ADVANCED 

REACTOR 

RESEARCH

DOE Supports 

Multiple Technologies, 

but Actions Needed to 

Ensure a Prototype Is 

Built

Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee 

on Energy and Water Development, 

Committee on Appropriations, U.S. 

Senate

June 2014

GAO-14-545

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-14-545, a report to the 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and 

Water Development, Committee on 

Appropriations, U. S. Senate

June 2014

ADVANCED REACTOR RESEARCH

DOE Supports Multiple Technologies, but Actions 

Needed to Ensure a Prototype Is Built

Why GAO Did This Study

NE conducts R&D on advanced 

nuclear reactor technologies with

multiple aims, including (1) improving 

the economic competitiveness of 

nuclear technology to ensure that 

nuclear power continues to play a role 

in meeting our nation’s energy needs; 

(2) increasing safety; (3) minimizing 

the risk of nuclear proliferation and 

terrorism; and (4) addressing 

environmental challenges, such as 

reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

External groups have been critical of 

NE for, among other things, how it 

prioritizes advanced reactor R&D. 

GAO was asked to review NE’s 

advanced reactor R&D efforts. This 

report (1) describes NE’s approach to 

advanced nuclear reactor R&D and 

(2) examines how NE plans and 

prioritizes its advanced reactor R&D 

activities, including deploying an 

advanced reactor. GAO reviewed laws 

and reports concerning NE’s efforts to 

develop advanced reactor technologies 

and interviewed NE officials and a 

nonprobability sample of companies 

developing such technology, selected 

because of their involvement with 

DOE’s R&D efforts.

What GAO Recommends

To better prepare DOE to meet the 

requirement of EPAct 2005 to deploy 

the NGNP prototype reactor, GAO 

recommends that DOE develop a 

strategy for resuming the NGNP 

Project and provide a report to 

Congress updating the status of the 

project. DOE agreed in principle with 

GAO’s first recommendation and 

respectfully disagreed with the second. 

GAO believes these recommendations 

remain valid as discussed in the report.

What GAO Found

The Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Nuclear Energy’s (NE) approach to 

advanced reactor research and development (R&D) focuses on three reactor 

technologies—high-temperature gas-cooled reactors, sodium-cooled fast 

reactors, and fluoride-salt-cooled high-temperature reactors—but NE is also 

funding research into other advanced reactor technologies. NE’s approach is to 

conduct research in support of multiple advanced reactor technologies, while 

collaborating with industry and academia, with the ultimate goal for industry to 

take the results of NE’s research to the next step of development and 

commercialization. This approach provides several advantages, including 

flexibility in responding to changes in future U.S. energy policy. Many 

representatives that GAO talked to from the nuclear power industry and the 

National Academy of Sciences agree with NE’s approach, saying that current 

policies on controlling greenhouse gas emissions and disposing of nuclear waste 

do not make a compelling case for choosing a reactor technology to develop. 

However, others GAO talked to are critical of some of the reactor technologies 

NE chooses to research, citing economic and technological challenges. The 

Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee has criticized NE’s approach, 

recommending that NE focus its efforts on a smaller number of technologies to 

help ensure that a reactor prototype is deployed. To remain aware of industry’s 

R&D needs and international nuclear energy developments, NE regularly 

collaborates with industry and international organizations. 

NE uses internal and external reviews to set program and funding priorities for 

advanced reactor R&D activities and to evaluate progress toward program goals. 

For example, NE conducts internal monthly and quarterly reviews to discuss 

project status, budgets, and technical highlights. Furthermore, NE’s R&D efforts

are periodically reviewed by external entities, including the Nuclear Energy 

Advisory Committee. Among the advanced reactor technologies that NE’s R&D 

currently supports, the high-temperature gas-cooled reactor is the technology

that is most likely to be deployed and commercialized in the near term, according

to an NE planning document. NE officials said this likelihood is based on the wide 

range of potential industry market applications and because of substantial 

government investments in the technology’s development. NE has been pursuing 

this technology under the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) Project, as 

established by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005). Under EPAct 2005, 

DOE is to deploy a prototype reactor for NGNP by the end of fiscal year 2021. 

However, in 2011, DOE decided not to proceed with the deployment phase of 

this project, citing several barriers. For example, NE and industry have been 

unable to reach an agreement on a cost-share arrangement to fund the 

deployment phase because of a disagreement on the applicable cost-share 

levels and how and when the cost-share would be applied to specific activities or 

project phases. Although NE continues to conduct R&D for the NGNP Project, it 

has not developed a strategy to overcome the cost-share issue and other 

barriers to resuming the deployment phase of the project. Furthermore, DOE has 

not selected initial reactor design parameters or reported to Congress on an 

alternative date for making this selection. Without doing so, it is not clear when 

NE is going to take this next step in deploying the NGNP prototype reactor and it 

risks the project not being completed by the targeted date in 2021.

View GAO-14-545. For more information, 

contact Frank Rusco at (202) 512-3841 or 

ruscof@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-14-545 DOE Advanced Nuclear Reactor R&D

Letter 1 

Background 4

NE’s Approach to Advanced Reactor R&D Supports Several 

Advanced Reactor Technologies 12

NE Uses Internal and External Reviews to Set Program and 

Funding Priorities but Does Not Have a Strategy for Deploying 

an Advanced Reactor Prototype 25

Conclusions 34

Recommendations for Executive Action 35

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 36

Appendix I Overview of Nuclear Reactor Technologies 39

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Energy 42

Appendix III GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 47

Tables

Table 1: Total Funding for DOE Office of Nuclear Energy (NE), 

Fiscal Years 2012 through 2014 7

Table 2: Characteristics of Commercial Reactor Types, including 

Those Currently Operating in the United States and 

Advanced Reactor Designs Under Development 41

Contents
Page ii GAO-14-545 DOE Advanced Nuclear Reactor R&D

Abbreviations

DOE Department of Energy

EPAct 2005 Energy Policy Act of 2005

FACA Federal Advisory Committee Act

NE Office of Nuclear Energy

NGNP Next Generation Nuclear Plant

NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and 

 Development

R&D research and development

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-14-545 DOE Advanced Nuclear Reactor R&D

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

June 23, 2014

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein

Chairman

Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

Dear Madam Chairman:

Energy demand in the United States is expected to continue to grow over 

the coming decades, according to the U.S. Energy Information 

Administration, and energy security and greenhouse gas emissions from 

the burning of fossil fuels will continue to be of serious concern. Nuclear 

energy accounts for about 20 percent of electricity generation in the 

United States and produces no air pollution or greenhouse gases. 

However, the United States faces several challenges in developing 

additional nuclear energy facilities. For example, the March 2011 accident 

at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi commercial nuclear power plant has 

increased concerns about the safe operation of nuclear power plants 

worldwide. In addition, many uncertainties surround long-term storage 

and disposal options for spent nuclear fuel from existing power plants.1

Spent nuclear fuel is considered one of the most hazardous substances 

on earth, and exposure can cause environmental harm and long-term 

health hazards, such as cancer, in those who are exposed to it. Spent 

nuclear fuel also raises concerns over nuclear proliferation and terrorism.2

 

1

Spent (or used) nuclear fuel—fuel that has been used in a reactor and removed from the 

reactor core—from light water reactors in the United States is currently stored at nuclear 

reactor sites around the country. About three-quarters of the fuel is stored in pools of 

water, and about one-quarter is stored in dry storage casks. For more information, see 

GAO, Spent Nuclear Fuel: Accumulating Quantities at Commercial Reactors Present 

Storage and Other Challenges, 

Specifically, concerns exist that terrorist networks could divert nuclear 

material intended for peaceful purposes to the development of nuclear 

weapons. In addition, the cost of developing, deploying, and operating 

GAO-12-797 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 15, 2012).

2

Consistent with the Treaty on Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, nuclear proliferation 

includes the transfer of nuclear weapons, related technology, or special fissionable 

material to nonnuclear weapons states. One factor contributing to the risks of nuclear 

proliferation and terrorism is the challenge of protecting spent nuclear fuel from diversion 

and theft. 
 

Page 2 GAO-14-545 DOE Advanced Nuclear Reactor R&D

new nuclear power facilities in the United States, relative to other types of 

energy sources, has been an impediment to increasing nuclear 

production.

Research on a new generation of advanced nuclear reactors, which are 

intended to improve on the current generation of nuclear reactors through 

increased safety, improved economic competitiveness, and reduced 

nuclear waste, is being conducted by governments and private industry 

around the world. In the United States, the Department of Energy (DOE) 

spends more than $80 million per year to develop advanced nuclear 

reactors with the aim of eventually replacing aging U.S. commercial light 

water reactors,3 many of which are operating past the end of their initial 

40-year operating period under renewed operating licenses.4 DOE’s 

Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) conducts research and development (R&D) 

on advanced reactors with multiple aims, including (1) improving the 

economic competitiveness of nuclear energy to ensure that nuclear 

energy continues to play a role in meeting our nation’s energy needs, 

(2) increasing safety, (3) minimizing the risks of nuclear proliferation and 

terrorism, and (4) addressing environmental challenges such as reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions.5

In September 2006, we reported on NE’s progress in deploying an 

advanced reactor prototype,6

 

3

Light water reactors, also called Generation-II and Generation-III reactors, use ordinary 

(i.e., “light”) water, either pressurized or boiling, for reactor moderation and cooling of the 

reactor core. Advanced reactors, also called Generation-IV reactors, use substances such 

as liquid metals or high-temperature gases to cool the reactor core. A moderator in a 

nuclear reactor is a substance that reduces the speed of the fast neutrons to better 

sustain the nuclear reaction. For more technical details of reactor types, see appendix I. 

stating that initial R&D results were 

favorable, but DOE officials considered the schedule to be challenging, 

4

For these reactors to continue operating, their owners must renew their licenses with the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the federal agency responsible for licensing and 

regulating civilian nuclear reactors. In general, NRC licenses reactors to operate for 40 

years and allows reactor owners to apply to renew their operating licenses for up to an 

additional 20 years per renewal. As of April 2014, 72 of the 100 currently operating 

commercial nuclear power reactors in the United States are operating with renewed 

operating licenses.

5

The U.S. administration’s goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emission levels by 83 

percent of 2005 levels by the year 2050. 

6

GAO, Nuclear Energy: Status of DOE’s Effort to Develop the Next Generation Nuclear 

Plant, GAO-06-1056 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 20, 2006).
 

Page 3 GAO-14-545 DOE Advanced Nuclear Reactor R&D

given the amount of R&D that remained to be conducted. External 

groups, such as the Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee,7 the National 

Academy of Sciences, and we have reported on NE’s advanced nuclear 

reactor R&D efforts from 2008 to 2013.8

In this context, you asked us to review NE’s advanced reactor R&D 

efforts. Our objectives were to (1) describe NE’s approach to advanced 

reactor R&D and (2) examine how NE plans and prioritizes its advanced 

reactor R&D activities, including deploying an advanced reactor 

prototype.

These reports have been critical 

of how NE prioritizes its advanced reactor R&D, the advanced reactor 

technologies that NE has chosen to fund, and how NE partners with 

industry to advance program goals.

To address these objectives, we reviewed relevant federal laws and 

regulations, as well as reports by DOE, us, and others that describe NE’s 

efforts to develop advanced reactor technologies. In addition, to better 

understand NE’s approach to and decision-making processes for 

advanced reactor R&D, we interviewed NE officials; representatives from 

a nonprobability sample of companies developing advanced reactor 

technology;9

 

7

The Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee includes representatives from universities, 

industry, foreign nationals, and national laboratories. The committee paid particular 

attention to obtaining a diverse membership with a balance of disciplines, interests, 

experiences, points of view, and geography. The committee operates in accordance with 

the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and all applicable FACA amendments, 

federal regulations, and Executive Orders. 

knowledgeable members of the Nuclear Energy Advisory 

Committee and the National Academy of Sciences’ National Research 

8

See, for example, Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee, Report to Nuclear Energy 

Advisory Committee Fuel Cycle Subcommittee Meeting of April 23, 2013 (Washington, 

D.C.: June 13, 2013); GAO, Nuclear Fuel Cycle Options: DOE Needs to Enhance 

Planning for Technology Assessment and Collaboration with Industry and Other 

Countries, GAO-12-70 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 17, 2011); GAO, Global Nuclear Energy 

Partnership: DOE Should Reassess Its Approach to Designing and Building Spent 

Nuclear Fuel Recycling Facilities, GAO-08-483 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 22, 2008); 

National Academies Press, Review of DOE’s Nuclear Energy Research and Development 

Program (Washington, D.C.: 2008).

9

Because this was a nonprobability sample, the information gathered from these 

companies cannot be generalized to the nuclear power industry as a whole, but it can 

provide illustrative examples. Based on our review of companies developing advanced 

reactor technology, we selected these companies because they had involvement with 

DOE’s advanced reactor R&D efforts. 
 

Page 4 GAO-14-545 DOE Advanced Nuclear Reactor R&D

Council; and representatives from industry groups, including the Next 

Generation Nuclear Plant Industry Alliance and the Nuclear Energy 

Institute.10 In addition, we visited two of DOE’s national laboratories—Oak 

Ridge National Laboratory and Idaho National Laboratory—to better 

understand NE’s R&D activities for advanced nuclear reactors. To select 

these laboratories, we analyzed the appropriated funding levels 

associated with NE across the 10 national laboratories that NE funds.11

We conducted this performance audit from August 2013 to June 2014 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

We selected the 2 laboratories with the highest levels of funding 

dedicated to NE programs over the past 5 years.

According to its 2010 Nuclear Energy Research and Development 

Roadmap: A Report to Congress, NE’s primary mission is to advance 

nuclear power as a resource capable of meeting the nation’s energy 

supply, environmental, and energy security needs by resolving technical, 

cost, safety, proliferation resistance, and security barriers through 

research, development, and demonstration, as appropriate. NE conducts 

research aimed at (1) improving the reliability, sustaining the safety, and 

 

10The Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee provides independent advice to the Office of 

Nuclear Energy on complex science and technical issues that arise in the planning, 

managing, and implementation of DOE’s nuclear energy program. The National Research 

Council’s mission is to improve government decision making and public policy, increase 

public understanding, and promote the acquisition and dissemination of knowledge in 

matters involving science, engineering, technology, and health. The Next Generation 

Nuclear Plant Industry Alliance is an alliance of nuclear technology companies, electric 

utilities, and industrial end users that seek to support efforts to design, build, operate, and 

use high-temperature gas-cooled reactors. The Nuclear Energy Institute develops policy 

on legislative and regulatory issues affecting the nuclear industry and serves as the 

nuclear industry’s voice before the U.S. Congress, executive branch agencies, and federal 

regulators. 

11The DOE Office of Nuclear Energy provides funding to 10 national laboratories: 

(1) Argonne, (2) Brookhaven, (3) Idaho, (4) Lawrence Berkeley, (5) Lawrence Livermore, 

(6) Los Alamos, (7) Oak Ridge, (8) Pacific Northwest, (9) Sandia, and (10) Savannah 

River.

Background
 

Page 5 GAO-14-545 DOE Advanced Nuclear Reactor R&D

extending the operational lifetime of existing light water nuclear reactors; 

(2) supporting the development of the next generation of nuclear reactors, 

including light-water-reactor-based small modular reactors and advanced 

reactors, with a focus on affordability; (3) developing sustainable nuclear 

fuel cycles; and (4) reducing the risk of nuclear proliferation and terrorism. 

Light-water-reactor-based small modular reactors are smaller in size and 

energy output than conventional light water reactors—but use the same 

basic technology for the nuclear reactor core—and offer several potential 

advantages over existing light water reactors, including lower capital and 

construction costs through factory fabrication; enhanced safety and 

security; improved operation times and longer life cycles; and flexibility to 

be sited at locations that cannot support large nuclear plants, such as 

isolated areas or sites with limited water supplies.

Advanced reactors, including advanced small modular reactors, use 

innovative nuclear fuels, coolants, and energy systems, and offer the 

potential for significant advantages over existing light water reactors, 

including greater energy conversion efficiency, reduced plant size, lower 

construction and operation costs, and improved safety. NE has mainly 

conducted advanced reactor R&D on high-temperature reactors and fast 

reactors. High-temperature reactors produce electricity, as well as 

process heat that can be used for industrial purposes, such as refining 

petroleum or producing hydrogen, and replace current sources of process 

heat from burning natural gas or other fossil fuels, which emit greenhouse 

gases. Fast reactors can use spent nuclear fuel as their fuel source, 

which reduces the need for long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel, and 

would more efficiently use uranium, helping reduce nuclear waste.

NE conducts nuclear reactor R&D through its Reactor Concepts 

Research, Development, and Demonstration program, which aims to 

(1) help advance nuclear power as a resource capable of meeting the 

nation’s energy, environmental, and national security needs and 

(2) develop new and advanced reactor designs and technologies that 

advance the state of reactor technology and improve the economic 

competitiveness of nuclear power. The program encompasses the 

following subprograms:

• The Light Water Reactor Sustainability subprogram is developing the 

scientific basis to extend existing nuclear power plant operating life 

beyond the current licensing period and ensure their long-term 

reliability, productivity, safety, and security. This subprogram conducts 

research into materials aging and degradation, updating
 

Page 6 GAO-14-545 DOE Advanced Nuclear Reactor R&D

instrumentation and controls, and assessing reactor safety margins, 

among other things.

• The Advanced Reactor Concepts subprogram12

• The Advanced Small Modular Reactor subprogram

supports the 

development of innovative reactor technologies that may offer 

improved safety, functionality and affordability; more efficient energy 

conversion; increased proliferation resistance and security; and that 

build upon existing nuclear technology and operating experience. It 

supports research to reduce technical barriers for advanced nuclear 

energy systems, and its efforts support various reactor technologies at 

different maturity levels.

13

Other NE programs conduct R&D that supports the nuclear reactor R&D 

efforts. The Fuel Cycle R&D program—which is primarily responsible for 

developing sustainable nuclear fuel cycles,

supports the 

development of innovative small modular reactor designs that 

potentially offer improved safety, functionality, and affordability; more 

efficient energy conversion; increased proliferation resistance and 

security; and simplified operation and maintenance. For example, the 

program supports research into novel sensors and control systems for 

multiple reactor units, as well as advanced materials development.

14 innovative processes to 

recover uranium from spent nuclear fuel, and nuclear fuel storage 

options—also supports existing reactors by developing accident-tolerant 

fuel and advanced reactors by developing advanced proliferationresistant fuels.15

 

12The Advanced Reactor Concepts subprogram will be renamed the Advanced Reactor 

Technologies subprogram beginning in fiscal year 2015. 

The Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies program 

conducts R&D on technologies that directly support and complement 

NE’s advanced reactor and fuel cycle R&D efforts. This program 

13Beginning in fiscal year 2015, the Advanced Small Modular Reactor subprogram will be 

consolidated into the Advanced Reactor Technologies subprogram.

14Sustainable fuel cycle options are those that would better utilize uranium resources, 

maximize energy generation, minimize waste generation, improve safety, and limit 

proliferation and terrorism risks, according to DOE.

15Accident-tolerant fuels are fuels that offer improved reliability and safety characteristics 

during accident conditions. Proliferation-resistant fuels are those that would make it more 

difficult or time-consuming to weaponize. 
 

Page 7 GAO-14-545 DOE Advanced Nuclear Reactor R&D

coordinates R&D on common issues and challenges that confront other 

NE R&D efforts to avoid duplication of effort.16

NE conducts most of this research at 10 DOE national laboratories across 

the country and, over the past 3 years, has spent an average of about 

$840 million per year on its mission to advance nuclear power (see table 

1).17 Of this amount, NE provides about $50 million annually to engage 

U.S. universities through its Nuclear Energy University Program to fund 

R&D and to build infrastructure and capabilities to enhance universities’ 

ability to perform research and educate students.18

Table 1: Total Funding for DOE Office of Nuclear Energy (NE), Fiscal Years 2012 

through 2014

Dollars in millions

Program Fiscal year 2012 Fiscal year 2013 Fiscal year 2014

Fuel Cycle Research and 

Development 

$181.0 $169.9 $186.2

Nuclear Energy Enabling 

Technologies

71.3 67.9 71.1

Reactor Concepts Research, 

Development, and 

Demonstration 

110.7 104.8 112.8

Small Modular Reactor 

Licensing Technical Support

67.0 62.7 110.0

Other NE programs, transfer 

from Department of State, and 

use of prior year balances

423. 9

a 

393.0 b 397.4 b

Total $853.8 $798.3 $877.5

Source: DOE. | GAO-14-545

 

16In addition to these programs, NE funds programs that coordinate its international 

activities, manage and protect its facilities, and provide overall direction and execution of 

NE’s programs.

17NE conducts most of the advanced nuclear R&D at DOE’s national laboratories, but 

some NE-funded R&D is carried out at university laboratories, and some is done by 

private industry through cooperative agreements. 

18NE’s Nuclear Energy University Program was established in 2009 to consolidate 

university support under one initiative and better integrate university research within NE 

technical programs. The mission of the Nuclear Energy University Program is to engage 

U.S. universities in conducting R&D that supports DOE’s mission, improving related 

infrastructure, and supporting student education.
 

Page 8 GAO-14-545 DOE Advanced Nuclear Reactor R&D

Note: Numbers may not add to total due to rounding.

a

Other NE programs include facilities management, international cooperation, the Idaho Sitewide 

Safeguards and Security program, the Integrated University Program, and overall direction and 

execution of the Office of Nuclear Energy programs. The Integrated University Program funding is 

intended to support nuclear science and engineering by funding scholarships and fellowships in 

nuclear energy related fields of study, among other things. These funding levels also include funds 

transferred from the Department of State, funds transferred to the Small Business Innovation 

Research and Small Business Technology Transfer programs outside of NE, and the use of NE’s 

prior year balance.

b

The Idaho Sitewide Safeguards and Security program was funded within Other Defense Activities for 

fiscal years 2012 and 2013, but are reflected this table. The program was funded within NE for fiscal 

year 2014. Other Defense Activities funds elements that relate to and support the defense oriented 

activities within DOE.

NE’s recent advanced reactor R&D efforts began in 2000, when NE 

convened a group of senior governmental officials from nine countries to 

discuss the development of such reactors in the United States and 

internationally.19 This group, called the Generation-IV International 

Forum, and the Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee produced a 

Technology Roadmap for Generation-IV Nuclear Energy Systems in 

2002. The intent of the forum was to develop competitively priced and 

reliable nuclear reactors, while satisfactorily addressing nuclear safety, 

waste, and proliferation concerns. In response to these efforts, the United 

States determined that it would fund the development of a hightemperature gas-cooled reactor as its top priority.20

 

19As of January 2014, the 13 participating members were Argentina, Brazil, Canada, 

China, Euratom (the implementing organization for development of nuclear energy within 

the European Union), France, Japan, Russia, South Korea, South Africa, Switzerland, the 

United Kingdom, and the United States, according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

In addition, NE funded 

research into sodium-cooled fast reactors—fast reactors that use sodium 

20The high-temperature gas-cooled reactor is an underground helium-cooled nuclear 

reactor technology. The reactor and the nuclear heat supply system consist of three major 

components: the reactor, a heat transport system, and a cross vessel that routes the 

helium between the reactor and the heat transport system. 
 

Page 9 GAO-14-545 DOE Advanced Nuclear Reactor R&D

to cool the reactor core—as well as a variety of other advanced 

reactors.21

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) established in law the Next 

Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) Project.22

 

21Advanced reactors have been built and tested in countries around the world, including in 

the United States, since the 1950s. Sodium-cooled fast reactors have been built and 

operated for research and commercial purposes in countries around the world, including 

France, Japan, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Two 

notable U.S. fast reactors include the Experimental Breeder Reactor, operational from 

1964 through 1994 and the Fast Flux Test Facility, operational from 1982 to 1992. Hightemperature gas-cooled reactors have also been built and operated around the world, 

including two that were licensed and operated in the United States. One reactor—Peach 

Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 1—was located in Pennsylvania and operated from 

1967 to 1974, according to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The other—Fort St. 

Vrain Generating Station—was located in Colorado and operated between 1979 and 

1989. 

The purpose of the NGNP is 

to develop a prototype reactor using advanced technology to generate 

electricity, hydrogen, or both. The law states that the NGNP Project shall 

consist of research, development, design, construction, and operation of 

a nuclear reactor prototype, and specifies completion dates for the 

project’s two phases, as well as certain other requirements, including 

licensing. Specifically, EPAct 2005 states that Phase 1 of the project, 

which requires DOE to, among other things, conduct R&D activities 

enabling it to select and validate an appropriate technology, culminating 

in the selection of a technology and initial design parameters, by a target 

date of September 30, 2011. The law also authorized DOE to submit a 

report to Congress identifying an alternative date upon which the agency 

would select the technology and initial design parameters. Phase 2 of the 

project, in which DOE would develop a final design for a nuclear reactor 

prototype, apply for licenses to construct and operate the reactor 

technology, construct the prototype, and begin operations, is to be 

completed by a target date of September 30, 2021, although DOE is 

again authorized to submit a report establishing an alternate date for 

completion. EPAct 2005 also mandated the organization of a consortium 

of appropriate industrial partners that will carry out cost-shared R&D, as 

well as design, construction, and operation on behalf of the NGNP 

Project, and that the NGNP prototype reactor be located at the Idaho 

National Laboratory in Idaho Falls, Idaho.

22Pub. L. No. 109-58, §§ 641-45, 119 Stat. 594, 794-99 (2005) (codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 

16021-16025). 
 

Page 10 GAO-14-545 DOE Advanced Nuclear Reactor R&D

In February 2006, the Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee recommended 

accelerating the NGNP Project schedule to, among other things, make 

the project more attractive to industry.23 However, also in February 2006, 

the administration announced the newly formed Global Nuclear Energy 

Partnership program, which sought to encourage the expansion of 

nuclear energy while addressing the burden of spent fuel disposal and the 

risk of nuclear weapons proliferation and, according to a 2008 National 

Academy of Sciences report, led to reduced funding for the NGNP 

Project. Under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership program, DOE 

focused advanced reactor R&D activities on developing sodium-cooled 

fast reactors, and it changed its approach from designing and building a 

small engineering-scale demonstration of the reactor and reprocessing 

facility, led by DOE’s national laboratories, to accelerating its work with 

industry to demonstrate commercially viable sodium-cooled fast reactor 

technology in full-scale facilities.24

In 2008, we reviewed NE’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership program 

and found that DOE’s original approach to the domestic component of the 

program—building engineering-scale facilities—would meet the program’s 

objectives if the advanced spent nuclear fuel recycling technologies on 

which it focused could be successfully developed and commercialized.25

However, we also reported that the approach lacked industry 

participation—potentially reducing the prospects for eventual 

commercialization of the technologies. NE favored an accelerated 

approach of building full-scale facilities that would likely require using 

unproven evolutions of existing technologies that would reduce the longterm benefits of the sodium-cooled fast reactor.26

 

23Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee, A Review of the NGNP Project (Feb. 22, 

2006).

We recommended that 

NE reassess its preference for an accelerated approach. In response, 

DOE decided, in 2009, to no longer pursue the Global Nuclear Energy 

Partnership program. However, NE continued research related to sodium24Engineering-scale demonstrations typically precede commercial-scale deployment and 

are meant to ensure technologies work as intended before an investment is made in a 

larger plant.

25GAO-08-483. 

26Under the accelerated approach, DOE would partner with industry and use the latest 

commercially available technology to design and build a commercial-scale reprocessing 

plant and advanced reactor without first building engineering-scale facilities.
 

Page 11 GAO-14-545 DOE Advanced Nuclear Reactor R&D

cooled fast reactors, with a new focus on long-term R&D coordinated with 

NE’s fuel cycle research.

Also in 2008, the National Academy of Sciences’ National Research 

Council issued a report reviewing NE’s R&D efforts and concluded that 

the success of any particular advanced reactor technology in the United 

States would depend on policy decisions and other factors beyond NE’s 

control.27

In April 2010, NE issued its Nuclear Energy Research and Development 

Roadmap: A Report to Congress, which provides a basis to guide NE’s 

internal programmatic and strategic planning for research going forward. 

Also in April 2010, NE issued Next Generation Nuclear Plant: A Report to 

Congress, which presents the historical background of the project; details 

the project’s spending; and discusses the principal investments in design, 

licensing, and research. As discussed in this report, NE selected the hightemperature gas-cooled reactor as the advanced reactor technology to 

develop under the NGNP Project.

In addition, the report concluded that NE’s resources were 

barely adequate for basic studies related to the NGNP Project and 

entirely inadequate for (1) exploring the sodium-cooled fast reactor at a 

research level and (2) investigating other reactor technologies. The report 

also stated that selecting a specific technology to develop from among 

the options known at that time would have been premature.

In its 2011 Phase 1 review of the project, the Nuclear Energy Advisory 

Committee reported that the NGNP Project was not ready to proceed to 

the complete set of Phase 2 activities, citing

• the need for more detailed design and R&D;

• the need to resolve key licensing issues;

• constraints imposed by EPAct 2005, such as the Idaho site 

requirement;

• the absence of a public-private partnership, as required;

• absence of industrial partners willing to commit to share in the cost of 

constructing the prototype reactor; and

• an unrealistic project plan given the limited amount of conceptual 

design work completed.

 

27National Research Council, Review of DOE’s Nuclear Energy Research and 

Development Program (2008).
 

Page 12 GAO-14-545 DOE Advanced Nuclear Reactor R&D

The committee recommended that NE continue conducting its Phase 1 

R&D, focused on one technology and completing design work, initiate the 

partnership with the nuclear industry, and continue to engage the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC)—the federal agency that licenses and 

regulates the nation’s civilian use of nuclear reactors—to ensure that the 

regulatory framework for this new reactor technology would be ready to 

support commercialization. The committee also recommended eliminating 

the requirement that the NGNP prototype be sited at Idaho National 

Laboratory.

In October 2011, DOE submitted a letter to Congress in response to

EPAct 2005 requirements to transmit the committee’s report and to report 

on certain requirements to complete Phase 1 of the NGNP Project. As 

noted above, EPAct 2005 required, by September 30, 2011, that DOE 

select technology and initial design parameters; alternately, DOE was to 

submit a report to Congress identifying a new date upon which the 

agency would do so. In the 2011 letter, DOE stated that it was notifying 

Congress that the department had not selected the initial design 

parameters for the NGNP by September 30, 2011, and that it would not 

proceed with Phase 2 design activities at that time. The letter also stated 

that DOE would focus on remaining applied R&D, work with NRC on 

licensing framework, and establish the public-private partnership—in 

essence, to follow most of the advisory committee’s recommendations—

until conditions favorable to completing the NGNP Project warranted a 

change in direction. Further, DOE asserted that the partnership—rather 

than DOE—would select initial design parameters and would provide an 

update to the project’s schedule and milestones.

In its fiscal year 2014 budget request to Congress, DOE indicated that NE 

would continue to fund some NGNP research activities under the 

Advanced Reactor Concepts subprogram.

NE’s approach to its advanced reactor R&D is to support research on 

technologies associated with three main types of advanced reactors: 

high-temperature gas-cooled reactors; liquid-metal-cooled fast reactors, 

including the sodium-cooled fast reactor; and fluoride-salt-cooled hightemperature reactors. NE also conducts research supporting other lessdeveloped advanced reactor technologies and supports the development 

of advanced small modular reactors. NE’s approach to advanced reactor 

R&D addresses broad programmatic goals—including improvements in 

the economics, safety, and proliferation resistance of nuclear power 

plants—and aims to develop technologies to reduce nuclear waste and 

NE’s Approach to 

Advanced Reactor 

R&D Supports 

Several Advanced 

Reactor Technologies
 

Page 13 GAO-14-545 DOE Advanced Nuclear Reactor R&D

greenhouse gas emissions. This approach provides several advantages, 

including flexibility in responding to changes in future U.S. energy policy 

or other circumstances.

NE’s approach to its advanced reactor R&D efforts primarily is to support 

research on three main advanced reactor technologies: high-temperature 

gas-cooled reactors; liquid-metal cooled fast reactors, including the 

sodium-cooled fast reactor; and fluoride-salt-cooled high-temperature 

reactors. On a smaller scale, NE also conducts or funds research 

supporting other less-developed advanced reactor technologies. In 

addition, NE conducts research supporting a variety of technologies 

related to the development of advanced small modular reactors. In 

discussions with representatives from the nuclear industry, members of 

the National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council, and 

others, we found that views frequently varied on which specific 

technologies NE should be supporting through its R&D efforts.

High-temperature gas-cooled reactors produce energy in the form of hightemperature heat—which can produce electricity or be used as process 

heat—and differ from existing light water reactors in three key features: 

using (1) helium gas instead of water as a coolant; (2) graphite instead of 

water to slow neutrons and sustain the nuclear reaction; and 

(3) advanced nuclear fuel, which offers safety benefits at high 

temperatures. These three features make high-temperature gas-cooled 

reactors capable of operating at higher temperatures than existing light 

water reactors, thus offering a broader range of applications to industrial 

processes, as well as higher heat-to-electricity energy conversion 

efficiencies than are achievable with the lower operating temperatures of 

light water reactors. The high-temperature gas-cooled reactor is an 

advanced reactor technology that is expected to be helpful in limiting 

greenhouse gas emissions, according to NE officials, DOE laboratory 

staff, and NE documents. In addition, the technology offers inherent and 

passive safety features—including advanced fuel, helium coolant, and 

passive heat removal—that are especially important in a post-Fukushima 

world, according to NE officials.

NE’s current involvement with high-temperature gas-cooled reactor R&D 

began in 2002, when, under the Generation-IV International Forum, hightemperature gas-cooled reactor systems were selected as one of six 

advanced reactor technologies to be developed by the international 

consortium. The United States was one of six countries, plus the 

European Union, that took the lead in developing this reactor technology, 

NE’s Advanced Reactor 

R&D Efforts Are Focused 

on Three Primary Reactor 

Technologies

High-Temperature Gas-Cooled 

Reactors
 

Page 14 GAO-14-545 DOE Advanced Nuclear Reactor R&D

according to NE officials. NE chose to pursue high-temperature gascooled reactors because, according to NE officials, laboratory staff, and 

NE documents, they met the criteria of its advanced reactor programs, 

including potential improvements over existing light water reactors in 

safety, economic viability, and their promise for reducing greenhouse gas 

emissions. NE officials told us that the high-temperature gas-cooled 

reactor was also chosen because it had operating history in the United 

States and throughout the world, which meant that many important 

technical details had already been resolved. At the time, NE concluded 

that its research would build on existing operational experience, thus 

increasing the likelihood that high-temperature gas-cooled reactors could 

be developed and commercialized. NE envisioned its research would 

further demonstrate the technical and economic viability of the hightemperature gas-cooled reactor technology.

Pursuant to EPAct 2005, NE is to undertake research, development, 

design, construction, and operation of an advanced nuclear reactor 

prototype with a targeted completion date of September 30, 2021.28

 

28EPAct 2005 also provides that DOE may submit a report to Congress establishing an 

alternative date for completion. 

From 

2005 to 2011, under Phase 1 of the NGNP Project, NE spent more than 

$500 million on R&D in support of high-temperature gas-cooled reactor 

technologies. This research was conducted primarily at DOE’s national 

laboratories, and it focused on preliminary reactor design work, 

developing new reactor fuel, and testing high-temperature materials. The 

NGNP Project also collaborates with universities and industry on some 

R&D activities, and NE has coordinated with NRC to conduct R&D 

necessary to design and license high-temperature gas-cooled reactors in 

the United States. The last high-temperature gas-cooled reactor was 

licensed in the United States in 1973, and many questions remain about 

the process by which NRC will consider license approval for these 

reactors. According to NE and NRC officials, NE began consulting with 

NRC in the mid-2000s as NRC worked to (1) update its policy on the 

regulation of advanced reactors and (2) produce a report to Congress on 

its advanced reactor licensing strategy for NGNP, which was jointly 

published in 2008. During this time, NE shared detailed technical 

information and supporting materials with NRC, information meant to 

mitigate risks associated with the licensing process, according to NE and 

NRC officials. Although DOE determined that it would not proceed to 
 

Page 15 GAO-14-545 DOE Advanced Nuclear Reactor R&D

Phase 2 design activities for the NGNP Project in 2011, NE continues to 

fund research on some aspects of a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor, 

including the testing of advanced reactor fuel and high-temperature 

materials including graphite.

We found varying views on the potential economic feasibility of the hightemperature gas-cooled reactors. Some industry representatives and a 

member of the National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council 

that we interviewed questioned the appropriateness of NE continuing to 

fund high-temperature gas-cooled reactor research, citing concerns over 

the reactor’s economic viability in relation to the current cost of natural 

gas. One industry representative cited studies showing that the 

technology is not economically viable, as well as the fact that NE has, to 

date, been unable to get industrial partners interested in sharing project 

development costs. However, an economic analysis by the NGNP 

Industry Alliance—an international consortium of potential end users, 

owner-operators, and technology companies brought together to partner 

with NE and commercialize the high-temperature gas-cooled reactor—

concluded that the high-temperature gas-cooled reactor would be 

economically viable under certain market conditions. In addition, NE has 

conducted a series of feasibility studies, including detailed economic 

analyses and studies of potential industrial applications for the process 

heat, to demonstrate conditions under which the high-temperature gascooled reactor technology becomes economically competitive. 

Representatives from the NGNP Industry Alliance said they believe that, 

with favorable trends in natural gas prices, the high-temperature gascooled reactor will be economically viable by the time the prototype 

reactor is built in the early-2030s, as is projected under the NGNP 

Industry Alliance’s current project time frames.

The liquid-metal-cooled fast reactors, including sodium-cooled fast 

reactors, use liquid-metal to cool the reactor core. In addition to producing 

electricity, a primary benefit of these reactors is in nuclear waste 

management. Fast reactors can use reprocessed spent nuclear fuel as 

their energy source, which would help the United States reduce the 

amount of spent fuel from light water reactors that would need to be 

stored or eventually placed in a geologic repository. Fast reactors also 

minimize nuclear waste generation by significantly improving fuel use 

efficiency as compared to traditional light water reactors.

NE identified the sodium-cooled fast reactor as a reactor technology of 

interest in 2002 under the Generation-IV International Forum because, 

according to NE officials, it met criteria of its advanced reactor programs, 

Liquid-Metal-Cooled Fast 

Reactors
 

Page 16 GAO-14-545 DOE Advanced Nuclear Reactor R&D

including significant advances in proliferation resistance, its potential for 

improving the sustainability of the nuclear fuel cycle, and its management 

of highly radioactive waste elements. NE continues to conduct research in 

support of sodium-cooled fast reactors because of their advantages for 

addressing nuclear waste and because reactors with the same basic 

technology have been built and operated in the United States and around 

the world since the 1960s. In fact, several other countries, including 

Japan and France, had or currently have operating sodium-cooled fast 

reactors. 

We also found varying views on sodium-cooled fast reactors among 

industry representatives, members of the National Academy of Sciences’ 

National Research Council, and others that we interviewed. Some 

members of the National Academy of Sciences’ National Research 

Council and an industry representative cited concerns over the safety of 

sodium-cooled fast reactors—including the highly reactive nature of the 

sodium in the presence of water and the threat of sodium fires—and 

believe that these safety issues may never be fully overcome. Moreover, 

some industry representatives and members of the National Academy of 

Sciences’ National Research Council told us that a fast reactor 

technology market does not exist in the United States, citing other more 

cost-effective options for storing spent nuclear fuel, including storage in 

aboveground casks or water pools as is the current practice at U.S. 

nuclear power reactors. These individuals believe that NE’s sodiumcooled fast reactor research is ill-advised.

In contrast, NE officials and some industry representatives that we

interviewed believe that remaining technical challenges with the sodiumcooled fast reactor can be overcome. In addition, NE officials said it is 

conceivable that changes in government policy for handling spent nuclear 

fuel in the United States will create a market for fast reactors, as it has in 

the United Kingdom. Moreover, NE believes that the sodium-cooled fast 

reactor, or other similar fast reactor technology, may be instrumental in 

efforts to develop a sustainable nuclear fuel cycle. In 2011, NE undertook 

a comprehensive study of various options for improving the sustainability 

of the nuclear fuel cycle, which would potentially entail using fast reactor 

technology and waste reprocessing to create nuclear power systems that 

better manage and reduce the generation of nuclear waste when 

compared to a once-through light water reactor fuel cycle. Although this 

study did not consider specific advanced reactor technologies, a closed 

fuel cycle may require using an advanced fast reactor technology, such 

as the sodium-cooled fast reactor.
 

Page 17 GAO-14-545 DOE Advanced Nuclear Reactor R&D

The fluoride-salt-cooled high-temperature reactor design takes advantage 

of the physical characteristics of liquid-salt coolant to enable the 

development of a high-temperature system that is scalable to larger 

power and able to operate at lower pressure and higher power density 

than the helium-cooled high-temperature gas-cooled reactor. With these 

characteristics, according to NE officials and DOE documents, these 

reactors could provide potential safety benefits and increased efficiency 

over existing light water reactors while maintaining the benefit of providing 

both electricity and process heat for industrial applications. NE officials 

told us that this mix of characteristics is the reason why NE provides 

limited funding research into fluoride-salt-cooled high-temperature 

reactor. However, the fluoride-salt-cooled high-temperature reactor 

technology is not very mature or well tested, and because of this is 

considered more of a long-range advanced reactor technology, according 

to NE officials. NE funds R&D into fluoride-salt-cooled high-temperature 

reactors mainly through NE’s Nuclear Energy University Program, with 

the research mainly conducted at universities across the country. Two 

industry representatives we interviewed took issue with NE for funding a 

reactor technology that is unproven and that in their view has little chance 

of ever being built. In response, NE officials told us that the potential 

benefits of fluoride-salt-cooled high-temperature reactor over other 

advanced reactor technologies warrant providing limited funds and 

utilizing university research capabilities.

NE conducts or funds R&D on other advanced reactor technologies on a 

small scale, mainly to assess their potential and better characterize their 

performance capabilities. NE officials told us that most of these 

technologies have some unproven aspects, operate in novel ways, or 

have other characteristics that increase the risk associated with their 

development. NE supports research into some of these potentially 

transformative, long-term technology options through its Nuclear Energy 

University Program. For example, in 2013, the program funded research 

to assess the feasibility of an advanced reactor fueled with depleted 

uranium, a design offering a 30-fold increase in uranium ore utilization 

verses contemporary light water reactor designs.

NE also funds research into promising advanced reactor technologies 

through the Advanced Reactor Concepts Technical Review Panel 

process. Through this process, NE identifies R&D needs for potentially 

viable advanced reactor technologies to inform NE advanced reactor 

R&D funding decisions. A goal of the process is to facilitate greater 

engagement between DOE and the nuclear industry. NE first solicited 

information on advanced reactor proposals from industry in February 

Fluoride-Salt-Cooled HighTemperature Reactor

Other Advanced Nuclear 

Reactor Technologies
 

Page 18 GAO-14-545 DOE Advanced Nuclear Reactor R&D

2012, after which a review panel made up of experts from national 

laboratories, universities, and industry reviewed the proposals against 

established evaluation criteria, including safety, market attractiveness, 

economics, proliferation risk, waste generation, security, and potential 

regulatory challenges. The panel’s assessment of market attractiveness 

focused on the proposed technologies’ ability to be competitive in the 

marketplace, and it included variables like efficiency, initial capital costs, 

and economic factors such as construction, manufacturing, and operating 

costs and uncertainties, as well as the resulting cost of electricity, 

according to the Technical Review Panel report. The objective of the 

Technical Review Panel process was to evaluate the viability of the 

technologies, understand the R&D needs of each, and prioritize research 

to support development and commercialization of each. After R&D needs 

and priorities were identified, NE issued a funding opportunity 

announcement, competitively selected four projects, and provided a total 

of $3.5 million in funding for those projects, according to NE officials. 

Many nuclear industry representatives we interviewed applauded NE’s 

effort and told us that this process was an effective way for NE to 

collaborate with industry and that it begins to address a long-standing 

industry concern that NE’s R&D efforts did not coordinate with industry or 

meet industry needs. However, these industry representatives also stated 

that the $3.5 million in R&D funding was insufficient to meaningfully 

address the need for collaboration between NE and industry as it was 

enough to fund a very small number of R&D activities. Notably, Congress 

provided NE with an additional $12 million to support a continuation of 

this effort. According to NE officials, NE has issued another industry 

solicitation and will use the information gathered to make additional 

industry cost-shared R&D awards early in fiscal year 2015.

NE also conducts research on advanced small modular reactors with the 

goal of supporting the development of innovative small modular reactor 

designs that offer improved safety, functionality, and affordability. These 

R&D efforts support advanced small modular reactors that offer simplified 

operation and maintenance, more efficient energy conversion, and 

increased proliferation resistance and security. More specifically, NE 

funds research on advanced sensors, instrumentation and controls, 

control systems for multiple units, advanced materials, and other major 

system components. In addition, NE funds efforts to create standards and 

codes for small modular reactor materials to support the eventual 

licensing of these advanced reactor technologies.

In 2012 and 2013, through its Small Modular Reactor Licensing Technical 

Support program, NE issued funding opportunity announcements for costAdvanced Small Modular 

Reactors
 

Page 19 GAO-14-545 DOE Advanced Nuclear Reactor R&D

sharing with industry for the development of small modular reactor 

designs—including small modular reactors based on light water reactor 

technology, as well as advanced small modular reactors—to support the 

program’s vision to provide additional nuclear power options that offer 

more flexibility in financing, siting, and end-use applications than large

light water reactor designs. Under the cost-sharing arrangement for each 

funding opportunity, DOE is supporting design development, first-of-akind engineering, experiments, and analysis in support of gaining design 

certification approval from NRC for the small modular reactors so that

commercial deployment of the first small modular reactor can begin. 

Industry proposals under these announcements were judged by 

independent selection panels based on a series of criteria, including the 

extent to which the design incorporates safety, operability, efficiency, 

economics, and security characteristics that exceed the capabilities of 

current reactor designs; the likelihood of expeditiously achieving design 

certification and deployment;29

 

29The March 2012 funding opportunity announcement had a target date of 2022 for 

deployment. The March 2013 funding opportunity announcement had a target date of 

2025 for deployment. 

the overall quality of the project plan and 

business approach; and other factors. Based on our review of the two 

funding opportunity announcements, however, we found that the funding 

opportunity announcements differed in the economic information that NE 

required for proposals. In the 2012 announcement, NE more directly 

addressed economics and marketability by requiring applicants to 

propose business plans “to meet expanding domestic electricity 

requirements at a competitive price” and to “provide their plan to achieve 

successful commercial deployment” of the technology. By contrast, the 

2013 announcement indicated that the economic criteria used to evaluate 

proposals would be based on the designs’ construction, fabrication, 

deployment, and operational costs. NE officials told us that these criteria 

indirectly assess economics and marketability of these technologies, and 

that the type of economic information received from applicants in 2012 

was very preliminary and did not provide a good discriminator with which 

to evaluate proposals. In addition, these officials stated that it was 

incumbent on the applicants to ultimately assure marketability as they 

were providing most of the funding and have a profit motive. For both 

funding opportunity announcements, the panel’s evaluation resulted in 

choosing a small modular reactor design based on conventional light 

water reactor technology. Some industry representatives, members of the 

National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council and the 
 

Page 20 GAO-14-545 DOE Advanced Nuclear Reactor R&D

Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee, and NE officials told us that this 

selection was an appropriate choice because it has a significantly better 

chance of being licensed and constructed in the required time frame, as 

compared to advanced small modular reactor designs that are not based 

on conventional light water reactor technology.

While the broad goals of NE’s advanced reactor R&D efforts are to 

improve the economics, safety, and proliferation resistance of nuclear 

power plants, the R&D efforts also aim to develop advanced reactor 

technologies that can prepare the United States to address policy 

objectives such as reducing nuclear waste and greenhouse gas 

emissions. NE’s approach to advanced reactor R&D is to conduct 

research in support of multiple advanced reactor technologies. According 

to NE officials and documents, because NE’s approach to advanced 

reactor R&D has multiple goals and seeks to address several different 

policy objectives, NE works on multiple technologies simultaneously. A 

key objective of NE’s advanced reactor R&D efforts is to conduct 

research to remove technology barriers or reduce technology risks, while 

collaborating with industry and academia, with the ultimate goal for 

industry to take the results of NE’s research to the next step of 

development and commercialization. NE focuses on R&D that industry 

does not have the means to carry out, according to NE officials, with the 

expectation that the research will reduce financial risks to industry and 

thereby increase the affordability of industry investment in new nuclear 

technologies. In addition, NE engages and collaborates with NRC on 

issues related to the eventual licensing of advanced reactors, including 

understanding the likely scope and extent of R&D necessary to support 

the licensing process.

While advanced reactors are attractive for many reasons, NE carries out 

research on a variety of reactors because, in part, different reactor types 

can address particular objectives, according to NE officials. For instance, 

fast reactors can be better at addressing the nuclear waste issue than 

some other advanced reactors, while high-temperature gas-cooled 

reactors provide process heat and may be a better solution for addressing 

greenhouse gas emissions. According to NE officials, the development of 

fast reactors, such as the sodium-cooled fast reactor, is likely to play a 

critical role in managing spent nuclear fuel if and when the United States 

decides to reprocess and use its spent nuclear fuel rather than store it at 

NE’s Approach Addresses 

Broad Programmatic 

Goals and Policy 

Objectives, and Provides 

Flexibility in Responding to 

Changes in U.S. Energy 

Policy
 

Page 21 GAO-14-545 DOE Advanced Nuclear Reactor R&D

reactor sites,30 as is the current practice at U.S. nuclear power reactors, 

or isolate it in a geologic repository underground, as has been 

proposed.31

To remain aware of industry’s R&D needs and international nuclear 

energy developments, NE regularly collaborates with industry and 

international organizations, according to NE officials and NE documents. 

NE officials told us that NE regularly collaborates with industry on specific 

R&D projects by sharing technical data and information. For example, NE 

is currently collaborating with industry on advanced fuels and materials, 

among other things. NE officials told us they work with industry and have 

conversations regarding specific R&D activities. According to NE officials 

and some industry representatives that we interviewed, this type of 

collaboration has been increasing in recent years, and one industry 

representative stated that such collaboration is critically important to 

ensuring that NE’s activities are relevant for industry.

One way that NE has recently collaborated with industry, according to NE 

officials, was through the Advanced Reactor Concepts Technical Review 

Panel process. Some industry representatives we talked to stated that 

this review panel process was beneficial to both industry and NE because 

it helped inform NE of industry R&D needs and because it has provided 

some funds to industry to carry out research on promising new 

technologies. Industry officials also told us that the process has opened 

up some new channels of communication between NE and industry. 

However, industry representatives also stated that, although this 

collaboration with industry is beneficial, NE could be doing more to 

ensure that its R&D is more fully aligned with industry needs. For 

 

30Spent nuclear fuel can no longer efficiently generate power in a nuclear reactor, but it 

can be reprocessed to separate out uranium and plutonium which may be used again to 

fuel a reactor. Reprocessing, however, results in nuclear waste that requires disposal. The 

United States does not currently reprocess its spent nuclear fuel, and this fuel, when it is 

accepted for disposal, is considered to be high-level waste as defined by NRC. 

31The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 directed DOE to investigate sites for a federal 

geologic repository to dispose of spent nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste from 

commercial nuclear power plants. In 1986, DOE recommended three candidate sites for 

characterization, but in 1987, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987 directed 

DOE to focus its efforts only on Yucca Mountain, a site about 100 miles northwest of Las 

Vegas, Nevada. In March 2009, the Secretary of Energy announced plans to terminate the 

Yucca Mountain repository program. See GAO-12-797 for more information. The 

administration’s current strategy proposes to move spent fuel from reactor sites to an 

interim storage facility for eventual disposal in a geological repository underground.
 

Page 22 GAO-14-545 DOE Advanced Nuclear Reactor R&D

example, according to one industry official, NE conducts some research 

that, while interesting and potentially beneficial, has little utility for 

industry’s current needs.

NE carries out international collaboration through ongoing meetings of the 

Generation-IV International Forum and through the International Atomic 

Energy Agency,32 through the Organisation for Economic Co-operation 

and Development (OECD),33

NE’s approach to advanced reactor R&D provides several advantages, 

primarily flexibility in responding to changes in future U.S. energy policy 

or other circumstances, according to NE officials. The officials said they 

believe that conducting research in support of multiple advanced reactor 

technologies gives the agency the flexibility to respond to external factors 

affecting the direction of their advanced reactor R&D efforts, including 

changes in U.S. energy policy, energy markets, or other areas. 

Specifically, NE officials told us that the current approach positions NE to 

respond to changes in U.S. energy policies, such as policies for 

managing the nation’s nuclear waste or controlling greenhouse gas 

emissions. Changes in either of these policies would affect the direction 

of NE’s advanced reactor efforts, according to NE officials. For instance, 

a policy calling for the United States to manage nuclear waste by 

reprocessing spent nuclear fuel and reusing it as reactor fuel would result 

and through bi-lateral agreements with 

many countries around the world, including Canada, the Russian 

Federation, the People’s Republic of China, Japan, the Republic of 

Korea, and countries in the European Union. NE officials cited several 

examples of such collaboration, such as with the People’s Republic of 

China on high-temperature gas-cooled reactors; with France on their 

sodium-cooled fast reactor development project; with Japan on advanced 

materials for sodium-cooled fast reactors; and with the Republic of Korea 

on sodium-cooled fast reactors.

 

32The International Atomic Energy Agency is an autonomous international organization 

affiliated with the United Nations, established in Vienna, Austria, in 1957. The agency has 

the dual role of promoting the peaceful uses of nuclear energy by transferring nuclear 

science and technology through its nuclear science and applications and technical 

cooperation programs, and verifying, through its safeguards program, that nuclear 

material subject to safeguards is not diverted to nuclear weapons or other proscribed 

purposes.

33The OECD is an organization of 34 industrialized countries, operating by consensus, 

that fosters dialogue among members to discuss, develop, and refine economic and social 

policies and provides an arena for establishing multilateral agreements.
 

Page 23 GAO-14-545 DOE Advanced Nuclear Reactor R&D

in NE focusing efforts and concentrating resources on developing and 

deploying fast reactor technologies. NE officials told us that the current 

practice of storing nuclear waste in aboveground facilities at nuclear 

power plants across the country will eventually be changed, and waste 

will either be moved to long-term underground repositories, or 

reprocessed and burned in fast nuclear reactors.34

Similarly, NE officials said that policies that affect the prices of various 

energy sources would have an effect on the commercial attractiveness of 

high-temperature reactors, including high-temperature gas-cooled 

reactors. For instance, officials cited the possibility of the imposition of a 

carbon tax to control greenhouse gas emissions, or the possibility of 

natural gas prices rising, either of which would make nuclear energy more 

economically competitive and increase the attractiveness of the hightemperature gas-cooled reactors that produce both electricity and process 

heat for industrial applications. These industrial applications currently rely 

heavily on natural gas or coal plants as their source for high-temperature 

process heat. NE officials stated that natural gas prices in other countries 

are already at levels where the high-temperature gas-cooled reactors are 

projected to be economically competitive and that this has resulted in 

some interest from outside the United States in the development of this 

technology.

NE officials told us that 

ongoing research into fast reactor technologies is important so that NE is 

positioned to react to changes in U.S. policy toward the handling of 

nuclear waste, including waste that has already been generated and 

waste that continues to be generated.

According to NE officials, another advantage of NE’s approach to 

advanced reactor R&D is that NE is able to maintain an employee base 

with knowledge and expertise on a wide variety of reactor technologies. 

NE officials told us that maintaining staff expertise is important so NE can 

continue to conduct research on the various technologies, train the next 

generation of scientists and engineers, and be ready to support the 

production of prototype reactors when the time comes. In addition, 

maintaining a level of expertise in a variety of advanced reactor 

technologies means that NE can engage with, monitor, and support other 

 

34Current reprocessing techniques, aimed at extracting usable uranium and plutonium 

from spent fuel, have been developed for use in light water reactors. However, spent fuel 

from light water reactors contains other radioactive isotopes that a fast reactor can 

eliminate from the waste stream. 
 

Page 24 GAO-14-545 DOE Advanced Nuclear Reactor R&D

countries as they develop advanced reactor technologies. These officials 

said this is important because other countries are actively developing 

advanced reactor technologies, and the United States needs scientists 

that can understand how those reactors operate, in part, to judge their 

safety and nuclear proliferation risks.

NE officials also said that conducing R&D on several types of advanced 

reactors simultaneously, rather than focusing on a single reactor type, 

also gives NE the ability to fund R&D supporting promising but unproven 

reactor technologies. For instance, NE is funding limited research on 

lead-cooled fast reactors, which offer the potential for improved safety 

and proliferation resistance over other advanced reactor technologies, but 

they have some unproven technologies and components, according to 

NE officials. Similarly, NE is funding research in support of an advanced 

small modular reactor based on fast reactor technology that would 

potentially address the nuclear waste issue and also provide process heat 

for industrial applications. NE officials said that it is important to have 

funds available to support these and other potentially game-changing 

technological breakthroughs. However, in its June 2013 report, the 

Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee was critical of NE’s approach, saying 

that NE needs to better prioritize its R&D efforts on a smaller number of 

advanced reactor technologies to focus research funding on the ultimate 

goal of deploying an advanced reactor prototype.

Although NE selected the technology to develop under the NGNP Project, 

many members of the National Academy of Sciences’ National Research 

Council, members of the Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee, and 

industry representatives we interviewed agree with NE’s approach to 

advanced reactor R&D because the time is not right for NE to move to the 

deployment phase. For instance, representatives from industry and the 

Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee told us that uncertainties around 

current policies for handing nuclear waste and controlling greenhouse 

gases do not make a compelling case for choosing an advanced reactor 

technology to deploy as a prototype. The 2008 National Academy of 

Sciences’ National Research Council review of NE’s advanced reactor 

R&D efforts agreed with NE’s approach to advanced reactor R&D, saying 

that there are several policy matters and other questions—undetermined 

nuclear waste management options, unformulated environmental policy, 

ongoing work of other countries on advanced technologies, and unclear 

nonproliferation regimes—that will affect NE’s decisions and priorities. 

This review team stated that, given these unknowns, it would be 

premature to select a winning technology from among current options.
 

Page 25 GAO-14-545 DOE Advanced Nuclear Reactor R&D

In addition, in January 2012, the President’s Blue Ribbon Commission on 

America’s Nuclear Future recommended having the United States 

continue multiple near-term (i.e., light water reactor) and long-term (e.g., 

small modular reactor, sodium-cooled fast reactor, high-temperature gascooled reactor) R&D efforts until NE could defensibly select technologies 

that would meet certain regulatory and policy requirements (e.g., safety, 

environmental protection, security, and nonproliferation). Moreover, 

members of the Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee and the National 

Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council, and representatives 

from industry told us that current NE funding levels would prohibit NE 

from deploying a prototype reactor even if NE chose an advanced 

technology to deploy. Some of them said that NE is correctly positioning 

itself to be prepared to deploy a prototype reactor in the long-term as 

policies or energy markets change. One Nuclear Energy Advisory 

Committee representative said that United States could focus its 

advanced reactor R&D efforts quickly in response to a policy change or 

other congressional direction, provided that NE also saw increased 

funding.

NE’s uses internal and external reviews to set program and funding 

priorities for advanced reactor R&D and to evaluate progress toward 

program goals. However, NE does not have a strategy for overcoming 

barriers to deploying an advanced nuclear reactor prototype, increasing 

the likelihood that such a reactor will not be built by the 2021 target date 

specified in EPAct 2005. Not deploying a prototype carries certain risks, 

including waning U.S. influence in the safe operation of nuclear plants 

internationally and potential loss of certain knowledge and expertise.

NE takes a number of steps to plan and prioritize its advanced reactor 

R&D efforts and evaluate progress toward program goals. Before its 

annual program planning meetings, NE and national laboratory staff 

develop a list of R&D efforts considered to be priorities. NE management 

reviews this information in light of program goals, including long-term 

goals described in NE’s 2010 R&D Roadmap, program funding, and 

schedules, according to NE officials. Once the research priorities are 

established and approved by management, the individual laboratories 

NE Uses Internal and 

External Reviews to 

Set Program and 

Funding Priorities but 

Does Not Have a 

Strategy for 

Deploying an 

Advanced Reactor 

Prototype

NE Plans, Prioritizes, and 

Evaluates Its R&D 

Activities through Internal 

and External Reviews 
 

Page 26 GAO-14-545 DOE Advanced Nuclear Reactor R&D

develop detailed work plans, which describe the objectives and scope of 

the work to be performed. These work plans are reviewed to ensure that 

the proposed work is aligned with NE’s mission and that the work can be 

accomplished within the allotted budget and time frames, according to NE 

officials. All of the approved work plans are then entered into NE’s 

performance management system—the Program Information Collection 

System—which allows NE to track progress toward budget and schedule 

milestones on an ongoing basis. According to a laboratory staff member, 

this system tracks progress toward short-term goals—on a monthly 

basis—and long-term goals—on yearly, 3-year, and 5-year time frames.

NE monitors and evaluates its advanced reactor R&D activities on an 

ongoing basis through the Program Information Collection System and 

conducts program reviews—monthly, quarterly, and annually—to assess 

progress toward program goals, according to NE officials. For example, 

officials from the Advanced Reactor Concepts and Advanced Small 

Modular Reactor subprograms hold monthly progress review meetings to 

discuss, among other things, program updates, technical highlights, and 

budget and milestone status updates. The officials use monthly status 

tracking reports generated by the performance management system as 

part of these reviews, in which officials review cost and schedule 

performance data. In addition to the monthly meetings, officials from the 

Advanced Reactor Concepts and Advanced Small Modular Reactor 

subprograms typically conduct four in-depth reviews of each year, 

according to NE officials. These reviews focus on one or more specific 

areas of research, and officials discuss progress toward goals, important 

issues or problems, and plans going forward. For example, the meeting 

minutes from the quarterly review of the Advanced Reactor Concepts and 

Advanced Small Modular Reactor subprograms in July 2013 show that 

officials discussed accomplishments and also priorities for the upcoming 

fiscal year, and conducted in-depth discussions of certain program areas 

and overviews of others. In addition, NE conducts annual reviews of 

activities across multiple subprograms and topics to ensure that NE’s 

efforts are complementary and nonduplicative, and also to gain insight 

into areas of potential collaboration. For example, during its annual review 

of the nuclear reactor R&D efforts in March 2014, NE officials discussed 

progress on fuels for the high-temperature gas-cooled reactor, advanced 

reactor licensing, and advanced reactor materials for small modular 

reactors, among other things. On a less-formal basis, management 

officials at the national laboratories are in frequent communication with 

NE management through weekly teleconferences to provide regular 

progress updates and provide information on unforeseen circumstances 

or challenges, according to NE officials.
 

Page 27 GAO-14-545 DOE Advanced Nuclear Reactor R&D

NE also takes steps to coordinate efforts across its R&D programs and 

subprograms to leverage experience and funding, as well as to reduce 

redundant R&D activities. Officials from the Advanced Reactor Concepts 

and Fuel Cycle subprograms stated that they frequently coordinate with 

each other because their R&D efforts are interdependent. For example, 

the Fuel Cycle subprogram is conducting R&D on accident tolerant fuels 

that will be used for advanced reactors, so coordination between the Fuel 

Cycle subprogram and the Advanced Reactor Concepts subprogram is 

crucial, according to NE officials.

To further help ensure that R&D efforts are coordinated and to minimize 

redundancies, NE established the Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies 

program in fiscal year 2011. The program is designed to conduct R&D on 

crosscutting technologies that complement NE’s activities to support and 

enable the development of new advanced reactor designs and fuel cycle 

technologies. NE created the program to better coordinate and integrate 

R&D activities after officials identified some similar efforts being 

performed on crosscutting areas, such as materials, across more than 

one program, according to NE officials. Through this program, NE has 

awarded over $9 million to support R&D projects focused on reactor 

materials, advanced sensors and instrumentation, and advanced 

methods for manufacturing, among other things. NE determines which 

R&D efforts are conducted by the Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies 

program by reviewing R&D proposals submitted by different groups, 

including the national labs, universities, research institutions, and 

industry, according to NE documents. Specific R&D projects are selected 

based on common needs of programs and subprograms, with each 

selected project required to support at least three programs or 

subprograms.

Others also periodically conduct external reviews of NE’s advanced 

reactor R&D to inform the planning and prioritization efforts for and 

assess the progress of its R&D activities. Most prominently, according to 

NE officials, the Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee provides NE with 

independent advice and recommendations on complex science and 

technical issues that arise in planning, managing, and implementing NE’s 

R&D activities. The Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee typically meets 

twice annually with NE management to discuss its reports and 

recommendations. The Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee’s 

subcommittee on Nuclear Reactor Technology is intended to provide 

expert guidance to NE on both the short-term and long-term direction of 

its R&D efforts on reactor technologies. NE officials and Nuclear Energy 

Advisory Committee representatives told us that the committee has been 
 

Page 28 GAO-14-545 DOE Advanced Nuclear Reactor R&D

beneficial in providing expertise to NE and that NE has been responsive 

to the committee’s recommendations. In 2011, a Nuclear Energy Advisory 

Committee review of NE’s R&D efforts on the NGNP Project determined

that NE should not move forward with the complete set of Phase 2 

activities of the project, citing constraints imposed by EPAct 2005 and 

difficulties finding industry partners. Subsequently, in 2011, NE informed 

Congress that it would not proceed with Phase 2 design activities of the 

NGNP Project until circumstances warranted a change in direction.

NE’s efforts have also been reviewed by other outside entities, including 

the Secretary of Energy’s Advisory Board, which provides advice and 

recommendations to the Secretary of Energy on various topics. For 

example, in 2012, the Secretary of Energy requested the board identify 

areas in which standards for safety, security, and nonproliferation should 

be developed for small modular reactors; identify challenges, 

uncertainties, and risks to commercialization; and provide advice on 

approaches to manage these risks and accelerate deployment of these 

reactors. The board determined that the commercialization of small 

modular reactors was likely to produce multiple benefits for the country, 

including helping provide for a more reliable power grid with more widely 

distributed power generation once current light water reactors are retired; 

supporting clean generation and reduced carbon emissions; and helping 

preserve influence of the United States on nuclear nonproliferation 

issues. The board stated that to deploy small modular reactors widely, the 

nation must develop a robust small modular reactor industry that can 

manufacture cost-competitive small modular reactors that meet U.S. 

regulatory standards, and that the primary risk for commercialization of 

these reactors, beyond design certification and licensing, is the ability to 

drive the plant costs down sufficiently to become competitive with other 

energy sources, such as natural gas, without compromising safety and 

security. To develop this industry, according to the board, the U.S. 

government will likely have to play a significant financial role beyond the 

Small Modular Reactor Licensing Technical Support program.

Although NE’s primary mission is to advance nuclear power through 

research, development, and demonstration, its deployment of an 

advanced reactor prototype under the NGNP Project is unlikely in the 

foreseeable future. Among the different advanced reactor technologies 

currently supported by NE R&D, the high-temperature gas-cooled reactor 

technology is the most likely to be deployed and commercialized in the 

near term, according to an NE planning document. NE officials said that 

the likelihood is based on the wide range of potential market applications 

NE Does Not Have a 

Strategy to Overcome 

Several Barriers to 

Deploying an Advanced 

Nuclear Reactor Prototype 
 

Page 29 GAO-14-545 DOE Advanced Nuclear Reactor R&D

to industry of electricity and process heat and is supported by substantial 

government investments in the technology’s development, including 

testing of materials, fuels, and other components. NE has consulted with 

the NGNP Industry Alliance on the project, including discussing the 

alliance’s plan for proceeding with development of a prototype reactor. In 

addition, NE has done market research on potential industrial applications 

for the process heat. Further, NE established a contract in 2013 with 

NGNP Industry Alliance to develop economic analyses detailing how 

industry may best engage in developing and commercializing hightemperature gas-cooled reactor technologies. According to laboratory 

staff, development and testing of the advanced fuel for high-temperature 

gas-cooled reactor has progressed positively, and other research on hightemperature materials and other components has produced positive 

results.35

In 2011, DOE informed Congress that it would not proceed with Phase 2 

design activities for the NGNP Project until circumstances warranted a 

change in direction. According to NE officials, laboratory staff, and 

representatives of the NGNP Industry Alliance, the NGNP Project 

remains hindered by several barriers. Specifically, barriers are as follows:

• Cost-share requirements. DOE’s attempts to implement the costshare provisions in EPAct 2005 for the NGNP Projects have met with 

resistance from industry, according to DOE officials and industry 

representatives, because of differences in how EPAct 2005 is 

interpreted by NE and by the NGNP Industry Alliance. EPAct 2005 

provides that activities by industry must be cost-shared in accordance 

with the research, development, demonstration, and commercial 

application cost-sharing provisions established under section 988 of 

the act. Specifically, the Secretary must require cost-sharing in 

accordance with this cost-sharing provision when carrying out a 

research, development, demonstration, or commercial application 

program or activity that is initiated after August 8, 2005. For applied 

 

35As discussed above, some advanced reactor technologies have more significant 

technical and economic barriers to overcome, and thus are not realistic candidates for 

deployment in the near term. For instance, while NE could prioritize the sodium-cooled 

fast reactor, some industry representatives and members of the National Academy of 

Sciences’ National Research Council told us that a fast reactor technology market does 

not exist in the United States. Other advanced reactors, such as fluoride salt-cooled hightemperature reactors and lead-cooled fast reactors, are not very mature or well tested, or 

have unproven technologies and components, according to NE officials. 
 

Page 30 GAO-14-545 DOE Advanced Nuclear Reactor R&D

research and development activities, industry generally is to provide 

not less than 20 percent of the cost, but the cost-share may be 

reduced or eliminated if the Secretary determines doing so is 

necessary and appropriate. For demonstration and commercial 

application activities, industry generally is to provide not less than 50 

percent of the cost, but the cost-share may be reduced if the 

Secretary determines that doing so is necessary and appropriate 

considering any technological risk relating to the activity. However, 

according to NE officials and representatives from the NGNP Industry 

Alliance, they have been unable to come to an agreement on 

implementing the cost-share requirement for funding the remainder of 

the NGNP Project because of disagreement on the applicable costshare levels and how and when the cost-share would be applied to 

specific activities or project phases. The NGNP Industry Alliance 

favors meeting the total cost-share requirement by measuring costs 

over the course of the remainder of the NGNP Project rather than on 

an annual basis. According to the NGNP Industry Alliance cost-share 

proposal from November 2009, the alliance suggested assessing a 

lower industry cost-share in the first years of the project and 

increasing the industry share over time, with industry paying the vast 

share of the annual project costs by the final years of the project. 

Under this proposed scenario, the alliance states that the cumulative 

industry contribution would meet the overall cost-share requirement, 

and NE’s portion of the development costs would largely be paid up 

front. DOE did not fully consider the alliance’s proposal for a multiyear 

approach to the cost-share requirement, according to NE officials, 

because the project was not proceeding at the time due to funding 

constraints, competing program priorities, and other factors

Representatives from the NGNP Industry Alliance told us that costsharing the development activities on a annual basis is not feasible 

because it would mean a substantial layout of funds with a very long 

payoff time and would expose the industry partners to significant 

financial risks. NGNP Industry Alliance representatives said these 

risks include unknowns associated with obtaining regulatory approval 

from NRC for the prototype reactor, and the risk that NE will not be 

provided sufficient funds through congressional appropriations to 

meet its obligations. NE officials told us that they understand the 

NGNP Industry Alliance’s perspective and had been attempting to 

work out an agreement when DOE decided not to proceed to Phase 2 

of the project. Representatives from the NGNP Industry Alliance told 

us that the impasse over cost-sharing needs to be resolved in order to 

proceed with the NGNP advanced reactor prototype.
 

Page 31 GAO-14-545 DOE Advanced Nuclear Reactor R&D

• Site requirement. According to NE officials, laboratory staff, and 

NGNP Industry Alliance representatives, the EPAct 2005 requirement 

that the NGNP reactor prototype be located at the Idaho National 

Laboratory is another barrier to proceeding with the project. 

Representatives of the NGNP Industry Alliance said that part of the 

economic benefit of the reactor prototype would be the use of the 

high-temperature process heat that results from operating the hightemperature gas-cooled reactor. Alliance representatives said that 

building the reactor at Idaho National Laboratory foregoes the 

economic benefit because industries that could potentially use 

process heat are not located near the laboratory, making the overall 

prototype reactor less economically attractive. Instead, they told us 

that the NGNP prototype reactor should be located where the 

petrochemical or other industries that use process heat could benefit 

from it. This is consistent with a finding in the Nuclear Energy 

Advisory Committee’s 2011 Phase 1 review of the NGNP Project. In 

its review, the committee stated that the business case to optimize 

NGNP use for process heat applications and electricity indicates that 

a site in proximity to a wide range of industrial uses is more 

appropriate and that a siting at the Idaho National Laboratory will not 

support a partnership agreement with industry. If industry cannot 

realize an economic benefit from the prototype reactor, it is unlikely 

that industry would support the reactor being built at the Idaho 

National Laboratory.

• Fiscal constraints and competing priorities. NE officials, laboratory 

staff, industry representatives, and Nuclear Energy Advisory 

Committee members that we interviewed told us that NE’s recent 

funding levels are inadequate to move forward with the NGNP 

prototype reactor. NE officials and the NGNP Industry Alliance both 

estimate that NE’s share of NGNP Project could amount to as much 

as $2 billion over the remainder of the project, in which costs would be 

shared with industry. Under the NGNP Industry Alliance’s proposal, 

DOE would provide between approximately $170 million and $330 

million annually over the first 6 years of the proposed plan. This 

compares to the total funding for Advanced Reactor Concepts 

subprogram of about $60 million in 2014. NE officials, Nuclear Energy 

Advisory Committee members, and laboratory staff told us that NE’s 

funding levels are inadequate to move forward toward a prototype 

reactor, even if it were to focus its resources on one effort. 

Furthermore, an NE officials and a member of the Nuclear Energy 

Advisory Committee told us that current priorities to fund R&D aimed 

at sustaining the existing light water reactors and focusing on the 

design and licensing of small modular reactors would have to shift in 

order to make more funds available for advanced reactor R&D.
 

Page 32 GAO-14-545 DOE Advanced Nuclear Reactor R&D

• Competition from natural gas. NE officials, some industry 

representatives, and Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee members 

that we interviewed told us that low natural gas prices have made 

nuclear energy less attractive economically over the past few years, 

reducing overall interest in nuclear power options. NE officials and 

industry representatives said that the current atmosphere is not 

conducive to partnering with industry on advanced reactor projects, 

including the NGNP Project.

The Secretary’s October 2011 letter to Congress did not specify which 

conditions might warrant a change in program direction—that is, proceed 

with Phase 2 of the NGNP Project—and NE has not developed a strategy 

for overcoming the identified barriers hindering the resumption of the 

project or a set of criteria for determining when a change in program

direction would occur. An NE management official that we interviewed 

stated that conditions that would warrant a change in direction might 

include Congress legislating a carbon tax, a rise in price of natural gas, or 

an increase in funding for the NGNP. In addition, developing such a 

strategy may involve consultation with the Nuclear Energy Advisory 

Committee and others, including independent nuclear experts. Without a 

strategy for overcoming the barriers hindering the restart of the NGNP 

Project and identifying conditions NE can use for determining when a 

change in program direction would occur, it will be difficult for NE to 

demonstrate that it is poised to move forward, and it risks the project 

being on hold indefinitely.

According to EPAct 2005, NE was required to select the initial reactor 

design parameters to be used for the NGNP Project by September 30, 

2011, or submit a report to Congress establishing an alternative date for 

making the selection. However, the Secretary’s 2011 letter to Congress 

did not specify initial design parameters for the NGNP or specify an 

alternative date for making a selection. Instead, the letter stated that the 

initial design parameters had not yet been selected and that such a 

selection would be made by the public-private partnership once it is 

formed. Without selecting initial reactor design parameters or establishing 

a date to make a selection as required by EPAct 2005, it is not clear if or 

when NE is going to take this next step in deploying the NGNP prototype 

reactor.

In addition, after the Secretary’s decision not to proceed with Phase 2 

design activities, NE’s engagement with NRC on licensing issues has 

decreased. NE maintains a team seeking to engage NRC on NGNP 

licensing issues, according to NE officials, but NRC has reassigned staff 
 

Page 33 GAO-14-545 DOE Advanced Nuclear Reactor R&D

from its NGNP work and engages with NE on a minimal basis, according 

to NRC officials. NRC officials said that they cannot proceed substantively 

further in developing a licensing framework until NE has developed a 

specific design for an advanced reactor technology.

Furthermore, not deploying an advanced reactor prototype carries some 

risks, according to some industry representatives, Nuclear Energy 

Advisory Committee members, and NE officials we interviewed. 

Specifically, these risks include (1) falling behind other countries in 

advanced reactor development and losing market share in the global 

market for nuclear energy; (2) losing influence on which reactor 

technologies are developed, which raises safety and nuclear proliferation 

concerns; and (3) losing its ability to manufacture the components 

necessary to construct nuclear plants.

By not deploying an advanced reactor prototype, the United States risks 

falling behind other countries—such as Japan, Russia, China, South 

Korea, and France—that are actively working to deploy and 

commercialize advanced reactors, according to a Nuclear Energy 

Advisory Committee report. For example, Russia currently has two 

sodium-cooled fast reactors—one experimental and one commercial—in 

operation and is developing or constructing additional sodium-cooled fast 

reactor technologies, and it has plans to export reactor technology to 

other nations. In addition, China has an operating sodium-cooled fast 

reactor and high-temperature gas-cooled reactor on a test reactor scale 

and is in the process of building a prototype high temperature gas-cooled 

reactor, according to NE officials. In potentially losing its global leadership 

position in developing nuclear technologies, the United States risks losing 

market share in the global market for nuclear energy, which would cost 

the U.S. economy high-paying jobs in the nuclear industry, according to 

these individuals.

By falling behind other countries in advanced reactor development, the 

United States also risks losing influence on determinations of which 

reactor technologies are developed, with implications for the safety of 

reactor operations worldwide, as well as implications for how resistant the 

technologies are to nuclear proliferation—including the safe, effective 

disposal of nuclear waste—according to NE officials, laboratory staff, and 

Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee members that we spoke to. 

Specifically, according to members of the Nuclear Energy Advisory 

Committee, if the nation is not leading the development of advanced 

reactors, other countries may operate reactors that do not meet the 
 

Page 34 GAO-14-545 DOE Advanced Nuclear Reactor R&D

highest safety standards and may not take adequate steps to ensure 

nuclear waste is handled appropriately and properly secured.

Similarly, the United States risks losing its ability to manufacture the 

components necessary to construct nuclear plants, according laboratory 

staff and Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee members that we 

interviewed. In addition, by not deploying an advanced reactor, NE risks 

losing staff, including engineers with the knowledge and experience 

necessary to design and build advanced reactors, according to an NE 

official and laboratory staff. For example, without a specific goal of 

developing an advanced reactor prototype, NE staff are more likely to 

leave NE for jobs with a better sense of mission, according to these 

officials.

Energy demand in the United States is expected to rise considerably over 

the coming decades, and concerns remain over energy security and 

greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. While nuclear 

energy accounts for about 20 percent of electricity generation in the 

United States and produces no air pollution or greenhouse gases, the 

accident at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi commercial nuclear power plant in 

March 2011 highlighted ongoing concerns about the safety of nuclear 

plants, and concerns also exist about potential threats of nuclear 

proliferation and terrorism. With this in mind, it is important that nuclear 

power plants continue to evolve and provide energy economically, while 

also addressing safety and proliferation concerns. By conducting nuclear 

reactor R&D, NE has a critical role to play as it supports existing light 

water reactors, as well as a new generation of advanced nuclear reactors.

However, in 2011, DOE informed Congress that it would not proceed with 

Phase 2 of the NGNP Project until circumstances warranted a change in 

direction, and the project remains hindered by several barriers, including 

the cost-share and site requirements of EPAct 2005. NE officials have 

attempted to work out a cost-share agreement with the alliance, but 

different interpretations of the cost-share requirements by DOE and the 

NGNP Industry Alliance have created an impasse, and no agreement had 

been reached before DOE determined that it would not proceed to Phase 

2 of the project.

Another barrier to proceeding with the project is the EPAct 2005 

requirement that the NGNP reactor prototype be located at the Idaho 

National Laboratory. Building the reactor there foregoes the economic 

benefit of the reactor’s process heat because industries that could 

Conclusions
 

Page 35 GAO-14-545 DOE Advanced Nuclear Reactor R&D

potentially use the prototype reactor’s high-temperature process heat are 

not located near the laboratory. If industry cannot realize an economic 

benefit from the prototype reactor, it is unlikely that industry would support 

the reactor being built at the Idaho National Laboratory.

Moreover, DOE’s October 2011 letter notified Congress that the 

department had selected the NGNP technology, as required by EPAct 

2005, acknowledged that the department had not selected the initial 

design parameters for the NGNP or identified the date upon which it 

would do so by September 30, 2011, as required by EPAct 2005, and 

essentially put Phase 2 of the NGNP Project on hold until conditions 

favorable to completing the NGNP warranted a change in direction. 

However, the letter did not specify which conditions might warrant a 

change in program direction—that is, proceed with Phase 2 of the NGNP 

Project—and NE has not developed a strategy for overcoming the 

identified barriers hindering restarting the project or which contains such 

conditions. Without a strategy for overcoming the barriers hindering the 

restart of the NGNP Project and identifying conditions NE can use for 

determining when a change in program direction would occur, the project 

may be on hold indefinitely. Furthermore, without selecting initial reactor 

design parameters and reporting the parameters to Congress, as required 

by EPAct 2005 for completing Phase 1 of the project, or establishing a 

date to make a selection, it is not clear if or when NE is going to take this 

next step and proceed with Phase 2 of the NGNP Project.

To better prepare the Department of Energy to meet the requirement of 

the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to deploy the NGNP prototype reactor, we 

recommend that DOE take the following two actions:

• Develop, in consultation with the Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee 

and independent nuclear experts, as appropriate, a strategy to 

proceed with Phase 2 of the NGNP Project, outlining conditions that 

will warrant a change in program direction, remaining research and 

development activities, projected project budget and schedule, and 

steps necessary to overcome barriers to successful completion of the 

NGNP Project.

• Provide a report to Congress complying with the statutory requirement 

for Phase 1 of the NGNP Project by providing initial design 

parameters or a date for providing them. The report should also 

provide an updated status of the issues DOE identified in its 2011 

letter to Congress and outline any additional barriers to proceeding 

with Phase 2 of the project, including

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
 

Page 36 GAO-14-545 DOE Advanced Nuclear Reactor R&D

• the status of the establishment of a public-private partnership;

• the project strategy, including conditions that would warrant 

restarting the project; and

• a legislative proposal, if necessary, to address any barriers to 

proceeding with the project, including the site and cost-share 

requirements.

We provided a draft of this report to DOE for review and comment. In 

written comments, DOE’s Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy, 

responding on behalf of DOE, wrote that DOE agreed in principle with our 

first recommendation and respectfully disagreed with our second 

recommendation. DOE’s written comments on our draft report are 

reproduced in appendix II. In addition, DOE provided technical comments, 

which we incorporated in the report as appropriate.

In its comment letter, DOE stated that it agreed in principle with our 

recommendation that it develop a strategy to proceed with Phase 2 of the 

NGNP Project. Moreover, DOE stated that its current strategy is to 

continue updating analyses of requirements for successful 

commercialization of reactor technology to reflect changing market 

conditions, research and development accomplishments, and the maturity 

of the licensing framework. However, this strategy does not outline steps 

DOE could take to proactively overcome the barriers hindering the 

resumption of the NGNP Project, nor does it outline criteria for 

determining when a change in program direction would occur. We 

continue to believe that developing a strategy to proceed with Phase 2 of 

the NGNP Project is important because without a strategy it will be 

difficult for NE to demonstrate that, upon completion of Phase 1, it will be 

poised to develop a final design and construct and operate the prototype 

reactor. Moreover, not having a strategy for proceeding with Phase 2 

could result in the project being on hold indefinitely.

DOE respectfully disagreed with our recommendation that it provide a 

report to Congress that, among other things, provides initial design 

parameters or a date for providing them and outlines barriers to 

proceeding with Phase 2 of the project. DOE stated that such a report 

was not advisable or useful, or necessary as a means for the Department 

to comply with the statutory requirements for Phase 1 of the NGNP 

Project, and further stated that the Department is in compliance with the 

relevant statutory requirements. As DOE explained, it reported to 

Congress in 2011 that while it had selected the hydrogen production 

technology, as required by EPAct 2005, it had not selected the initial 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 37 GAO-14-545 DOE Advanced Nuclear Reactor R&D

design parameters for the project and that based on the 

recommendations of the Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee, fiscal 

constraints, competing priorities, projected cost of the prototype, and the 

inability to reach agreement with industry on cost sharing, it would not 

proceed with Phase 2 design activities at that time. Instead, it would 

continue to focus on high-temperature reactor R&D activities and

establishment of a public-private partnership, among other things, until 

conditions warranted a change in direction. DOE did not, however, 

establish an alternative date for selecting the initial design parameters, as 

EPAct 2005 required. Rather, it stated that selection of initial design 

parameters would be made by the public-private partnership once it is 

formed. Given that almost 3 years have passed since the letter to 

Congress, we believe that the recommended report is warranted and 

would serve to inform Congress of the status of the NGNP Project and 

provide transparency and accountability regarding DOE’s intentions for 

completing Phase 1 and proceeding with Phase 2 of the project. For 

example, by providing a firm date for selecting the initial design 

parameters of the NGNP prototype reactor, DOE could be held 

accountable to meeting that date or could engage in a discussion about 

whether and why that date should be further extended. Similarly, an 

updated report to Congress could include a candid description of the 

ongoing barriers to moving forward, which could spur discussions 

resulting in legislation or other remedies to mitigate these barriers.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Energy, the 

appropriate congressional committees, and other interested parties. In 

addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov. 
 

Page 38 GAO-14-545 DOE Advanced Nuclear Reactor R&D

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please 

contact Frank Rusco at (202) 512-3841 or ruscof@gao.gov or Dr. 

Timothy M. Persons at (202) 512-6522 or personst@gao.gov. Contact 

points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may 

be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key 

contributions to this report are listed in appendix III.

Sincerely yours,

Frank Rusco

Director, Natural Resources and Environment

Timothy M. Persons, Ph.D., Chief Scientist

Director, Center for Science, Technology, and Engineering 
Appendix I: Overview of Nuclear Reactor 

Technologies

Page 39 GAO-14-545 DOE Advanced Nuclear Reactor R&D

Nuclear reactors generate heat by sustaining a fission chain reaction in 

nuclear fuel. Nuclear fission reactions can occur when a neutron strikes 

the nucleus of a large atom, causing that nucleus to split, or fission. The 

result of a fission reaction is typically two fission fragments, or smaller 

nuclei; 2 or 3 new fast-moving neutrons; and significant heat. In a nuclear 

reactor, the large atoms used for fission are typically the fissile isotopes 

uranium-235 or plutonium-239, and the new neutrons produced by a 

fission reaction are used to initiate new fission reactions, resulting in a 

sustained fission chain reaction.1

This heat generated by this fission reaction is typically used to create 

steam and drive a steam turbine to generate electricity. Some reactors 

may also operate at particularly high temperatures and can use the heat 

to either generate electricity or to supply process heat that can be used 

for various industrial processes, replacing other heat sources such as 

natural gas.

Nuclear reactors typically fall into one of two types based on the neutron 

spectrum, or neutron energies, at which the fission reactions occur as 

follows:

• Thermal reactors optimize the fission reaction rate in their fuel. This is 

done by slowing down, or moderating, the high-energy fast neutrons 

that are the products of fission reactions. This thermalization of the 

fast neutrons increases the likelihood that a neutron will initiate a 

fission reaction. Currently deployed light water reactors, including 

pressurized water reactors and boiling water reactors, are thermal 

reactors.

• Fast reactors, by contrast, do not moderate the fission neutrons, 

leaving them as fast neutrons. A fast neutron has a lower likelihood of 

initiating a fission event than a slow neutron, so the chain reaction can 

be more difficult to sustain, but it has the benefit of producing more 

neutrons when fission does occur. These surplus neutrons, as 

compared to the number of neutrons produced in thermal reactors, 

allow fast reactors to be more effective than thermal reactors at 

 

1

Isotopes are varieties of a given chemical element with the same number of protons but 

different numbers of neutrons. For example, the helium-3 isotope, which is used in 

research and to detect neutrons in radiation detection equipment, has one less neutron 

than the helium-4 isotope, which is the helium isotope commonly used in party balloons.

Appendix I: Overview of Nuclear Reactor 

Technologies

Overview of Reactor 

Operations

Types of Nuclear Reactors
Appendix I: Overview of Nuclear Reactor 

Technologies

Page 40 GAO-14-545 DOE Advanced Nuclear Reactor R&D

creating, or breeding, new fuel through neutron bombardment of 

uranium-238 (creating plutonium-239). Fast reactors optimized for fuel 

production in this manner are called fast breeder reactors and can 

produce more fuel through breeding than they consume. Fast reactors 

may also use spent fuel from other nuclear reactors as fuel and 

thereby reduce long-term fuel disposal needs.

While there are a large number of reactor technologies that can differ 

significantly, the fission reaction in a reactor occurs in the central region 

of a reactor called the reactor core. The reactor core typically contains 

several components as follows:

• Nuclear fuel. Nuclear reactors need fissile isotopes, such as 

uranium-235 and plutonium-239, to sustain chain reactions. 

Commercial reactors often use uranium ore that has been enriched in 

the isotope uranium-235 as their fissile fuel; the rest of the fuel 

consists of the non-fissile uranium-238. However, reactor operation 

will result in the conversion of some uranium-238 to the fissile isotope 

plutonium-239, which may then fission and contribute to power 

generation, and some reactor fuel may start with some of the 

uranium-235 mixed with plutonium-239 (sometimes referred to as a 

mixed oxide fuel). Fast reactors can also use spent fuel from other 

reactors as fuel and can be very effective at converting uranium-238 

into plutonium-239. Some reactors can also utilize uranium-233 or 

thorium-232 as components of their fuel.

• Moderator. Thermal reactors use a moderator material to slow down, 

or thermalize, the fission neutrons in order to sustain the fission 

reaction. This is needed because neutrons produced by fission 

reactions are too fast (or energetic) to have a high likelihood of 

initiating a new fission reaction in fuel. Fast reactors are designed to 

utilize fast neutrons for the fission reactions and fuel breeding and, as 

such, do not use a moderator.

• Coolant. To remove heat from the core, a coolant—typically water, a 

gas, or liquid metal—is circulated through the core. The coolant both 

prevents the core from overheating (which could damage or melt the 

fuel) and it carries energy, in the form of heat, outside the core for 

electricity production, typically by generating steam that then drives a 

steam turbine. In some reactor types, the coolant can also function as 

the reactor’s moderator.

• Reaction control. Reactors can use different techniques to maintain 

the fission chain reaction at appropriate rates. For example, control 

rods may be inserted into reactor cores to absorb neutrons and slow 

down (or stop) the chain reaction, or neutron-absorbing materials, 

Overview of the Reactor 

Core
Appendix I: Overview of Nuclear Reactor 

Technologies

Page 41 GAO-14-545 DOE Advanced Nuclear Reactor R&D

such as boric acid in pressurized water reactors, may be introduced to 

the coolant system to achieve a similar effect.

Reactor technologies are classified as either thermal or fast reactors 

(although some technologies are “epithermal” and fall in between the two 

types) and by the materials used for the moderator or coolant. For 

example, a pressurized water reactor is a thermal reactor using water as 

both a coolant and moderator, and a gas-cooled fast reactor is a fast 

reactor using gas (carbon dioxide or helium) as a coolant.

Table 2 lists and provides information about the reactor types that are 

either currently operating in the United States or are advanced reactor 

designs under consideration for development.

Table 2: Characteristics of Commercial Reactor Types, including Those Currently Operating in the United States and 

Advanced Reactor Designs Under Development

Reactor type

(italics indicate current 

commercial deployment in 

the United States) Fuel Coolant Moderator Process heat Neutron spectrum

Light water reactors

• Pressurized water 

reactors

• Boiling water reactors

Uranium Water Water No Thermal

Supercritical water cooled 

reactor

Uranium or mixed 

oxide

Supercritical water Supercritical water Yes Thermal (may be 

designed as fast)

High-temperature gascooled reactor / very high 

temperature reactor

Uranium Helium Graphite Yes Thermal

Liquid-metal-cooled fast 

reactor

• sodium-cooled fast 

reactor

• lead-bismuth cooled fast 

reactor 

Uranium, plutonium, 

or mixed oxide

Liquid metals 

(sodium, lead, 

etc.)

N/A No Fast

Gas-cooled fast reactor Uranium, plutonium, 

or mixed oxide

Helium or carbon 

dioxide

N/A No Fast

Molten salt reactor or molten 

salt breeder reactor 

Uranium, thorium, or 

mixed oxide

Molten salts Graphite (none for 

breeder)

Yes Thermal (may be 

designed as fast)

Sources: GAO analysis of DOE, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and other documents. | GAO-14-545
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Energy

Page 42 GAO-14-545 DOE Advanced Nuclear Reactor R&D

Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Energy
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Energy

Page 43 GAO-14-545 DOE Advanced Nuclear Reactor R&D
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Energy

Page 44 GAO-14-545 DOE Advanced Nuclear Reactor R&D
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Energy

Page 45 GAO-14-545 DOE Advanced Nuclear Reactor R&D
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Energy

Page 46 GAO-14-545 DOE Advanced Nuclear Reactor R&D
Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 47 GAO-14-545 DOE Advanced Nuclear Reactor R&D

Frank Rusco, (202) 512-3841 or ruscof@gao.gov

Timothy M. Persons, (202) 512-6522 or personst@gao.gov 

In addition to the contacts named above, Ned Woodward (Assistant 

Director), John Barrett, Elizabeth Beardsley, John Delicath, R. Scott 

Fletcher, Cindy Gilbert, Michael Krafve, Tom Lombardi, Mehrzad Nadji, 

and Kiki Theodoropoulos made key contributions to this report.

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(361519)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.