploy small modular reactors in 

the early to the mid-2020s followed by more advanced generation 

designs in the 2030s and beyond. Small modular reactors allow capacity additions at smaller increments and advanced reactors will 
67 

likely have an even higher level of inherent safety and may be able 

to serve a vital role in management of spent fuel from today’s light 

water reactors. 

Commercialization of advanced nuclear reactors will best be 

achieved through an appropriate program that identifies these 

technologies, facilitates their deployment, and as you have heard, 

the most significant challenges facing both SMRs and Generation 

IV reactors are financing and licensing. The time, the uncertainty, 

and the cost required to design, license, and build new reactors is 

daunting. 

You heard from Secretary Lyons that at NEI we are establishing, 

similar to our SMR working group, an advanced reactor working 

group chaired by the CEO of Southern Nuclear Operating Company 

to develop an industry vision of a long-term sustainable program 

that will support the development and commercialization of advanced reactors. We must establish a portfolio of technologies necessary to provide clean, reliable baseload electricity for the 2030s 

and beyond. federal and state governments and industry must address in the balance of this decade—so in the next five years—the 

financing and regulatory challenges facing these advanced nuclear 

technologies. 

Both SMRs and Gen IV reactors need to have their barriers deployment and eventually, as you have heard, for overseas markets. 

We need innovation, creative approaches to ensure the availability 

of capital and regulatory certainty and closure. Business as usual 

will not get the job done. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lipman follows:] 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. I thank the witnesses and we will now 

open our round of questions. The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Texas, Mr. Weber. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Madam Chair. Dr.—is it Dewan? Is that 

how you say that? 

Dr. DEWAN. Yes, it is Dewan. Thank you. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Transatomic has proposed a molten salt reactor, a non-light water design that will run on nuclear waste and 

reach high levels of efficiency at higher temperatures. I know I am 

telling Noah about the flood here but I am going somewhere. Mr. 

Lipman just referred to two problems being financing and licensing. NRC requires approximately 20 years to develop a regulatory 

pathway for an advanced reactor design like Transatomic’s and 

your company is in that process. Now, according to Businessweek, 

they had an article on—Bloomberg Businessweek I think it is—on 

your company. How long have you been doing this? Let me just ask 

you that question. 

Dr. DEWAN. I actually started the company with my cofounder 

back in 2011 actually. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. 

Dr. DEWAN. For the first two years it was when we were in the 

middle of our Ph.D. program so we have been full-time just for the 

past year-and-a-half. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. And your cofounder’s name? 

Dr. DEWAN. Mark Massie. 

Mr. WEBER. Mark Massie, okay. 

So for you guys has it been a nightmare? I mean there is no clear 

predictable legal process and permitting process. How does that 

work for you? 

Dr. DEWAN. It has been tricky to say the least. And thank you 

so much for this question. It is an issue that I spend a great deal 

of time thinking about. 

We believe that ultimately we will be able to find a regulatory 

pathway for this type of advanced reactor technology in the United 

States on time scales shorter than the 20 years currently estimated. We feel it is a necessity if the United States wants to take 

advantage of this molten salt technology that was first developed 

in this country back in the 1960s, though it is a very tricky path. 

Currently, there is no way for us to build a prototype facility or 

move beyond the laboratory-scale work that we are currently doing. 

We want more than anything to do this in the United States but 

we have been forced to keep an open mind with respect to the other 

pathways we could take. 

Mr. WEBER. Canada was mentioned earlier. 

Dr. DEWAN. Yes. 

Mr. WEBER. According to the Bloomberg Businessweek, you all 

started in February of 2010. You all decided to fix what is wrong 

with nuclear reactors. 

Dr. DEWAN. Back in spring, summer 2010 was when we first 

started thinking about—very broadly about advanced reactor designs and how you can do such extraordinary things with all different types of advanced reactors, achieve very high burnouts, 

produce very little waste. 

Mr. WEBER. When did you form your company? 
82 

Dr. DEWAN. We incorporated in spring of 2011 actually on the 

25th anniversary of Chernobyl. 

Mr. WEBER. So 3–1/2 years ago? 

Dr. DEWAN. Yes. 

Mr. WEBER. So in 3–1/2 years is there anything in that process 

you would do differently? Can you be very specific about dealing 

with our agencies? 

Dr. DEWAN. So at this point we have been having informal conversations with people at the NRC. We haven’t started a—we are 

not in a position yet to start an application process. We are not in 

a position yet to even start the pre-application process. That is also 

the point at which it starts being very, very expensive to engage 

the NRC once you move beyond informal conversations. 

Mr. WEBER. And I don’t mean to pry and you may not be at liberty to answer this but have you sought out investors? 

Dr. DEWAN. Oh, yes. We have actually raised a round of funding 

so far from Founders Fund based in San Francisco. They are actually one of the main early investors in SpaceX so they are one of 

the few VC firms out there that is interested in longer timescale, 

higher risk, higher reward technology. Otherwise, for the reasons 

I had mentioned in my testimony, it can be very, very tricky to get 

private investments in nuclear. 

Mr. WEBER. And have they been reluctant because of the permitting and that process? 

Dr. DEWAN. A large number of the VC firms that we talked to 

before we started connecting with Founders Fund, a lot of the other 

firms were very concerned about the regulatory uncertainty. 

And it is not so much the high cost. I feel like if I could tell them—if I could tell potential investors it will cost $200 million 

just for the regulatory fees in addition to however much it would 

cost for engineering of the prototype plant, I feel like I could get 

private investment for that. But when I talk to people and I say, 

well, it could be 200 million, it could be 100 million, it could be 600 

million, I honestly don’t know, there are no data points, no one 

knows, that— 

Mr. WEBER. No predictability. 

Dr. DEWAN. That isn’t something that I can sell to anyone. 

Mr. WEBER. We hope to be able to help with that. 

And I yield back. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman. 

And I am going to ask some questions. We have been called to 

votes but I think that if you will each try to limit your answers to 

about a minute, you should have an opportunity to respond. 

I would like to ask each of you the same question. I am going 

to start with Dr. Finan and go down the line. And I would like to 

ask you what can Congress do to assist your efforts to improve licensing processes, to expedite licensing processes, and to help the 

private sector move forward with potential technologies in this area 

under discussion today? Dr. Finan? 

Dr. FINAN. Thank you. 

The NRC operates on a fee-recovery basis. They are required to 

recover 90 percent of their costs from fees that are paid by operating reactors, and those fees aren’t funds that can be used to support regulatory research into an advanced reactor process. So one 
83 

thing that Congress could do would be to allocate funds to NRC 

that would be outside of that fee-recovery basis so that they could 

work on this R&D work and work on developing the groundwork 

that is needed for innovation and advanced reactor licensing. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. Thank you. 

Mr. McGough, same question. 

Mr. MCGOUGH. Thank you. 

So the licensing process that Dr. Finan referred to, we have been 

involved with the NRC since April of 2008, so we have been paying 

those bills for a very long time and they are very expensive. To receive our design certification through that point when it will be 

completed in about 2020, we will have spent $530 million on that 

process. So it is very expensive. 

We need the NRC to issue to us something referred to as a design-specific review standard, which is basically a handshake about 

how our application will be reviewed. Without that, we are developing an application somewhat blindfolded, without a pre-agreement about when we submit it in this fashion, it will be expeditiously reviewed on the agreed-on 39-month schedule. Even—and 

that predictability is better than no predictability, as Dr. Dewan 

referred to. So it is really important to us that we have the NRC 

dedicated proper resources reviewing those applications in an expeditious fashion. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. McGough. 

Dr. Dewan, same question. 

Dr. DEWAN. Thank you. 

And my answer ties in very closely to what Dr. Finan and Mr. 

McGough were saying, that what would be most useful would be 

to encourage the NRC to move to a more staged licensing process 

similar, as was said before, to a pharmaceutical biotech licensing 

process where there are multiple stages where designs can get 

early feedback on the viability of their design through a regulatory 

process in the United States. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. And Mr. Lipman, finally, same question. 

Mr. LIPMAN. Yes. I concur especially with Dr. Finan’s suggestion 

and I might add to it, and that is that Congress could establish a 

budget line item that is particularly allocated to the review of advanced reactor concepts. There is simply not the mandate for NRC 

to do that based under the model that Dr. Finan suggested. So that 

would be helpful very concretely. 

Also, the continued investment in many of the programs Dr. 

Lyons mentioned and some he didn’t—or one he didn’t—is the 

LWR Sustainability Program, which allows for advanced work in 

materials and other aging phenomena that keep our current fleet 

going. 

And lastly, perhaps investment under the laboratory system of 

advanced materials test reactors. You know, all of these technologies very often depend on behavioral properties of metallurgical 

phenomena and so reactors at the national laboratories can test 

these things, their data goes into licensing and can expedite the licensing process. So focus on the fleet and focus on the advanced 

concepts. Thank you. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. I thank this panel and these witnesses for 

your valuable testimony and also the Members for their questions. 
84 

The Members of the Committee may have additional questions 

for you and you may receive those questions in writing. We would 

ask you to respond in writing. The record will remain open for two 

weeks for additional comments and written questions from Members. Hopefully, you will not get them on the 24th of December so 

you will be responding to questions on Christmas day. 

The witnesses, with our gratitude, are excused. 

I would like to ask the staff to prepare a written summary of the 

last responses that these witnesses gave to that question about 

what we can do and give it to Chairman Smith so going forward 

he will know what was recommended for future action or attention 

by this Committee going forward. 

Again, I want to thank our panel and I want to thank you for 

your wonderful work on our nation’s behalf in this important area 

of research and development. 

With that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(85) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
86 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by the Hon. Peter Lyons 
87 
88 

Responses by Dr. Ashley Finan 
89 
90 

Responses by Mr. Mike McGough 
91 
92 

Responses by Dr. Leslie Dewan 
93 

Responses by Mr. Daniel Lipman 
94 

Æ