U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

22–127 2017

S. HRG. 114–474 

THE STATUS OF ADVANCED NUCLEAR 

TECHNOLOGIES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 17, 2016 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://fdsys.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine 

ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts 

COLIN HAYES, Staff Director 

PATRICK J. MCCORMICK III, Chief Counsel 

BENJAMIN REINKE, PH.D., Congressional Fellow 

ANGELA BECKER-DIPPMANN, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

RORY STANLEY, Democratic Legislative Aide 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Alaska ................... 1 

Cantwell, Hon. Maria, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from Washington .................................................................................................................... 3 

Daines, Hon. Steve, a U.S. Senator from Montana .............................................. 4 

Risch, Hon. James E., a U.S. Senator from Idaho ............................................... 5 

Crapo, Hon. Mike, a U.S. Senator from Idaho ..................................................... 5 

WITNESSES 

DeWitte, Dr. Jacob, CEO and Co-Founder, Oklo Inc. ........................................... 6 

Gilleland, Dr. John, Chief Technical Officer, TerraPower ................................... 14 

Hopkins, John, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, NuScale Power ............ 18 

Kuczynski, Stephen, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. ............................................................... 26 

Peters, Dr. Mark, Director, Idaho National Laboratory ....................................... 42 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

Cantwell, Hon. Maria: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 3 

Crapo, Hon. Mike: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 5 

Daines, Hon. Steve: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 4 

DeWitte, Dr. Jacob: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 6 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 9 

Questions for the Record .................................................................................. 81 

General Atomics: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 116 

Gilleland, Dr. John: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 14 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 16 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 88 

Hopkins, John: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 18 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 20 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 91 

Kuczynski, Stephen: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 26 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 28 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 97 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 1 

Peters, Dr. Mark: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 42 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 44 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 108 

Poneman, Hon. Daniel: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 113 

Risch, Hon. James E.: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 5 

(1) 

THE STATUS OF ADVANCED NUCLEAR 

TECHNOLOGIES 

Tuesday, May 17, 2016 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in Room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa Murkowski, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning. The Committee will come to 

order. 

Senator Cantwell will be joining us, but I understand she is 

stuck behind a motorcade. 

We come to order this morning to begin the hearing on the status 

of innovative advanced nuclear technologies. We are holding this 

hearing because nuclear energy must be a national priority. It provides about 20 percent of our nation’s electricity and 63 percent of 

our emissions-free electricity. It is safe, and it is extremely reliable. 

When cold winters hit the Northeast and the flow of natural gas 

is restricted, nuclear plants can continue to provide electricity to 

residents, literally saving lives. When the wind is not blowing and 

the sun is not shining, nuclear is still providing essential base load 

capacity. For any number of good reasons, nuclear has to remain 

part of the energy mix. 

In addition to supporting the current nuclear fleet, I have long 

supported the research, development and deployment of next generation nuclear technologies, including small modular reactors, 

micro-reactors, Generation IV reactors and future fusion reactors. 

That support appears to be growing here in Congress which is a 

good thing for our country. 

We are entering a new era for nuclear power. The opportunity 

for innovation in nuclear technologies has not been this great since 

the 1960’s. Despite the many difficult challenges associated with 

full deployment, technical—financial, bureaucratic and license-related—there is unprecedented interest from both the public and 

private sectors. We can help by removing barriers and optimizing 

our public-private partnerships. 

Despite the clear benefits of nuclear energy, the industry is at a 

crossroads. The current operating fleet faces a number of challenges due to political decisions, or state market designs and regulations that skew the value of nuclear to the grid. Moreover, the 

2 

President’s greenhouse gas regulations do not value the contribution of nuclear-generated electricity on a level footing with the 

other sources of emissions free electricity. 

In order to facilitate the emergence of advanced nuclear technologies, we adopted the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities 

Act, which was sponsored by Senator Crapo, as an amendment to 

our broad, bipartisan energy bill. Senator Crapo is with us this 

morning. Thank you, Senator, for your contributions on this important issue. That amendment was adopted by a vote of 87 to 4, highlighting the value placed on nuclear innovation on both sides of the 

aisle. The House has passed a nearly identical bill which we hope, 

when signed into law, will be a valuable step in getting advanced 

nuclear technologies to the market. 

As these technologies are developed they will face further challenges. To give one example, they will have to navigate a complicated and expensive NRC licensing process as they come closer 

to deployment. 

I am pleased to have joined, as a co-sponsor, Senator Inhofe’s bipartisan bill, the Nuclear Energy Innovation Modernization Act. In 

many ways that bill compliments the provisions within our energy 

bill. It helps reform the NRC in smart ways without compromising 

safety, and I am hopeful that it will be reported quickly out of the 

Committee on Environment and Public Works. 

Beyond new legislation we must also continue our fiscally responsible support for nuclear research and development. In that 

vein, I was pleased that we were also able to increase the authorizations for both the Office of Science and ARPA-E within our energy bill. 

I believe that removing bureaucratic barriers to public-private 

partnerships, reforming the licensing structure, and continuing responsible funding for nuclear science RD&D will help drive these 

innovative technologies to revolutionize the industry and provide 

robust economic growth. 

Our nation deployed the first commercial nuclear power plants, 

and our regulatory structure is still considered the gold standard. 

Our universities and national labs are world leaders in education 

and research. I see advanced reactors as the next chapter of America’s leadership in this field. 

This is critical because we must remain the go to country for nuclear know how, especially as many foreign nations increase investment and try to challenge our dominance in this industry. Our nation must continue to be the major player on the world stage for 

nuclear energy, and we must be able to deploy our innovative advanced reactors here at home. 

I am pleased to welcome our very esteemed panel of witnesses. 

We have representatives from a great cross section of advanced reactor technologies at different stages of commercialization, a national laboratory that has been a nuclear leader for decades, and 

a utility that has consistently supported current and advanced nuclear technologies. I welcome all of you here today. 

With that I will turn to Ranking Member Cantwell, welcome. 

3 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

WASHINGTON 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for 

calling this important hearing on advanced nuclear technology. 

I would also like to thank the panel for being here today and for 

their work in this important field. The group of witnesses will provide us with a comprehensive viewpoint needed to explore the current state of advanced nuclear technology in this country. 

Nuclear energy has provided nearly 20 percent of electrical generation in the United States over the past two decades and currently produces 60 percent of American’s carbon free-electricity, but 

the 99 reactors licensed to operate today in the U.S. will not last 

forever. If nuclear power is to remain part of our energy future, we 

need to develop and demonstrate the next generation of nuclear 

power. 

For me, we also need to deal with the challenges of nuclear 

waste. I should say, we all need to deal with this. It is something 

that presses every day for us in the State of Washington. 

The lack of a comprehensive set of solutions has hampered both 

commercial nuclear development as well as our defense waste 

cleanup efforts in this country. Secretary Moniz has worked hard 

to break the log jam, and I think this Committee will ultimately 

play a key role in crafting a path forward on this very technically 

challenging issue. 

Meantime, we should also acknowledge that while nuclear power 

has a record of operating safely and cost effectively, there is also 

potential for catastrophe like we have seen at Fukushima, Three 

Mile Island and Chernobyl. 

If nuclear power is to have a future, the problems that we have 

consistently been plagued by in the past must be met with innovation and effectiveness. New designs must be safer, cheaper and efficient, and proliferation resistant. In addition, we must have licensing and regulatory systems that ensure nuclear power is not only 

safe but accepted by the public so transparency and open communication by the industry and government is also important. 

The Department of Energy and private industry have been working to address these problems. There are several designs being considered here in the U.S. and globally that have promising features 

to address some of these long standing issues. I look forward to 

hearing from the witnesses today on those specific technologies. 

Advanced nuclear may, someday, make a real contribution to advanced manufacturing in Washington State and the Northwest Region. I am pleased to have here TerraPower, NuScale and the 

Idaho National Laboratory. The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is also making important contributions in advanced nuclear 

development. 

The Northwest has proven to be an exciting place for the development of advanced nuclear technologies, and NuScale Energy, Energy Northwest, Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems are all 

partnering to construct and operate the country’s first small modular reactor. 

In addition, TerraPower and the Chinese National Nuclear Corporation signed a memorandum of understanding to develop 

TerraPower’s traveling wave reactor. So it is clear that making a 

4 

dent in the global carbon emissions will require cooperation between U.S. and China which may prove to be one of the biggest nuclear-energy markets as well as a testing ground for advanced nuclear. 

TerraPower’s engagement with China is an important example 

being set for advanced reactor technologies. In order to be a part 

of the new wave of nuclear energy, the U.S. must be a strong exporter of advanced proliferation resistant nuclear materials and 

technology. 

So the advancement of nuclear technology is an important pathway for the global community to move away from carbon emitting 

technologies. It is vital that the U.S. continue to lead in this area 

of clean energy, and nuclear solutions may prove to be a key component of our overall efforts. 

Again I thank the Chair for holding this important hearing, and 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Cantwell, and thank you to 

our witnesses. We attempted to schedule this earlier in the year 

and unfortunately you got bumped. Thank you for your flexibility 

and your willingness to come back before the Committee. 

At this time, I will introduce a few of the witnesses, and we have 

a couple members here who would like to do more detailed introductions of some of our witnesses this morning. 

Our panel this morning will be lead off by Dr. Jacob DeWitte, 

who is the Co-Founder and the CEO of Oklo, welcome this morning. 

Dr. John Gilleland, who is the Chief Technical Officer at 

TerraPower, which Senator Cantwell has just mentioned. 

Mr. Hopkins will be introduced by Senator Daines this morning, 

as we understand that he is a fellow Montanan, but I also know 

that he is a pretty strong fisherman that comes up to Alaska occasionally. So, welcome to the Committee. 

Senator Daines? 

STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE DAINES, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

MONTANA 

Senator DAINES. Well it is my honor to have John Hopkins here 

from Superior, Montana. He is the Chairman, CEO of NuScale, and 

it is great to have him with us here today. 

I am very much looking forward to his testimony and very excited about the innovation coming out of this group of panelists, 

specifically from John Hopkins’ group, on these modular nuclear reactors as part of the solution going forward here with our all-of-theabove energy portfolio. 

Welcome, John. 

Mr. HOPKINS. Thank you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hopkins, for being here. 

After his testimony we will welcome Steve Kuczynski to the 

Committee. He is the President, CEO and Chairman of Southern 

Nuclear Operating Company, welcome. It is good to have you here. 

And Dr. Peters will be introduced by Senator Risch. 

5 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

IDAHO 

Senator RISCH. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Dr. Peters, welcome. 

I would like to introduce Dr. Peters, who is relatively new at the 

Idaho National Laboratory. 

Dr. Peters comes to us from Argonne, where he was an Associate 

Lab Director, and prior to that he had been employed as a scientist 

at Los Alamos. He has a deep background in nuclear energy. 

It is fitting that he comes to Idaho which is the flagship and lead 

nuclear energy laboratory in America, which we are very proud of. 

And that is for good reason. Most people do not realize that the 

first light bulb lit by civilian energy from nuclear power happened 

in Idaho at the Idaho National Laboratory. We are very proud of 

that, and we maintain that position. 

So, Dr. Peters, we are glad to have you. I am sure we will see 

you frequently here at this Committee. 

With the Chairman’s permission I would like to introduce my colleague and friend, Senator Crapo. 

Senator Crapo, although not on this Committee, grew up in the 

shadow of Idaho National Laboratory in Eastern Idaho. He remains 

engaged and interested. He and I partner on virtually everything 

that we do over there. In fact, right now we are partnering on a 

couple of pieces of legislation which we just dropped. With the 

Chair’s permission, I would like Senator Crapo, maybe, to just give 

us a couple of sentences on those two pieces of legislation which we 

are introducing. 

Mike? 

The CHAIRMAN. We are happy to invite you before the Committee, Senator Crapo, and I am happy to have had an opportunity 

to join you all out at the Idaho National Lab. 

Senator RISCH. That is true. That is right. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very, very informative, and a very necessary, a 

very necessary, tour for so many of us. 

Senator Crapo, if you would like to say just a couple of words? 

Senator CRAPO. I know this is not the usual procedure, so I will 

be very quick—— 

The CHAIRMAN. I do not think you are being picked up by the 

record. 

Senator CANTWELL. We are happy if you sit on our side of the 

dais. 

Senator RISCH. Yes. [Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. There you go. 

Senator RISCH. I can assure you he is not very comfortable over 

there. [Laughter.] 

Senator CASSIDY. Can we get a photo of that? [Laughter.] 

Senator CRAPO. No, not with the sign. [Laughter.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

IDAHO 

Senator CRAPO. Well thank you very much. I know this is unusual. So thank you, Senator Risch and Madam Chairman, for allowing me to just say a few sentences. 

6 

Actually, Madam Chairman, you identified the legislation that 

Senator Risch just referenced in your introductory comments. So I 

won’t elaborate further on that. 

We’ve got NEIMA and NEICA, the two major bills that will reform both the process and create the new emphasis for going into 

our new advanced nuclear reactors and helping to make them 

much more aggressively facilitated. 

I am excited about all of this, and I look forward to working with 

all of you. Thank you for letting me, kind of, join the Committee 

for a moment. 

The CHAIRMAN. We appreciate it. Thank you for your leadership 

on this, Senator Crapo. 

With that, let’s begin with our panel of witnesses. 

Dr. DeWitte, if you would like to lead off, please? 

STATEMENT OF DR. JACOB DEWITTE, CEO AND CO-FOUNDER, 

OKLO INC. 

Dr. DEWITTE. Thank you. 

Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell and distinguished members of this Committee, I want to thank you for holding this hearing and for giving me the opportunity to testify. I’m 

honored to be here today, and I’m excited that you are holding this 

hearing because I’ve been passionate about nuclear technology 

since my childhood. 

I was born and raised in Albuquerque, New Mexico, where my 

Saturdays as a young boy were often filled with my father taking 

me to get donuts followed by a visit to the National Nuclear 

Science Museum. And during those trips I recall being captivated 

by the science and technology and physics of nuclear power, and I 

knew from a young age that I wanted to work on nuclear reactors. 

So I am Jacob DeWitte, the CEO and Co-Founder of Oklo. Oklo 

is a Silicon Valley-based company developing a very small, advanced reactor that produces two megawatts of power. That’s very 

small relative to without the nominal size of a thousand 

megawatts. We like to call it sometimes a micro-reactor or a nuclear battery and it is designed to bring distributed, clean, affordable and reliable power in small packages to the market. 

These reactors fit into containerized systems that can power a 

wide variety of markets both domestically and internationally 

which do not have access to affordable and reliable power and in 

some cases, do not have access to power at all. Our reactor operates 

purely on natural forces with very few moving parts in the entire 

system, and it is designed to operate for 12 years before refueling. 

It will produce reliable, affordable, safe, emission-free power 

wherever it is needed and the reactor is sized appropriately to open 

up new opportunities for clean and safe nuclear power in remote 

and rural communities as well as industrial and military sites in 

areas that are too small for larger reactors. 

The Oklo reactor has the potential to reduce these customers’ energy bills by up to 90 percent. Furthermore, our reactor is up to 

300 times more fuel efficient than current reactors and can actually 

consume the used fuel from today’s reactors as well as depleted 

uranium stockpiles around the nation. In fact, our reactors and 

others like them, could power the world for 500 years with the 

7 

global inventory of used fuel and depleted uranium, all while reducing the radioactive lifetime of those materials. 

Our reactors can also assist with plutonium disposition by consuming excess cold war materials and turning them into clean, 

peaceful energy. 

We started Oklo because we believe advanced reactors will be a 

significant part of the energy mix of the future, and we wanted to 

make that future a reality as quickly as we could. 

So advanced reactors can provide clean, affordable, reliable and 

extremely safe, carbon free power that can be deployed on a global 

scale. They offer the promise to realize the energy future envisioned by the intellectual giants upon whose shoulders we all 

stand. Fermi, Weinberg, Wigner, Seaborg, and others all saw the 

potential that next generation reactors have. 

Some of the key attributes of advanced reactors include a competitive economics due to reduced capital cost and shortened construction times, multiple energy output streams ranging from electricity to process heat, improved fuel efficiency and the ability to 

consume used nuclear fuel, flexible operations such as load following and grid stabilization to couple with renewables, and passive inherently safe designs producing walk away, safe technologies 

as well as flexible siting independent of access to cooling water. Additionally, advanced reactors enable a broad diversity of reactor 

sizes. Micro-reactors like ours can bring affordable and reliable nuclear power to areas that cannot support larger plants. Alaska and 

Hawaii are good examples. 

But there are a number of places in the continental U.S. as well 

as other U.S. territories that are excellent candidates for these reactors. The size and characteristics of our reactors also enable us 

to reach markets that are underserved by existing energy technologies. 

Looking farther afield, advanced reactor technologies can fuel 

mankind’s ambitions of navigating the stars. We need energy to explore the heavens and nuclear energy will power future trips to our 

neighboring planets and beyond. This is not science fiction. This is 

work that is actually happening today. 

Dozens of startups and large companies are now working to commercialize advanced reactor technologies in the United States. Nuclear innovation is alive and well and advances in computational 

simulation and modeling, along with an injection of talented, 

young, creative, hungry engineers into the nuclear industry have 

fueled much of this growth. Federal efforts to attract students into 

nuclear engineering programs over the last decade are paying dividends and there is more to come. 

This activity has also attracted over $1 billion in private investment. And these investments are supporting advanced reactor companies because of their massive market potential as well as the environmental benefits of next generation reactors. And while the 

capital invested so far is significant, there is still much more that 

can and will be invested in advanced reactor projects, especially if 

some of the remaining hurdles are cleared. 

Advanced reactor developers face a variety of hurdles and challenges to deploying their technologies. One such challenge is the 

8 

regulatory process which is significant and necessary challenge, but 

it’s a challenge that advanced reactor developers must navigate. 

Unfortunately, the regulatory process, as it exists today, is not 

a good fit for these new technologies and the venture finance models that fund them. On the other hand, I must emphasize that the 

widely held belief that advanced reactors cannot be licensed today 

is also mistaken. We have found clear licensing pathways for our 

technology, but at the same time there is room for significant improvement and modernization. 

We laud the recent work done by the Department of Energy and 

by this Committee and by the Senate as a whole both supporting 

the recent legislation that passed into the Energy bill as well as 

the pending legislation for regulatory reform. These are crucial 

steps to help us seize the tremendous opportunities in front of us, 

to advance nuclear power and also the massive opportunities that 

we have to be the leader at the global stage. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. DeWitte follows:] 

9 


Insert offset folio 1 here 22127.074
10 


Insert offset folio 2 here 22127.101
11 


Insert offset folio 3 here 22127.102
12 


Insert offset folio 4 here 22127.103
13 


Insert offset folio 5 here 22127.104
14 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. DeWitte. 

Dr. Gilleland, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN GILLELAND, CHIEF TECHNICAL 

OFFICER, TERRAPOWER 

Dr. GILLELAND. Thank you. 

My name is John Gilleland. I’m the Chief Technical Officer, as 

was mentioned. I’m, sort of, CEO Emeritus, I suppose. 

It is a nuclear design company based in Bellevue, Washington. 

I’d like to thank you, Chairman Murkowski and the members of 

the Committee, for the invitation to testify here today and to extend my particular thanks to our home state Senator, Maria Cantwell, who has been a strong supporter of our operations. Thank 

you. 

TerraPower’s goal is to bring our technologies to markets globally 

as sources of clean, non-emitting, affordable, base load energy and 

electricity. TerraPower is the developer of the traveling wave reactor, a full size, sodium cooled, fast reactor. 

We are also working with Southern Company, Oak Ridge National Lab and the Electric Power Research Institute in the early 

R & D phase of a very high-potential additional generation for a 

reactor. We won a DOE-advanced reactor concept award for this activity in January. 

Today I would like to talk about the traveling wave reactor because we’ve come a long way and we’d like to convey the lessons 

we’ve learned over the last ten years. We’ve been at this for ten 

years. 

In 2006 Bill Gates, our Chairman, convened a group of colleagues 

from the world of science and technology to address two issues, energy poverty and climate change. 

Many inhabitants of developing countries have little access to affordable base load electricity. Living standards cannot rise without 

electricity. Hospitals cannot function without access to reliable 

power. A child cannot do homework without light to read. 

It’s been known for a long time that access to electrical energy 

is essential to human development, but the global consensus of scientists is that climate change requires us to radically reduce carbon emissions. Since developed countries and now developing countries are meeting the population’s demands for base load power by 

burning large amounts of fossil fuels, the resulting emissions are 

locking us into a deteriorating spiral of climate change and damage 

to our environment. 

Ten years ago Bill Gates and his colleagues looked at the entire 

menu of low carbon energy solutions. They concluded that nuclear 

power is an essential element of any credible, low carbon emissions 

solution. For the right uses and the right venues, wind and solar 

will play valuable roles but nuclear is the only known technology 

that can provide the needed huge amounts of energy with minimum impact on our land use and thus, on the natural world. 

Nuclear power has already demonstrated its ability to generate 

large scale, dependable electricity without emissions at affordable 

prices, and the new nuclear plants now being constructed are setting new standards for accident prevention. 

15 

We, at TerraPower, are now ten years and hundreds of millions 

of dollars into our advanced reactor development. As we’ve guided 

those efforts there have been many lessons learned. When I talk 

to students I usually talk about eight to ten of these lessons. For 

this Committee, I think there are two main lessons. 

First, TerraPower is already using Federal facilities such as the 

Idaho National Laboratory. Like other companies TerraPower pays 

to access the government’s highly qualified, skilled researchers and 

advanced equipment. Ours is already an example of public/private 

partnership. 

The bulk of the funds I just mentioned, all from private visionary 

investors, have gone to universities, businesses and the national 

laboratories. This is in the spirit of the recent Paris meetings, and 

we are an early prototype for the breakthrough Energy Coalition’s 

Mission Innovation goals. 

Neither the national labs, nor private enterprise could have accomplished what they have done without each other. The recent 

White House summit on nuclear energy endorsed this approach. 

The Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear, or GAIN, aims 

to integrate the capabilities of the private sector, universities and 

laboratories. 

So the first big lesson taught to us over the last ten years is that 

programs like GAIN do work. That’s what we’ve been doing for ten 

years. 

The second big lesson is the government needs to supplement 

and help the private sector with appropriate and solid oversight 

functions. We’ve had good experiences over the last ten years. 

One of the effective coordination—one is the effective coordination of TerraPower’s international activities with the Department 

of Energy’s National Security, Nuclear Security Administration and 

the Department of State. Another is the helpful set of consultations 

we’ve had with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 

But the lesson learned, as we look into the future and we lay out 

our particular plans, is that it is increasingly clear that Congress 

must ensure the NRC has sufficient know how and funding to license this country’s next generation of nuclear plants. 

In closing, I would say our efforts on the TWR and MCFR, which 

is a Molten Salt Reactor we’re doing with Southern Company and 

others, are but two designs. So we encourage exploration of other 

innovations such as was talked about by the gentleman to my 

right. 

It is only by working together that we will achieve the breakthroughs we need to make advanced reactors in a better world, a 

reality. The United States possesses unique strengths, technical 

and cultural, that can make astonishing accomplishments, if and 

only if we have the wisdom to unleash them. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Gilleland follows:] 

16 


Insert offset folio 6 here 22127.006
17 


Insert offset folio 7 here 22127.007
18 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Gilleland. 

Mr. Hopkins, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN HOPKINS, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NUSCALE POWER 

Mr. HOPKINS. Thank you, Senator. 

NuScale Power is currently the leading developer of American 

small modular reactor technology. This technology has been in development for more than 15 years. Our company is based in Corvallis, Oregon and majority owned by the Fluor Corporation. 

We are advancing a unique and innovative SMR design which offers the safest light water reactor nuclear technology that is near 

term deployable. Our design is uniquely safe. We have solved one 

of the most vexing problems of the nuclear industry with what we 

call the triple crown of nuclear safety. 

In a case of a loss of all sources of electricity at the plant, the 

NuScale Power module shuts itself down and cools for an unlimited 

period of time. With no operator action required, no need for additional water and no electricity. 

The NuScale Power module uses simple properties of physics, 

convection, conduction and gravity to drive the flow of coolant in 

the reactor. The thermal hydraulic properties and capabilities of 

technology have been demonstrated through an extensive test program inspected by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and 

which are protected by patents issued or pending since 2011. 

The NuScale Power module is an ideal option for carbon-free 

electricity generation. The NuScale design is dramatically smaller 

than today’s pressurized water reactors and eliminates need for 

safety-related, electrically-driven pumps, motors and valves necessary to protect the nuclear core. It can be factory-manufactured 

and transported to a site via rail, truck or barge. 

We are preparing for our first deployment project, known as the 

Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems Carbon Free Power 

Project, which will be sited in Idaho and possibly a location on the 

Department of Energy’s Idaho National Laboratory site. 

We expect to deliver our first project of 12 modules in a 600 

megawatt plant to UAMPS for an overnight price of less than $3 

billion with commercial operation commencing in 2024. 

Energy Northwest which operates the Columbia Generating Station in Washington State, has joined this project and holds a first 

right of offer to operate the UAMPS project. 

In December 2013 the Department of Energy selected NuScale as 

the sole awardee for funding in round two of the DOE Small Modular Reactor Licensing Technical Support Program focusing on providing a cost share grant in support of licensing expenses. NuScale 

may receive up to $217 million of matching funds over five years. 

We are the only near-term deployable SMR developer receiving 

DOE funding support, and we are proceeding at full speed toward 

long-term commercialization. 

With support from this funding NuScale has expanded its workforce to include more than 600 engineers and has made substantial 

progress on the engineer and analysis and tested needed to complete the design certification application for submittal to the NRC 

by the end of 2016. Successful completion of the DOE-funded SMR 

19 

cost share program depends on sustained congressional support 

through continued appropriations. We appreciate your past support, and we ask that you continue to prioritize small modular reactor programs in a tight budgetary environment. 

A risk to the delivery of our technology as currently planned is 

the uncertainty of the time and process for the NRC design certification and combined operating license efforts. In order to meet our 

customer needs to deliver carbon free electricity to their grids, we 

must be positioned for commercial operations in 2024. 

NuScale has been engaged with the NRC in pre-application review efforts since April 2008. We are on schedule to submit our design certification application by the end of this year, and the NRC 

plan currently reflects a 40-month review process. We are currently 

working with senior staff at NRC to complete the final issuance of 

the new scale design specific review standard expected by the end 

of June 2016 which provides the acceptance criteria for their review of our DCA. 

We appreciate the quality interactions we continue to have with 

the Office of New Reactors and their dedication to a thorough and 

timely review. It is important that sufficient NRC resources are assigned to review in a NuScale application to ensure completion 

within the 40-month schedule so that we can be in position to meet 

the growing marketplace demands for our carbon free energy 

source. 

I’d like to thank the Committee for holding this important hearing. And I look forward to any questions you may have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hopkins follows:] 

20 


Insert offset folio 8 here 22127.008
21 


Insert offset folio 11 here 22127.011
22 


Insert offset folio 12 here 22127.012
23 


Insert offset folio 13 here 22127.013
24 


Insert offset folio 14 here 22127.014
25 


Insert offset folio 15 here 22127.015
26 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hopkins. 

Mr. Kuczynski, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN KUCZYNSKI, CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY, INC. 

Mr. KUCZYNSKI. Welcome. 

Good morning, Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell 

and members of the Committee. My name is Steven Kuczynski. I’m 

the Chairman, President, CEO of Southern Nuclear Operating 

Company. We operate a fleet of six nuclear power reactors at three 

sites and are constructing two state of the art AP1000. That’s Advance Pass of 1000 reactors at Plant Vogel near Augusta, Georgia. 

It’s an honor to appear before this Committee to share my views 

on advanced nuclear technologies, an area that is pivotal to our nation’s future and worthy of this Committee’s interest. 

I currently serve as Chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute 

Advanced Reactor Working Group, or ARWG, an industry initiative 

created with the understanding that today’s decisions about nuclear energy, research and development will enable a nuclear fleet 

of the future. Today the U.S. fleet of 100 commercial reactors which 

provides 20 percent of the nation’s electricity is comprised exclusively of light water reactors. They are called light water reactors 

because they use ordinary water for cooling purposes and to moderate the nuclear chain reaction. 

In some other countries, such as Canada, deuterium oxide is the 

main coolant to moderator. Deuterium oxide is heavier than water 

which is why these reactors are commonly known as heavy water 

reactors. 

Taken together light water and heavy water reactors have proven to be the safest, most efficient, cost effective means of electricity 

generation. 

Within the ARWG we see tremendous promise for even better, 

more innovative nuclear reactors, and we are actively working toward achieving demonstration of multiple advanced reactors by 

2025. We believe commercial deployment is feasible by 2035. 

Advanced reactors are often called non-light water reactors because they do not use water as a coolant or a moderator but neither do they use heavy water. Instead, advanced reactors under 

consideration in the United States are being designed around the 

use of liquid metals, salts, gases or other advanced techniques. 

At Southern Company we are actively engaged in researching 

and assisting in deployment of advanced reactor technologies including the prismatic block high temperature gas cooler reactor 

which is expected to be significantly more efficient than current operating reactors and the molten chloride fast reactor which we are 

exploring under the DOE Advanced Reactor Concepts Program 

alongside TerraPower, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the Electric 

Power Research Institute and Vanderbilt University. We are very 

proud to be working with these distinguished organizations. 

So one might ask, why support advanced reactor research and 

development? 

We know that significant new electric generating capacity will be 

required in the decades ahead to meet the nation’s growing energy 

27 

needs. Nuclear power is an attractive option for meeting this demand with reliable, affordable, clean sources of base load electricity 

with zero emissions. And advanced reactors will be even more efficient, produce less by product material, have enhanced safety features, require even a smaller geographic footprint, come at a lower 

cost to customers and be capable of using a broad range of fuel 

types. 

In addition, advanced reactors are expected to be scalable, meaning they can be constructed in varying sizes, and able to adjust output to meet variable demands or supplement intermittent renewables. They will also provide a valuable source of process heat for 

a wide range of industrial customers, and we see tremendous promise for military installations to use these technologies to generate 

electricity and provide energy to meet other needs. 

In addition to the work we’re doing with Gen IV reactors, Southern Nuclear is engaged with the industry’s effort to bring small 

modular reactors to market. 

In closing I’d like to highlight five key points for the Committee. 

First, collaboration between the Federal Government and the private sector will be critical to promoting nuclear energy innovation 

in the United States. As was true in the early days of nuclear technology development, the national labs will need to play a central 

role. Importantly, the national labs have the resources and facilities, as well as the flexibility within the existing regulatory structure to accomplish significantly more advanced R and D work than 

a private U.S. company or university could do alone. 

Second, the Federal Government needs to move forward with innovative licensing frameworks and regulatory structure tailored for 

advanced reactors. The current regulatory system with its exemption based licensing approach built around light water reactors will 

be ineffective for licensing non-light water technologies, makes it 

difficult to attract private investment. Southern Company is taking 

a lead role in industry led licensing modernization initiatives. 

Third, innovation benefits from competition which is why the 

Federal Government should support advanced reactor programs 

without picking the ultimate winners and losers at this point. 

Fourth, the U.S. must remain the global leader in nuclear energy 

technology, as we have been in the past. Many nations are currently working on advanced reactor designs. Our nation should not 

cede leadership in nuclear power innovation to others. 

Finally, the ARWG’s goal of commercial deployment by 2035 is, 

in my view, achievable. With the current fleet of reactors, it took 

just a decade to progress from a concept to commercial operation. 

This required innovation, collaboration, leadership from forward 

thinkers like Admiral Rickover and the strong support of Congress 

and the Executive Branch. 

Our nation has the knowledge and expertise to make this kind 

of technological progress in nuclear energy happen again. As before, innovation and collaboration will provide the keys to success. 

Again, thank you for allowing me to appear before your Committee, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kuczynski follows:] 

28 


Insert offset folio 16 here 22127.016
29 


Insert offset folio 17 here 22127.017
30 


Insert offset folio 18 here 22127.018
31 


Insert offset folio 19 here 22127.019
32 


Insert offset folio 20 here 22127.020
33 


Insert offset folio 21 here 22127.021
34 


Insert offset folio 22 here 22127.022
35 


Insert offset folio 23 here 22127.023
36 


Insert offset folio 24 here 22127.024
37 


Insert offset folio 25 here 22127.025
38 


Insert offset folio 26 here 22127.026
39 


Insert offset folio 27 here 22127.027
40 


Insert offset folio 28 here 22127.028
41 


Insert offset folio 29 here 22127.029
42 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Kuczynski. 

Dr. Peters, welcome to the Committee. 

STATEMENT OF DR. MARK PETERS, DIRECTOR, IDAHO 

NATIONAL LABORATORY 

Dr. PETERS. Thank you. Thank you, Chairwoman Murkowski. 

Thank you, Chairwoman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell and members of the Committee for this opportunity to speak 

to you today. I am Mark Peters, Director of the Department of Energy’s Idaho National Laboratory (INL), the lead national laboratory for nuclear energy. 

I’m pleased to participate in this most distinguished panel before 

the Committee, and I’ll request that my written testimony be made 

part of the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. It will be included. 

Dr. PETERS. Before I begin my testimony, I’d like to thank Senator Risch for his support of INL and for co-sponsoring the Nuclear 

Energy Innovations Capability Act, authored by Idaho Senator 

Crapo, Senator Booker and Senator Whitehouse. This legislation, 

as part of the Senate Energy bill, is the companion to the House 

measure of the same name. The House and Senate legislation are 

important enablers to much of what I will discuss today. 

The U.S. is widely recognized as a world leader in the development of advanced nuclear reactors; however, leadership is earned, 

not granted and other nations are investing to develop the facilities, capabilities and people necessary to excel. The U.S. has the 

opportunity to regain domestic manufacturing and supply chain capabilities lost when we did not build new reactors during the last 

30 years. 

Small modular reactors and advanced nuclear reactors can be entirely sourced in the U.S. creating new advanced manufacturing facilities vital for economic growth. 

The value proposition for U.S. nuclear energy has never been 

stronger. There are strong global and domestic interest in nuclear 

energy due to the recognition that safe, secure, reliable and affordable energy is the engine for economic growth, prosperity and quality of life. 

The U.S. cannot meet increasing electricity demand and stringent clean air goals with renewable energy alone. In this effort nuclear and renewables become complementary. Safe and reliable nuclear energy provides 19 percent of total electricity and 63 percent 

of the U.S. electricity sector’s carbon-free generation today. 

We are on the cusp of a fundamental transportation in nuclear 

energy. The existing light water reactor fleet will serve as a bridge 

to SMRs and advanced reactor technologies. We have developed 

tremendous expertise in operating light water reactors at the highest level of safety and efficiency and that expertise is relevant to 

advanced reactor design and operations. 

Our conversations with advanced reactor developers indicated 

challenges in two main areas: resolving technical and licensing 

challenges at an early stage and addressing remaining technical licensing and economic questions at the demonstration and deployment phase. 

43 

In November the Administration announced formation of the 

Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear, the GAIN Initiative. GAIN will provide the people and facilities to develop and test 

key components and mitigate uncertainty while allowing developers to fine tune their designs. 

Resolving technological risks can give investors the confidence to 

move forward with increased financing for an advanced reactor design. As a core part of GAIN, INL and our national laboratory and 

university partners are the portal for designers and developers interested in a wide range of DOE nuclear energy related capabilities 

and expertise. 

For the later stage commercialization, companies may access INL 

and other government sites for demonstration and deployment capabilities which can reduce costs and improve performance of their 

design as it moves to full commercialization. 

An example of this is the recent announcements related to potential siting of a NuScale SMR in the INL site which will provide a 

near-term opportunity to provide a demonstration platform for innovative nuclear technologies. 

New types of industry partnerships are also driving strategic investments. For instance, INL is working cooperatively with 

TerraPower to build new capabilities to provide R and D support 

for the traveling wave reactor concept Dr. Gilleland discussed earlier. 

The experimental fuels facility at INL’s materials and fuels complex has gone a transformation in recent years to expand capabilities for the traveling wave reactor. 

Madam Chair, we are creating a new paradigm in nuclear innovation and nuclear energy. This paradigm involves new ways of 

working with the diverse nuclear community that includes utilities, 

startups, large nuclear suppliers, government entities, non-profits 

and everyone on this Committee. We are your national laboratories, and we’re open for business. 

Recent White House and DOE initiatives as well as congressional 

legislation and funding are setting the stage for research, development and deployment of new and advanced nuclear energy systems. The end result will mean cleaner, more plentiful energy with 

the potential for lifting billions out of energy poverty. 

Thank you for inviting me to testify, and I look forward to your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Peters follows:] 

44 


Insert offset folio 30 here 22127.030
45 


Insert offset folio 31 here 22127.031
46 


Insert offset folio 32 here 22127.032
47 


Insert offset folio 33 here 22127.033
48 


Insert offset folio 34 here 22127.034
49 


Insert offset folio 35 here 22127.035
50 


Insert offset folio 36 here 22127.036
51 


Insert offset folio 37 here 22127.037
52 


Insert offset folio 38 here 22127.038
53 


Insert offset folio 39 here 22127.039
54 


Insert offset folio 40 here 22127.040
55 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you all, I appreciate the testimony this 

morning and your leadership in these areas. 

Thinking about the exciting developments and the prospects, and 

Dr. DeWitte, your focus on micro-reactors is really quite exciting 

for a place like Alaska where we are not connected to anybody 

else’s grid. You have to have some level of scalability. You have to 

be able to take it down to small communities or perhaps with our 

military installations. I look at this and see there is room for extraordinary potential. 

As with any good idea though, you have situations relating to the 

financing and you have a regulatory process; so I want to start 

with my questions this morning on the regulatory aspects. 

Mr. Hopkins, you probably have as much experience as anybody 

with NuScale in terms of the process that you have gone through. 

You have been underway for about 15 years working with the NRC 

since 2008. As you have outlined it, my take away is you think that 

you are able to work within the NRC licensing process as it is. 

Mr. Kuczynski, you have suggested that there are some real 

challenges within the process as it exists today taking these new 

technologies and basically trying to make them fit within a structure that has been designed for basically a different model or a different approach. 

I would like to have a more full discussion on this issue of whether or not we need to see this licensing framework restructured, to 

be more adaptable to recognize that we have a whole range of different technologies that we are considering right now. Recognizing 

that time is money, what do we do with the regulatory process as 

it exists now? 

I kick that out for general discussion. 

Mr. Hopkins, Mr. Kuczynski, go ahead. 

Mr. HOPKINS. Senator, we have been working with the NRC, 

since 2008. However, there are differences between our small modular reactor and a large plant. There are exceptions. 

As an example, we don’t have any hydrogen production because 

we’re oxygen starved in our reactors; therefore, we don’t need a hydrogen re-combiner. 

So there are things that we are working with the NRC, which 

takes a lot of time and effort, to get them understanding what 

those differences are. We typically do what’s called topical reports. 

So any of these variances that we see we write a technical paper 

for review by the NRC. And so far, I think we’ve submitted eight 

or nine of these topical reports. I believe we have 15 to submit. 

But we view our opportunity here, as was mentioned earlier, to 

help pave the way for the next Gen IV advanced reactor because 

as the NRC stays focused and understands the nuances and 

change. Although we are a light-water reactor, which they’ve 

known the technology for 50 years, there are nuances that are different in small modular reactors. 

Our hope is, as we go through this process which we budgeted 

right now in the neighborhood of $50 to $60 million, to go through 

design certification application, we’ll also be able to enhance the 

advanced reactors going through, as you mentioned, the gold star 

or the gold plate of the NRC. 

56 

The CHAIRMAN. So you are paving the way for others, but I am 

sure that there are a lot of others sitting back and watching the 

NuScale process going forward saying maybe we do not want to be 

number two, maybe we want to wait until the process is a little 

more complete, having to produce these assessments or these analyses every step of the way. 

Mr. Kuczynski, you have mentioned that Southern is looking into 

a more innovative licensing process. What are you recommending? 

Mr. KUCZYNSKI. Yes, let me clarify and thank you for that question. I’ll tag onto what John has to say. 

In my opening remarks I talk about light-water technology, and 

the SMR that NuScale is building is a light-water technology, just 

a different type. So the existing regime is probably more suitable 

than it will be for advanced reactors. 

And so, my comments are around what we are all calling now, 

modernizing the regulatory, kind of, regime. And through a lot of 

work with a lot of groups, we’ve all, kind of, landed on, I think, 

kind of, four cornerstones of what we think needs to be done in the 

regulatory arena. 

One, it does need to be modernized to accommodate fuels that 

are completely different, designs that are completely different, outside of our knowledge base. 

So there are really four things we’re talking about. First being 

a more performance-based, meaning just set the expectation of 

what these products need to deliver and let the innovators figure 

out how to do it versus a really prescriptive approach. Second is 

bringing a more risk informed basis into the whole regulatory regime. The third one is really around a staged process and there’s 

a number of reports out there that talk about trying to retire the 

technical risk in a more staged process instead of all the upfront 

investment without certainty of whether those kind of design concepts will be approved. And then the fourth one is really modernize 

a framework to be technology inclusive so that it doesn’t focus just 

on light water technology. 

What is very good though is as we progress in the SMR licensing 

activities, it really builds on our Generation 2, our advanced passive reactors, and that there are some generic issues that, we believe, will be resolved through the SMR licensing process that has 

a direct relationship to advanced reactors. Things like the emergency planning zones, containment, security, control room staffing, 

those are very good generic issues that, as John said, can pave the 

way for resolving some of these before advanced reactors need to 

be put together. 

The CHAIRMAN. Alright, thank you. 

Dr. Gilleland, I am well over my time, but if we have an opportunity to continue this, I would like to gain more information. 

Senator Cantwell, please go ahead. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Dr. DeWitte, on behalf of Senator Alexander and myself, since 

you mentioned visiting museums as a young child, we invite you 

to visit the Manhattan Project, the B reactor in the State of Washington. I am sure Senator Alexander will extend his own invite to 

you. 

57 

The reason I am bringing that up is because, I think, you crystallized in your testimony the opportunity, how big of an opportunity, this was in the past. And, as you said, the giants that we 

stood on like Fermi. 

My question is really to you if you want to weigh in, but also to 

Dr. Gilleland and Dr. Peters. This China market which I am a big 

fan of the U.S. trying a clean energy strategy just because they’re 

40 percent of the energy use. So anything we do together helps accelerate the deployment. They are now 73 percent dominated by 

coal. Could you talk about the market opportunity for the new reactors? 

Dr. Peters, could you also talk about this new materials development, the research and development on new materials that would 

help us on our current, the development of new materials and how 

that helps us in reaching this market opportunity? 

Dr. GILLELAND. Well, certainly working with China is a good 

thing for the United States because it is the huge market. It’s the 

dominant market in the world. They’re going to build tons of reactors and maybe someday hundreds. 

Our motive, of course, was to work with China because it would 

make the most difference on the emissions front and they are set 

up to proceed with actually trying out these new reactors. So we 

have a joint venture which we’re about to sign the CNNC to proceed with a prototype. 

Our motive here also has been to keep the United States in the 

game, as it were, because I think we have this unique combination 

of capabilities between the national labs and our way of doing 

things rapidly and entrepreneurially and innovatively. And so, that 

combination is, I think, very, very powerful. 

Now the agreement would involve us being equal partners. 

Whatever gets built in China can be built in the United States. In 

the 2030’s when we must replace the coal plants, I would hope to 

see a wave of construction and activity back in the United States. 

So it is a way for us to participate in the dominant market, make 

the biggest difference and equip ourselves to do the right thing in 

the United States. 

Senator CANTWELL. The expertise of the labs helps us leverage 

this technology. So I want to bring in Dr. Peters here, that it is the 

labs that helps keep the supply chain in the United States, our 

skill level, our innovation, our technology. The supply chain would? 

Dr. GILLELAND. Yes, there’s nothing that keeps you more focused 

than trying to build something. Your dogma goes out the window 

because you’re trying to solve real problems with a new type of reactor. 

And we have engaged about 50 institutions in the United States 

in a very focused way. And most of that hundreds of millions of dollars has gone to those institutions. It is the building of the supply 

chain, a very advanced supply chain. 

And I think in the future almost all of our advanced reactor activities will be international in nature. That’s just the way the 

world is working right now. You look around the world where the 

energy is needed and where the emissions must be low and that’s 

the message to us. 

58 

So we have to get in there and try to lead. That’s what this is 

all about. 

Senator CANTWELL. Dr. Peters? 

Dr. PETERS. Yes, thanks, Senator. 

So first and foremost let me completely support what you said 

that actually the national labs and universities in the U.S. are a 

differentiation and they remain a differentiation for us, as a country. Granted, manufacturing has wavered but the world still looks 

to us for that expertise. And so, that is an advantage that we still 

have. 

A couple of examples, and this isn’t just at INL, I would also 

mention Oak Ridge, Los Alamos and PNNL as being/having expertise. But two examples. In the fast reactor space, much like what 

TerraPower is developing, you have either a metal or an oxide fuel 

depending upon how you want to manage your safety case. But we 

still have world leading expertise in both of those fuel types. That’s 

some of what is being brought to bear in the case of the collaborations with TerraPower as they’re developing a metal fuel for a sodium fast reactor. 

But also for high temperature gas reactors, Steve mentioned 

those TRISO fuels, so silicon carbide particle fuels. Oak Ridge has 

a world leading position there, and we support that as well. 

So when you look at the advanced fuels for these reactors, the 

expertise sits at the U.S. national labs. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Cassidy? 

Senator CASSIDY. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Hopkins, the SMRs, I was looking at your thing. You are still 

going to have it surrounded by 7.4 million gallons of water. I did 

not have time to do the math, but it still seems like although it 

is small and modular, it is only small relative to the current. But 

it is really still a substantial footprint, I presume? 

Mr. HOPKINS. Actually sir, to your point, it’s 7.2 million gallons. 

That’s the ultimate heat sink that the module sits in. The actual 

footprint for a 600 megawatt plant is nominally about 32 acres. So 

you could expand that out to, let’s say, 100 acres or 150 acres, but 

the footprint itself is only 32 acres. 

So our sweet spot, we believe, in the United States quite frankly, 

is for coal replacement. So if you think of the majority of coal here 

in this U.S, it’s been 300 to 600 megawatts. We’re hoping, in fact 

our first project is actually for coal replacement, is to be able to put 

in with the existing infrastructure a 600 plant, 12-module facility. 

Senator CASSIDY. Now let me ask, I live near Entergy River Bend 

Nuclear Power Plant in Louisiana. I went and toured it, and they 

literally have a paramilitary force on hand for security with video 

surveillance of the fences. Every now and then they catch a raccoon 

trying to sneak in, that sort of thing. Will that be required for the 

SMRs? 

Mr. HOPKINS. We’re currently in discussion with the NRC. If you 

look at the actual footprint of the plant itself, the reactor building 

is a rectangle box. And so we believe if you look at the minimal 

number of entrances and exits, we could reduce that security plan, 

but that’s still something we’re in discussion with the NRC. So our 

59 

general belief is the answer is yes, we can reduce that security 

force. To what number? We don’t know at this time. 

Senator CASSIDY. But would it still require 24/7 security? 

Mr. HOPKINS. Yes, sir. 

Senator CASSIDY. With AK—— 

Mr. HOPKINS. Well, there’s new technologies that are out that 

we’re looking at right now that are non-lethal technologies that 

some of the labs are currently working on. So we’re exploring different options. But we—— 

Senator CASSIDY. Mr. DeWitte, would you require that same sort 

of security footprint? Because I can imagine you are someplace desolate, if there is a desolate place in Alaska. I am sure there is not. 

[Laughter.] 

Where you have this, sort of, small operation, but nonetheless it 

is radioactive material. Could somebody helicopter in, grab it and 

take off with it and make a dirty bomb? 

Dr. DEWITTE. That’s a great question. 

First, that leads me to just think the work that NuScale is doing 

to help answer some of these questions and leading the way on 

these things because the discussions they’re having will inform how 

we approach this. Because fundamentally, when you think about 

what we’re doing and our size, it’s very similar to research and test 

reactors that are at college campuses across the country. They’re 

very safe, very secure. Their security intervention usually involves 

relying on campus or local police to get there in a certain time period because the amount of material is so small. 

Fundamentally that’s, kind of, the same approach that we believe we can take and still meet all the objectives, not to mention 

the fact that the material is very heavy and hard to get at and 

hard to deal with in order to actually divert to do something with 

it. 

Senator CASSIDY. Okay. 

Mr. Kuczynski, you had mentioned, you used the word ‘‘affordable.’’ But what I understand about what Southern Company is 

doing with nuclear, it is quite unaffordable. 

I asked an energy company why they were not doing what you 

all were, and they said listen, we can make ten natural gas plants 

for the cost of what they are doing, and they are cheaper to operate. Now I have learned to say what I have been told, not what I 

know. So I say that not to challenge, but just to say what someone 

else has said. Your thoughts about that? That natural gas, the economics of nuclear, at least the scale that you are doing right now 

does not work with natural gas? 

Mr. KUCZYNSKI. Yeah, I would respectfully disagree about the economics and our working. Essentially our project, when we certified 

it about six years ago, we anticipated a 12 percent rate increase to 

our customer base. Currently today we expect that to be less than 

seven percent, maybe around six and a half percent. 

So this is a $14 billion project that’s actually going to come in 

on a lower rate impact where customers, when we’re completed, 

then when we start it, we think that’s a phenomenal achievement. 

And—— 

Senator CASSIDY. I do not know how all this works in your business model, so again, I am asking not to challenge, but to learn. 

60 

If somebody had built the equivalent number of natural gas powered plants at today’s fuel prices, would it have cost $14 billion to 

generate the same? I think you have 2,000 megawatts. 

Mr. KUCZYNSKI. Yes, of course it would be less. But you make a 

big assumption about today’s fuel prices. If you take a levelized approach, equalize it over 40 to 60 years, there isn’t anybody that 

would give you a contract on 40 years on gas prices. 

So we diversify our fuel mix in an effort to do clean, safe, reliable 

and affordable energy for the long-term and you need a diversification of fuel supply. We cannot be all gas. 

In fact, our fleet has now transformed itself from less than 20 

percent gas to over 55 percent gas by just fuel switching. So our 

ability to switch fuels based on the economics is a tremendous advantage for Southern Company, and that’s why electricity rates are 

among the lowest in the country and reliability is the highest. And 

that’s why we’re able to attract economic development in our part 

of the country. 

So we’re huge proponents of nuclear. It’s stable, strong, reliable. 

And this plant is going to be around for 60, likely 80, years, with 

very, very stable cost bases. 

Senator CASSIDY. If I might ask though, the $14 billion that you 

are, for the 2,000 megawatts, how much would it have cost to do 

that with natural gas-fired plants? 

Mr. KUCZYNSKI. Yeah, I’m not an expert at that at this point in 

time. I can get back to you afterwards. 

Senator CASSIDY. Please. 

Mr. KUCZYNSKI. But essentially you have to look at it not on today’s fuel prices. And we’ve done the economic analysis with nine 

different scenarios and nuclear. Continuing our project is, by far, 

the most economic result to date for our project. 

Senator CASSIDY. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Heinrich? 

Senator HEINRICH. Madam Chairman, I want to thank you for 

this hearing. I think it is important that we look at advanced fission technologies. I also want to suggest that it might be useful, 

at some point, to have a second hearing on the status of nuclear 

fusion research as well where there are some pretty exciting developments, particularly around new materials developments and 

super conducting magnets at places like MIT. 

I want to start with Dr. DeWitte. First off, where did you get 

your donuts? I think that is an important question. 

Dr. DEWITTE. Johnson Donuts. [Laughter.] 

Senator HEINRICH. Excellent, very good answer. 

More to the point today, can you talk a little bit more about the 

design that you are pursuing, where you are in that process? And 

then what are the implications for things like fuel and spent fuel 

or waste, I should say, because you mentioned you are using spent 

fuel as your fuel source? So what does your waste stream look like 

and what are the challenges of dealing with spent fuel which is, 

obviously, highly radioactive? 

Dr. DEWITTE. Sure. Thank you for the question, Senator. 

61 

So a couple things. We launched in 2013, and we’ve been working 

on this for a few years prior. And the reason we started on this 

very small concept is because we surveyed the field and saw that 

the economic opportunities of going small and starting off grid were 

very favorable, economically, for doing nuclear at these sizes, as 

well as the fact that it was a manageable approach to a new technology from a start ups perspective. Starting something small like 

that gave us a vector on how to tackle these issues. 

So we’ve completed our confirmatory testing on what we’re aiming to do with the system and completed verification and validation 

testing on full scale heat transport. We’re moving into building an 

exact scale non-nuclear prototype later this year that will complete 

our transient testing on other things, much, similar, very similar, 

to the work that NuScale did several years ago building up the prototype testing plant. 

One nice thing about us though is we’re so small we can do everything at the exact scale. So that helps. 

We anticipate submitting a license to the NRC sometime around 

2018/2019, a license application, I should say. And what we would 

like to do is have our first reactor deployed in the very early 2020s. 

And we’d love to go as fast as we can to do that. But that’s, kind 

of, the nominal targets we’ve set. 

In terms of dealing with the fuel, we anticipate the very first reactors will be fueled with normal enriched uranium, low enriched 

uranium. Because of the difficulties in dealing with spent fuel, we 

don’t really want to add that risk into the very first one. When I 

say risk, I mean technological risk, into the first reactor. 

Senator HEINRICH. What kind of enrichment level? 

Dr. DEWITTE. It’s on the order of about 15 percent. 

Senator HEINRICH. Okay. 

Dr. DEWITTE. And mind you, these are very small reactors, so 

it’s a small amount of fuel. 

But we do, we are interested in opportunities to help with the 

plutonium disposition issue going on with, specifically related to 

the MOX plant in South Carolina. 

Senator HEINRICH. Right. 

Dr. DEWITTE. That would not be as much of a technological 

reach and it would prove out a lot that we’d like to do with spent 

fuel. 

And there are some interesting technologies that we anticipate 

using to accelerate getting spent fuel into reactors for destruction 

and transmutation because what we do is we can fission all of the 

actinides over time. And what you’re left with are fission products 

that normally have a half-life of about 30 years. So they’re more 

or less gone in about 300 as opposed to the tens to hundreds of 

thousands with actinides. 

Senator HEINRICH. Okay, thank you very much. 

I want to get back to this issue that Senator Cassidy raised 

about general economics. Dr. Gilleland, I think you mentioned affordable nuclear power, and certainly Mr. Kuczynski, you walked 

through this a little bit. But I am having a hard time reconciling 

a number of information points. 

I did a little bit of Google research this morning about this that 

is in the news, and one of those stories that came up was around 

62 

two large reactors in Illinois that have light water reactors that 

have lost about $800 million over the past six years. 

I am trying to figure out what kind of unsubsidized, levelized 

costs per kilowatt hour is everybody targeting to ensure that these 

advanced technologies are actually competitive in the marketplace? 

For any of you really. 

Dr. GILLELAND. Well certainly, as Bill Gates said all the way 

through from the beginning, if you can’t afford it, it’s all theory. 

But the fact of the matter is in the case of the traveling wave 

reactor. Since you eventually do away with enrichment and you 

never need reprocessing, since the reactor would reduce the 

amount of waste produced by about a factor of five, since the basic 

fuel would be depleted uranium which is already mined, there’s 

enough at Paducah to power the United States’ fleet for hundreds 

of years. You add all those things up and you end up with a lower 

price of electricity. I’m not a great economist, but if you don’t have 

to do something it’s less expensive. 

Senator HEINRICH. Sure, but—— 

Dr. GILLELAND. And so the—— 

Senator HEINRICH. There is going to be—— 

Dr. GILLELAND. Levelized carbon. 

Senator HEINRICH. A target in terms of a cost per kilowatt hour 

that makes sense. I mean, we are seeing PPAs now at ridiculously 

low prices compared to what we saw a few years ago. 

So I assume all of you have a goal for where you need to get to, 

to make sure that ten years from now as some of these technologies 

continue to come down the cost curve, that you are ahead of that. 

Dr. GILLELAND. Yes. 

And our levelized costs, I don’t have those right in my head right 

at the moment. They’re in the range of seven to eight cents per kilowatt hour, that kind of range, roughly speaking. 

And we often compare to alternatives and since our system is so 

much simpler and since the waste produced is so much less and 

since the fuel is right now considered waste, that goes a long way. 

Some people confuse depleted uranium with spent fuel. Spent 

fuel is what’s been used and it’s now radioactive and is sitting 

around the country waiting for disposition. Depleted uranium is 

that vast quantity of uranium sitting behind enrichment plants. 

It’s never seen a reactor. It’s never been in one. Ninety something 

percent of all uranium mined is not useful as fuel. 

And our objective was to take a look at Paducah and these other 

fuels of uranium and say, if you can burn that you’re up a factor 

of ten in your fuel supply, it’s already mined. There’s no CO2 in 

mining it. If you can burn it very efficiently with burn ups of 30 

percent, several—an order of magnitude higher than present fission 

plants, then basically you’re extending the fuel supply by about a 

factor of 40 to 50. And that’s done without need for a proliferation 

prone processes such as reprocessing. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Risch. 

Senator RISCH. Well thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Dr. Gilleland, your understanding of economics is a lot like a lot 

of us Americans but you need to spend a little more time with the 

government. [Laughter.] 

63 

Senator RISCH. When the Government was shut down here they 

told us by not doing it, it was going to cost us more than doing it. 

So it gets very complicated when you get into government economics as opposed to just plain old common sense economics. 

Dr. Peters, the advanced test reactor which is certainly one of 

our important facilities at the INL has been used for testing fuels 

for the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, and it has been very 

important in that regard. There has been some talk about how the 

ATR could be used to support the gateway for accelerated innovation for nuclear initiative. Could you talk about that for just a 

minute for us, please? 

Dr. PETERS. Sure, thank you, Senator, thank you for the question. Good to see you. 

So as you already said the advanced test reactor has been operating since the 60s, and its core mission to this day is to support 

the nuclear navy and that continues. And also note that we have 

a line of sight to this machine being operating as far as 2050, if 

not beyond, to continue to support that mission. 

But there’s already an existing part of the ATRs mission that’s 

a part of the National Science User Facility that DOE funds that 

actually funds university researchers and industry researchers and 

other lab researchers to use some of the irradiation time at ATR 

to do work on our current nuclear energy system and also advanced 

nuclear reactor systems. 

So really, yes, it will be a part of the test bed. It’s a good example, actually. ATR and the High Flux Isotope Reactor at Oak Ridge 

are two good examples of test reactors that will be an important 

part of the GAIN test beds. 

So and we’re continuing to look to ways to, sort of, expand the 

capability of ATR to be able to be more responsive to industry 

needs. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you, I appreciate that. 

I recently met with the people who founded the Transatomic 

Power where they are dealing with these new molten salt reactors 

which, I guess, is kind of new to me and probably not to you people 

who work in this on a daily basis. But what can you tell us about 

that briefly, about this technology? 

Dr. PETERS. It’s an exciting technology. 

Actually, the founders were at school with Jake, at the same 

time with Jake at MIT. So it’s another example of some of these 

exciting startups that are emerging from the university community. 

It’s a molten salt technology. It operates at high temperatures. 

It’s a very exciting technology. It’s early in its development, but it’s 

a perfect example of an early stage company that needs access 

through things like GAIN to capabilities at the laboratories to be 

able to do testing and evolve their design. 

But, I mean, yes. There’s—48 companies. Jake’s being one, 

Transatomic being another that are out there with advanced concepts both fission and fusion, actually. And so the whole idea is to 

try to make sure that the labs are open to helping all of those companies at whatever stage of maturation they’re in. 

64 

But there’s reasons to be very excited about Transatomic. 

Southern’s, for example, working with Oak Ridge about molten salt 

technology as well. 

But when you look at the laboratories, the reactor technology 

sort of grew up through the laboratories in different ways. And actually the resident expertise in the laboratory system in molten 

salt tends to sit at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. They have a 

prominent capability there. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you. 

Last, every time I visit the INL there is always a discussion 

about new talent coming into the pipeline. There does not seem to 

be as much interest as there should be in young students wanting 

to take on nuclear physics. 

Can you talk for a minute about the partnerships that the INL 

has formed with our universities in Idaho to try to nurture this and 

resolve this issue and move it along? 

Dr. PETERS. Yes, sure. 

So we have partnerships with, close partnerships, with Idaho 

State University, University of Idaho and Boise State, but in the 

nuclear energy area, particularly with Idaho State University, and 

the University of Idaho. And so we’re working actively with them 

to bring students to the laboratory so that the students are not 

only getting training/education at the institution but also understanding doing research at the laboratory and a lot of back and 

forth between the university and the lab. 

Also working with them to help devise their curricula in a more 

effective way to train the next generation. And that’s a great partnership, but also, as part of the partnership that manages the laboratory, as you’re aware, we have a national partnership. So we 

have other universities that are a part of that, part of the partnership that includes MIT, NC State, Ohio State, and University of 

New Mexico and Oregon State as well. 

And so there’s a national picture as well. 

But I should say that, I mean, witness the guy at the end of the 

table down here. There’s a change. The young people that are coming out today out of undergrad and grad school are looking to save 

the world and they’re realizing that nuclear has got to be a part 

of it. I didn’t feel like that was there, say 15 years ago, so I’m just 

really excited about it. 

Senator RISCH. That is good to hear. 

Thank you so much. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Manchin? 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank all of 

you. 

I will start with you, Mr. Kuczynski, since you are in the utility 

business. 

Do you agree with the EIA’s forecast as far as an energy mix is 

going to be needed through 2040? And I guess, depending on 

whether the Clean Power Plan goes into effect or no, it does not. 

But they have, I think I can go a few figures. They had coal at 30, 

32, 33 percent. You had natural gas at 30, 31, 32. Renewables at 

18 and nuclear at 16. And even with the Clean Power Plan nuclear 

65 

still stays at 16. That does not make sense to me. But do you agree 

with the forecast? Do you all see that? 

Mr. KUCZYNSKI. We look at a number of forecasts whether 

they’re out at APRI or EIA. We do know that we’re headed to, I 

think, a carbon constrained future. That seems to be embedded in 

every, kind of—— 

Senator MANCHIN. Do you all have concerns as Southern about 

the reliability of this system? 

Mr. KUCZYNSKI. We do not have concerns about the reliability of 

the system. We have an extremely robust system. Part of being in 

a regulative, regulated vertical we are able to invest significantly 

in our systems. So despite, you know, severe weather in our area 

we have tremendous functionality in our transmission distribution. 

We do believe nuclear is going to play a role, and we think some 

studies show nuclear playing a much stronger role. And that is 

why we’re participating in this area of advanced reactors because 

not only do we have a deployable, large scale base load that we 

have solved the engineering, regulatory and almost all the construction risk already with the AP1000. 

Senator MANCHIN. Let me ask—— 

Mr. KUCZYNSKI. It is ready to go. Advanced reactors could even 

expand us further. That’s why—— 

Senator MANCHIN. Will advanced reactors, will you be able to 

ramp up and ramp down as power demands? 

Mr. KUCZYNSKI. Many of the advanced reactor designs—— 

Senator MANCHIN. Because right now I do not think they do that, 

do they? 

Mr. KUCZYNSKI. Are designed to do that. In fact, they could couple very nicely with the renewable energy sources. 

Senator MANCHIN. That is what has been so attractive with the 

natural gas because gas is easy to ramp up and ramp down and 

the others are not quite. 

Mr. KUCZYNSKI. Right. Each energy resource has its own features. 

Senator MANCHIN. Okay. Does anybody else want to comment on 

that? 

Dr. DEWITTE. I’ll just add—— 

Senator MANCHIN. Go ahead. 

Dr. DEWITTE. Advanced reactors changed the paradigm for load 

following and responding to the grid needs. I mean, our system operates fairly easily between 10 and 100 percent power and fairly 

quickly. 

So it’s an important feature, and it’s going to change the economics, long-term, of what advanced nuclear reactors can bring to the 

table. 

Senator MANCHIN. You all are very much involved as far as in 

the development of the new technologies as far as how nuclear will 

be used or could be used within the system, correct? I mean, all of 

you, I think, are in some form of that. 

I am sure you have looked at other sectors and mine, in West 

Virginia, as you know, we do not have any nuclear power plants 

in West Virginia but we have a tremendous amount of coal-fired 

plants. We think that we do it as clean as possible and would like 

to even do it even more but we have no investment or no buy in 

66 

at all from the Federal Government that is helping us to advance 

the technologies. 

Have you been looking at some of that or do you see some advancement in that arena? Again, I know you all have done—— 

Mr. KUCZYNSKI. We, as a company, are investing in clean coal 

technology. 

Senator MANCHIN. Coal. 

Mr. KUCZYNSKI. With our Kemper facilities. You know, we are 

deeply embedded in trying to assure that that fuel source can meet 

our future energy sources. 

Senator MANCHIN. Yes, and we are watching you all, but your 

cost overruns are pretty substantial. 

Mr. KUCZYNSKI. Yes, it’s true. You know, first of a kind big 

projects. 

Senator MANCHIN. Right. That could be a cutting project for us 

to be able to use a dependable fuel, a reliable fuel such as coal for 

many years. 

Mr. KUCZYNSKI. So as we get over those hurdles the technology 

will—— 

Senator MANCHIN. Southern, I believe, has coal in the mix for 

quite some time, right? 

Mr. KUCZYNSKI. Oh yeah, we, that was our predominant energy 

source for many years. It no longer is. Gas is our predominant energy source. 

Senator MANCHIN. Okay. 

It is my understanding that China will add 23 nuclear reactors 

by 2020 increasing its capacity from 2 percent to 15 percent. 

I am interested to know more about your company of 

TerraPower, Mr. Gilleland, and its agreement with China’s National Nuclear Corporation to build traveling wave reactors, or 

TWRs? Can you tell me what’s so attractive about this contract or 

how it is going? 

Dr. GILLELAND. It’s going well. We’ve been at it for ten years. 

We’re a few hundred million dollars into the effort. We have used 

about 50 institutions in the United States, including national laboratories, in this development. 

The State Department negotiated an agreement with us so we 

could freely exchange information with China, and that’s going to 

be possible for other nations as well on the traveling wave reactor. 

The reason they did that for us is because eventually enrichment 

will not be needed and reprocessing will never be needed. That’s 

where you take spent fuel and rework it again. People who analyze 

weapons proliferation risk say those are the two things that represent the greatest risk. 

So our goal was to come up with a reactor which could be universally and ethically exportable, as one professor put it. We are about 

to sign an agreement with CNNC to have a joint venture—— 

Senator MANCHIN. Do you all plan on manufacturing in America 

or manufacturing overseas? 

Dr. GILLELAND. It will be both places. 

Generally, the first of a kinds are predominantly built here. Certainly the research and the leadership and the management of the 

joint venture will be the United States. 

67 

We plan to have the beginning of construction in 2018 or thereabouts with the first prototype plant going into operation—— 

Senator MANCHIN. Yes. 

Dr. GILLELAND. In 2025 or 2026. The first commercial units will 

come a few years after that. 

The important role that the national labs are playing here is in 

the materials, development and testing. So are the universities. 

Senator MANCHIN. My time is running out, sir. I am so sorry to 

cut you short on that. 

Dr. GILLELAND. Okay, sorry. Go ahead. 

Senator MANCHIN. But if I could just ask one question? 

Do you all believe that coal along with nuclear power is going to 

be needed for quite some time to guarantee the base load that is 

needed for this country? Do you all have any opinion on that at all? 

Anybody, just really quickly, if I may ask? 

Mr. KUCZYNSKI. In our long-term study, coal still is a factor in 

our long-term generation mix. 

Senator MANCHIN. As far as base load, you’ve got coal. 

Mr. KUCZYNSKI. Correct. 

Senator MANCHIN. Coal and nuke, right, for base load? 

Mr. Peters, do you agree? 

Dr. PETERS. Well yes, I think, but I’d also put in the plug for 

clean coal and continued—— 

Senator MANCHIN. Oh no, no, no, we’re—— 

Dr. PETERS. Yeah, no, but innovation, including going to carbon 

capture and sequestration. 

Senator MANCHIN. So basically for the reliability of the system—— 

Dr. PETERS. Right. 

Senator MANCHIN. Coal is going to be needed the same as nuclear is going to be needed, correct? 

Dr. PETERS. As a bridge to a future that, I think, looks quite different. 

Senator MANCHIN. Okay. 

Dr. PETERS. It’s probably a very long bridge. 

Senator MANCHIN. You are talking about beyond 2040, 2050. 

Dr. PETERS. Yes, 2040, 2050. 

Senator MANCHIN. Maybe you all could talk to the Administration and make them understand that. We would really appreciate 

it if you could. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Manchin. 

Senator Alexander? 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thanks, Madam Chairman, and thanks to 

the witnesses for coming. 

Mr. Kuczynski, we have a couple of questions from Senators 

about cost. It costs TVA about $8 million to build 860 megawatts, 

and they built it in a year, I think. So it is costing you $14 billion 

to build 2,000 megawatts, right? That is a lot more expensive. The 

gas plant probably lasts 20 or 30 years. Is that about right? And 

the nuclear plant could last up to 80 years. 

Mr. KUCZYNSKI. Up to 80, correct. 

68 

Senator ALEXANDER. And then you have the long-term cost of 

fuel which we do not know about, except we do know it has been 

a lot higher not long ago. So my point is that even though at first $14 billion for 2,000 megawatts of nuclear does not compare very well with $2 billion 

for 2,000 megawatts of gas, if you take the length of time the 

plants might last and the importance of diversity in a big utility 

like yours, it does make sense to go with nuclear power. 

Mr. KUCZYNSKI. We fully agree with, kind of, that summary. And 

14 is full carrying cost, not overnight costs so—— 

Senator ALEXANDER. Let me ask you something else. Senator 

Heinrich mentioned the Illinois plants that were losing money. 

Exelon probably owns those plants. They are a merchant utility, 

right? And you are an investor-owned utility, is that correct? 

Mr. KUCZYNSKI. Well they’re investor-owned also, they’re just in 

an unregulated market—— 

Senator ALEXANDER. They are in an unregulated market, and 

you are in a regulated market. 

Mr. KUCZYNSKI. Correct. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Exelon has testified that because of the size 

of the subsidy for wind power that basically, at some times, the 

wind producers in its region can give away its power to Exelon and 

still make a profit forcing Exelon to buy the wind power and not 

the nuclear power, making the nuclear power less viable. 

Is the big wind subsidy that has been on the books for 23 or 24 

years a deterrent to the expansion of carbon free nuclear power? 

Mr. KUCZYNSKI. Yeah, I think the industry, you know, supports 

Exelon’s position in those markets where it’s not a true competitive 

market, and I think those of us that support nuclear believe we can 

compete in a levelized market that has an equal playing field. 

I think in Illinois there is an over capacity. There’s a lack of low 

gross and of subsidies and the massive growth in wind has just 

changed the dynamics of that market, and it’s had unintended consequences with regards to those reactors. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Let’s talk for a moment about the amount 

of money. 

Here we have a number of people who are engaged in clean energy research. We are talking about carbon free electricity that is 

reliable and at a reasonable cost. We have seen what has happened 

in other big countries, Germany and Japan, when they did not use 

nuclear power, and we saw the consequences on their manufacturing capacity. 

But coming back here, we spend, according to the Congressional Budget Office, about $9 billion last year and this year on subsidies 

for wind, $9 billion. We spend about $5 billion on energy research, 

as a government. 

Mr. Gates and others, including me, think we should double the amount of money we spend on energy research from $5 billion to 

$10 billion as rapidly as we can. That would permit people like you, 

or that would encourage people like you, to create new forms of 

clean, carbon free electricity. We might even find a way to have an 

economical method of capturing carbon from a coal plant or a gas 

plant which would be the Holy Grail, it seems to me, of carbon free 

electricity. 

69 

But even if you do not do that, my question to any of you is, 

wouldn’t it be a better idea to phaseout this wind subsidy after 40 

years, it is a mature technology according to the last Energy Secretary, and spend that $5 billion a year on energy research? We 

could instantly double the amount of money the United States 

spends on energy research if we did that. Wouldn’t that be a better 

use of our money? 

Dr. DEWITTE. I’ll jump in and say—— 

Dr. PETERS. Senator, they’re going to ask the national lab guy to 

answer that question. [Laughter.] 

So I guess I’m going to beg off on the part about where the 

money comes from. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Well don’t do that. I want an answer to the 

question. 

Dr. PETERS. Alright. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Are you going to continue to waste $5 billion a year on subsidies for that technology, or if somebody else 

wants to answer that, or are we going to spend it on encouraging 

people like you to create advanced reactors and small reactors or 

other forms of clean—— 

Dr. PETERS. Senator, I think that if we increase the clean energy 

research funding, I have no doubt that we will unleash innovation 

and we will transform the energy sector. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Yes. 

Dr. PETERS. So increasing clean energy funding absolutely has to 

happen, but again I think it’s outside of my purview to comment 

on where the money comes from. 

Dr. GILLELAND. Being a very unpolitical guy, the answer is yes. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. [Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. DeWitte, did you want to jump in there? 

Dr. DEWITTE. I was just going to say what John said, yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay, you got your answer. 

Senator Franken? 

Senator FRANKEN. I would yield my time right now to Angus. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator King? 

Senator KING. First, Senator Alexander, my understanding is 

that the wind PTC that was extended in the last deal at the end 

of the year phases out over five years. I think what you are seeking 

is actually happening. That is my understanding. I may be incorrect about that. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Well that may be true. But in the next two 

years it is $5 billion a year, and that is exactly the amount of 

money we would like to have to double our energy research. 

Senator KING. I guess it is a question of what does phasing 

mean? It is phased out over a period of time. That was what was 

decided at the end of the year. 

Anyway, I was very interested in Mr. Kuczynski, is it? You said 

you wanted to play on a level playing field. Are you advocating 

today that we repeal the Price Anderson Act and the nuclear industry should have to pay the full cost of insurance? That is what you 

said, I think, you want a level playing field. 

70 

Mr. KUCZYNSKI. Yes, I was more recognizing, kind of, the current 

subsidies that are in play and—— 

Senator KING. And Price Anderson is not a subsidy? Of course it 

is a subsidy. 

Mr. KUCZYNSKI. We don’t necessarily consider it a subsidy. It’s 

not been utilized—— 

Senator KING. It walks like a duck, it is a duck, it is a subsidy. 

If you had to buy that insurance it would cost you a fortune, is that 

not correct? Yes or no? 

Mr. KUCZYNSKI. The industry pulls—— 

Senator KING. No. Yes or no? If you had to buy insurance on the 

commercial market for your plants would it not cost you a lot of 

money? 

Mr. KUCZYNSKI. I have not researched on exactly what that price 

would be. 

Senator KING. Okay, so if you are not too worried about it then 

will you tell the Committee you think we should have repealed 

Price Anderson? 

Mr. KUCZYNSKI. I think Price Anderson has been a valuable part 

of our energy strategy for 50 years. 

Senator KING. I will say it is, but it is a subsidy. Now in your $14 billion for your plant, were there any other subsidies? 

Mr. KUCZYNSKI. We have utilized—— 

Senator KING. Do you receive subsidies from the Federal Government? 

Mr. KUCZYNSKI. Yes, we have utilized, the way we believe subsidies ought to be utilized and for emerging technologies to get 

them restarted. So subsidies are—— 

Senator KING. How much of the $14 billion was Federal subsidy? 

Mr. KUCZYNSKI. Well, we have not taken any direct subsidies. 

The only thing we have used to this point is loan guarantees which 

is technically not a subsidy, it’s a financing mechanism that the 

Federal Government will be reimbursed for all financing costs. 

Senator KING. Okay. 

Mr. KUCZYNSKI. So we have not used any other subsidies, directly, for our projects. 

Senator KING. I am inclined to agree with you on that. There were no direct subsidies of that $14 million. That is your testimony? 

Mr. KUCZYNSKI. Correct. 

Senator KING. Okay. 

Dr. Cassidy is gone, but as I do the calculation, pretty straight 

forward, $7 million a megawatt for your plant. Two thousand into 

$14 billion. 

Wind, which I know something about, $2 million a megawatt. 

Gas, between $600,000 and $700,000 a megawatt. So a huge differential. 

I am not anti-nuclear. I like Maseratis. I just cannot afford them. 

I do not understand any economic theory other than assumptions 

about natural gas prices that your power is going to be economic 

in the immediate future. Now if you do an 80-year calculation and 

you assume very high gas prices and no problems with disposal 

and waste disposal and all those kinds of things, I suppose you can 

71 

make it work. But frankly, I just, again, I am not anti-nuclear, I 

just do not know how we can afford it. 

Can anybody answer that question? The numbers do not work. 

Seven million dollars a megawatt? That is verses half a million or 

three quarters of a million, I mean, per megawatt for gas and $2 

million for wind? 

Dr. DEWITTE. I think there’s a couple things that are important 

to highlight there. 

Senator KING. I know the cost of gas is a factor, and that has 

to be. I clearly understand that. 

Dr. DEWITTE. Right, that and the fact you have capacity factors 

that do matter. Nuclear having excellent performance capabilities, 

delivering about 90 percent of their—capacity which is a big difference from what you see with typical renewables. 

Senator KING. Sure. 

Dr. DEWITTE. But it’s also not nuclear verses renewables. I think 

that’s an all too often, I think, pitted argument. 

Senator KING. No, no. That is why I put gas into the mix. I am 

just taking a range. 

Dr. DEWITTE. Right. And I’ll say the other thing I would add to 

that is that advanced reactors do have the opportunity to fundamentally shift the economic paradigm of nuclear power. The advanced reactors usually don’t operate at high pressures, use far 

less steel, far less concrete and they have a huge economic potential in terms of achieving costs that are more competitive. 

Senator KING. I agree with that. I think one of the great mistakes we made in this country in the nuclear industry was having 

each plant being an individual plant with its own unique design 

rather than a standardized design. Is this something we are moving toward is some kind of standardized design? 

You are nodding. Is that? Could you? 

Dr. PETERS. The industry, the industry and NRC have already 

moved to that, Senator. And that would be part of the continued 

reform of the licensing process. When we go to advanced reactors 

the idea would be to not have it every design, you know, you have 

a design certification process up front, then you’re simply licensing 

a site, constructing the same reactor. 

Senator KING. Right, and you can modularize. 

Dr. PETERS. Yeah, yeah. 

Senator KING. And standardize parts and those kinds of things. 

You are now nodding. Is that correct? Is that where we’re headed? 

Mr. HOPKINS. Yes, sir, that’s the intent of the small modular reactor is people ask often why we limit our size to 50 megawatt electric because still a lot of our testing on seismic and etcetera, the 

height of the containment and the reactor itself, we wanted to ensure that it lent itself to a standardization of design so we could 

build these in a factory, both containment and the reactor. So what 

you have in the field is really a civils project, concrete to steel. 

Senator KING. Exactly. 

Do we have any price? Do we have any per megawatt numbers 

on this new approach? 

72 

Mr. HOPKINS. Well, Senator Cassidy mentioned earlier about we 

do have a customer. They have to prove their economics before they 

go before their membership. 

If you were looking today at Henry Hub prices of gas at less than $2 per million BTU, a levelized cost of engineering and combined 

cycle plant is nominally in the range of about $55 per megawatt 

hour. 

Senator KING. Yes. 

Mr. HOPKINS. We’re right now, with small modular reactors at today’s prices, based on the economics, about $72 per megawatt 

hour. 

The question becomes if you look and it was mentioned earlier, 

in the West there’s not a lot of gas. You have to bring the gas in. 

You have to go through the permitting process. 

But the question becomes with LNG exports and other things 

and moderate production right now where it was over capacity. 

There was a lot of people moving in are now leaving the gas. What 

will the gas be in five to seven years? 

Senator KING. Sure. 

Listen, and once you do nuclear you have fixed your energy costs 

and your fuel costs. I understand that. That is true of hydro, wind, 

other. The difference is nuclear is base load. I understand that distinction. 

The question is can we get that initial capital cost down to a 

place where it makes sense? I think that is the challenge and that 

is what we are talking about here. 

Mr. HOPKINS. Well, what we’re looking at right now is we have 

to be commercial viable for these to exist; otherwise there is no 

market. 

And if you look at the small modular reactor, each of these units, 

of 12 of them, are independent. So you could put two or three and 

get them operational to stop—to start offsetting the cost of putting 

the additional plants in. So from a finance ability when you could 

put 600 megawatts for less than $3 billion U.S. Those are 

financeable. 

Senator KING. Yes. 

Mr. HOPKINS. And those are, you can put those on a balance 

sheet. And we currently have banks coming to us now, you know, 

saying here’s how we think we can finance your project. So that’s 

a big step. 

Senator KING. It is a big step. Again, I hope that we can work, 

get to the place where we have economic capital costs and that 

then the technology can provide enormous fossil fuel free, carbon 

free energy. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HOPKINS. Absolutely. 

The CHAIRMAN. We are going to move to Senator Franken here. 

Thank you. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. 

Wait, what did you want to say, Dr. Peters? 

Dr. PETERS. I was just going to re—— 

Thank you, Senator. 

I was just going to re-emphasize that when you look at the research and innovation agenda for Generation IV reactors, a big 

73 

part of what we’re focused on is, in fact, addressing the cost, getting down the cost curve. 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay. 

Dr. PETERS. At the early stage as well. 

So it is pushing the envelope on safety, burning the fuel more efficiently, but also going after design features that will help reduce 

capital cost because that is clearly a huge obstacle, I would say, to 

getting to commercialization. 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay, that is enough. [Laughter.] 

Senator FRANKEN. It has been five years since Fukushima, so it 

is important that we keep safety in the forefront when we are discussing nuclear power. I want to ask about these small modular reactors and advanced nuclear technologies and how they could potentially enhance safety if they are designed to operate without the 

need for external power to cool the reactors after all was loss of 

backup power from generators at the Fukushima plant that caused 

the cooling systems to fail. 

Mr. Hopkins, can you give us an overview of the major safety 

concerns with traditional nuclear power and how SMRs improve 

safety such as by removing the need for backup power? 

Mr. HOPKINS. Yes, sir. 

Actually two weeks ago I was in Japan and had this conversation. If you recall what happened at Fukushima, it wasn’t the 

earthquake, it was the tsunami that resulted in knocking out the 

electrical which therefore knocked out the cooling pumps and the 

plant couldn’t cool itself down. 

The small modular reactor passive safety systems. And this actually came about 15 years ago under a DOE program called Multiple 

Application of Small Modular Reactors. And the intent in the objective was to design a reactor with safety in mind. It wasn’t about 

economics. 

So even prior to Fukushima a lot of passive safety systems that 

were going on research at Oregon State University and Dr. Jose 

Reyes had to deal a lot with what the problems that occurred in 

Fukushima. 

So our plan in passive safety, we refer to as the triple crown. If 

you were to have a station black out situation, the way that the 

reactor is designed it will cool itself down. You don’t need operator 

intervention. You don’t need additional electricity nor do you need 

additional water for this particular reactor to cool down. 

And thinking this core is 120th the size of the large reactor. And 

so part of what we have at our Technical Advisory Boards that are 

made up of Senior Chief Nuclear Officers from 23 utilities and 

technical staff is to—and these are actual operators to look at those 

sequences. How would this reactor cool itself down? How can you 

circumvent a Fukushima event? And we believe the science is there 

and that’s what we’re currently working with the NRC with. 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay. 

Mr. Gilleland? 

Dr. GILLELAND. Yes? It’s the same. 

Senator FRANKEN. What are the safety benefits of advanced nuclear designs like TerraPower’s technology? 

Dr. GILLELAND. It’s a very similar answer. 

74 

The reactor is designed in such a way that the heat is efficiently 

conducted from the fuel out through the coolant, and it’s because 

we use metal fuel and metal coolant. 

Long story short, if you had a Fukushima there’s no problem. 

You can have no internal or external power and the heat will be 

conducted to the outside world after the reactor, because of the way 

the physics works, shuts itself down. There’s no need for a computer or a human to decide anything. 

In addition, the mother of all accidents is that you also, not only 

lose that power for cooling, but you fail to put the control rods back 

in which is not what happened. This is worse than Fukushima. In 

that case the reactor also reduces automatically, its power to a very 

low level and can remain in that state indefinitely. 

So that was the starting point for much of what our design effort 

was about. That first aspect of being able to use that type of reactor to shut itself down when there is loss of cooling was demonstrated at Idaho many, many years ago, the walk away reactor. 

So this gentleman’s elderly people saw it done. 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay, good. 

Let me ask a question about the need for base load, because that 

has been brought up here. To what extent does advanced storage 

technology one, make the smaller reactors actually, maybe, a good 

idea since you do not need to necessarily be the base load? To what 

extent does better storage speak to that? And to what extent does 

better storage and real advances in storage decrease the need for 

the kind of base load that we have needed throughout our history? 

Dr. GILLELAND. Well in my opinion, storage does not decrease the 

need for base load. It’s a huge amount of energy, and load following 

which has been mentioned before would be very useful in these 

plants. You wouldn’t have to have storage. But at a certain point 

running a reactor steady state at full power for 90 percent of the 

time, that’s a very economic way to operate a nuclear plant or 

power facilities. 

But people usually use the term energy storage in the context of 

renewables which are inherently intermittent like wind and solar. 

There it would be helpful in the dispatching of that energy when 

you need it versus when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing. 

Senator FRANKEN. That is what I am talking about. 

Dr. GILLELAND. I beg your pardon? 

Senator FRANKEN. That is what I am talking about. 

Dr. GILLELAND. Oh, but you’re still stuck with the fact that the 

solar constant is a constant and that even if you were to provide 

free energy storage you still have to think about the fact that 

you’re going to have to rate the system to produce, in a short period 

of time, the energy you want to deploy over a longer period of time. 

What that adds up to is a lot more acres, a lot more square miles 

going into solar panels or into sites for wind. 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay. 

Dr. GILLELAND. So there’s a fundamental logic that says storage 

will help renewables but it’s not going to get around the inherent 

problems associated with intermittency and the amount of energy 

density that’s available from the sun or the wind. 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay. 

Does anybody else have an—— 

75 

Dr. DEWITTE. I would just add that storage also can couple well 

with the nuclear power plants as well because you can charge those 

up at night and then discharge them in the day to either match 

up with renewables or match the curve. So there are opportunities 

for storage innovation improvements to partner well with nuclear 

technology. 

Dr. PETERS. But the investment in storage is absolutely vital. 

You know, it doesn’t replace. 

Everything that they said was—I totally agree with, but innovation in storage is really an important thing to continue to support 

from the government. 

Senator FRANKEN. I see a lot of nodding. 

Dr. PETERS. Yes, really, really important to support. 

Senator FRANKEN. Like for me too. I am nodding that my time 

is up. [Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I agree on both counts. [Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Storage and your time is up. 

Let me turn to Senator Alexander, if you would like to pose a 

second question in the second round? 

Senator ALEXANDER. Well thanks. This is very interesting and I 

thank you all. 

On Senator Franken’s point and Dr. DeWitte, I think that is very 

important. The disadvantage of nuclear power is that you cannot 

turn them on and off, but the use of them and the demand goes 

way up in the afternoon. So if we had a really good storage system, 

probably the greatest beneficiary of a really good storage system 

would be nuclear power because it produces so much electricity. 

The second thing, on Dr. Gilleland’s point, we use about a quarter of all electricity in the world in this country. So we’re not going 

to run the country on windmills. I have said many times that is 

like going to war in sailboats when the nuclear navy is available. 

I mean, it is useful. It is helpful. 

Third, on the subsidies, the Senator from Maine asked about the 

Pricewaterhouse. Well, the nuclear industry self-insures $3.75 billion which has never been used for accidents. So the first money 

comes from the nuclear industry. I think that would be important 

to point that out, Mr. Kuczynski, next time he gets asked about 

that. 

On top of that, then the government might come in. But we come 

in from many emergency and disasters well before that. That 

would be our responsibility and it has never been used. 

As far as the phase out of the wind subsidy, I mean, let’s think 

about this. It has been going on for 24 years. The last energy secretary was a Nobel prize winner, and in testimony before this Committee he said it is a mature technology. 

Now small reactors are not a mature technology. For the last five 

years we have been trying to pay for the government’s part in helping that get off the ground. Advanced reactors are not a mature 

technology. That is where we might actually deal with climate 

change. We might actually deal with it there. 

Here we are wasting $4 or $5 billion a year, and the point that 

it is phased out, that is a trick. That is a trick. It has been phased 

out more than a dozen times. That is called an extension. Now they 

have just extended it for a longer period of time and called it a 

76 

phaseout, but it costs $4 or $5 billion a year. It is not $40 or $50 

million, it is $4 or $5 billion. That is the amount of money that 

would double what we could spend on energy research. 

So I think it is time for us to become rational about our energy 

policy, and rational to me means create an environment of government support through short-term support for new technologies. For 

example, there is a production tax credit for nuclear which, I guess, 

Mr. Kuczynski, you will take advantage of. But it is capped at 

6,000 megawatts. The wind is uncapped. That is another big difference next time that question comes up. 

So I favor, Madam Chairman, short-term support for new technologies and then they are on their own. The reason solar is about 

to be competitive is it does not have that kind of support. They 

have had some support, but nothing like these generous production 

taxes credits. As a result the cost of solar has been coming down, 

down, down, and it is about to get competitive as a supplement to 

the huge base load power that we need. 

We need for the same thing to happen, not just with wind power, 

it needs to be on its own. I mean right now we have got a big company trying to build big towers to destroy the landscape in Tennessee where the wind blows 18 percent of the time. That is absolutely absurd. 

TVA has said we don’t need any more new electric base load 

power for 20 years, and we have taxpayers spending money they 

could be spending on clean energy research to build wind turbines 

in a place where they would just spoil the environment and where 

the power is not needed. That is really bad policy. 

I would like to see, as far as NuScale’s support, the support for 

advanced reactors. The whole idea there is that support will end 

and you will be competitive or you won’t exist, right? I mean, you 

have said that to us in testimony if I am not mistaken. 

Mr. HOPKINS. Correct. 

Senator ALEXANDER. So, I think that is the approach, Madam 

Chairman, we should take with any of these new technologies 

where they are promising we should invest heavily in research, 

perhaps even support jump-starting a new technology like advanced reactors or maybe some, I mean, like small reactors, maybe 

some advanced reactor. But get out of the way, and then see what 

can survive. 

Solar is about to survive. We hope NuScale will survive. We hope 

some of these new advanced reactors will have that as well. Let 

wind power survive too, then maybe some of these Illinois nuclear 

plants won’t close because of negative pricing. 

You have been very generous to let me extemporize here at the 

end, and I thank you for it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, Senator Alexander, I know you have been 

occupied on the floor moving through education bills and our first 

appropriations bills, but we miss you in the Committee. Your contribution is not only important, but just a good reminder to us of 

the role that government should be playing as we help to facilitate 

this. 

I think one of the things that I have enjoyed as I have learned 

more about these advanced reactor technologies is just the whole 

smorgasbord that is out there. We are not talking about one apVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:38 Apr 07, 2017 Jkt 022127 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\TARSHA\HEARINGS\22127\F22127.TXT F22127
77 

proach, one technology. There is a diversity now that I think we 

recognize. How we figure out how we encourage that rather than 

doing what we do around here, which is deciding who the winners 

and who the losers are going to be, and hoping that we bet on the 

right one. 

So your comments about this, I think, are very important on the 

level of support that we should be providing at the Federal level. 

I want to ask one more quick question, and then we will wrap 

up. I appreciate everyone giving us so much time this morning. 

This is directed to you, Dr. DeWitte, because I am very curious 

about the true potential for what you are describing with micro-reactors and the potential in remote areas. Whether it is a place like 

Alaska or you think about some of our islands and our territories. 

I have been going back and forth a lot with the folks in Guam 

about what we are going to do. We have military buildup there, but 

basically you are an island that is still powered by diesel. CNMI 

is still powered by diesel. Look at Puerto Rico, and the financial 

mess that they are in. So much of that comes to them because they 

have not been able to figure out how they deal with their energy. 

I look at some of these areas as just a perfect opportunity or environment to have these smaller scaled technologies. But how you 

deploy them out—and let’s use Alaska. Let’s take an area like 

Bethel. You’ve got about 4,000 people out there. You are not attached by road. It is expensive in the first place. 

How do you deploy? How do you deal with, you mentioned in response to, I believe it was Senator Cassidy, some of the issues 

about how you deal with the proliferation? You are sitting out 

there in Bethel, and I think you indicated that this is heavy, difficult stuff to move. Realistically how could something like this 

work in remote, high cost areas with small populations? 

Dr. DEWITTE. Thank you for the question, Senator. 

That’s exactly the market that we are targeting is to bring power 

to save money in places like Bethel where we would build probably 

between two and four reactors. And they work in a neat way because they’re designed in a containerized fashion such that we 

would ship basically two shipping containers nominally out per reactor that would go. So in the case of four reactors, we’d have eight 

containers that would go up. In four of those containers are the reactors themselves, the reactor module. We would then bury that in 

a hole that we’d dig, not very deep, about 20 feet deep. And then 

on top we would put the other container which contains the 

power—— 

The CHAIRMAN. We want to talk to you later about permafrost 

and how we deal with that, but yes. [Laughter.] 

Dr. DEWITTE. Fair. 

So in those situations we can actually mound up and it works 

above. Good point though. But and that actually adds a nice benefit 

for a couple reasons, permafrost itself, but that’s a separate conversation. 

But anyway, you put the reactors there and then the process 

works that you can then tie up to either a microgrid solution or 

whatever the local grid system is there. And advances in power 

electronics actually enable us to do even more things in terms of 

grid matching and harmonizing with demand curves in small comVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:38 Apr 07, 2017 Jkt 022127 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\TARSHA\HEARINGS\22127\F22127.TXT F22127
78 

munities that are islanded from other grids effectively. And we 

would produce power for 12 years before refueling. And these systems use low enriched fuel, so they’re not weaponizable material. 

They’re also fairly small. I mean, you talk about fitting a shipping 

container. That also means there’s not much fuel in there. But 

they’re also not small enough that you can just throw it on the 

back of your pickup truck and drive away. They weigh 30 plus 

tons. And you don’t have equipment left there that would be able 

to move them, as well as the emplacement that goes on top of 

them. 

To the point that then the reactors themselves really aren’t attractive, you know, targets to say to go after and try to get materials. Plus, from the intervention side and security, like Senator 

Cassidy mentioned and asked, you know, we have a staff. We’ll 

plan on having security staff and personnel inside but it’s also 

something we can respond to just like we have those plans in place 

for research and test reactors in other places. It’s something that 

we can manage and definitely secure and make sure that it is not 

presenting a problem. 

And the important thing though is that this provides a level of 

energy security and reliability that these communities have never 

really seen before, right? They no longer have to rely on diesel. 

We’ve talked to some folks in certain communities that talk 

about bringing diesel in on dog sled. Those costs get super expensive very quickly. We eliminate those problems. 

On top of that it’s not just electricity we can provide, it’s also 

process heat, right? So we can heat community centers or even 

local, if we tied into the infrastructure that is in place, district 

heating. And we could tie into that and supply for that. 

And the important thing is that this saves a lot of money over 

diesel fuel, and it opens up, basically, larger portions of energy to 

be used by those populations to help overcome a lot of the challenges that they’re stuck with which is, you know, constrained by 

limited access to power. 

And in terms of operations, you know, we have these things operated, the small crew, because they’re cooled purely by natural 

forces. We wanted to design something that’s very robust such that 

it doesn’t require much intervention or maintenance or monitoring. 

So you kind of operate this thing sort of like you think of an oil 

rig where you have crews going in and off, and that’s basically how 

we provide that infrastructure and then produce power in these 

areas. And it gives us the opportunity to be able to put these nearly anywhere. So that’s really the objective that we’re trying to go 

after. 

The CHAIRMAN. We have talked a fair amount about public-private partnerships and working with the national labs, working 

with universities. How much has been done with the Department 

of Defense? 

They obviously have not necessarily a renewable mandate, but a 

goal toward reduced emissions on military installations. At one 

point in time the community of Galena, along the Yukon River, was 

actually looking at small nuclear as a potential for not only that 

community, but what, at that time, remained of a military installation. 

79 

How much discussion is going on with DOD for military installations, particularly in more remote areas whether it is Guam or 

whether it is Eielson Air Force Base? 

Dr. DEWITTE. We’ve engaged with different groups in the Department of Defense who’ve been interested in this. I think the big 

issue is they understand, generally, the need profile, but I think 

where we are and where we need to get to is to show that this is 

a mature technology that works. And I don’t think the DOD is necessarily the right place to, well, let me rephrase that. The way 

they’ve looked at it is not necessarily the right place to start. 

I think that can change as they see this going, and I think 

there’s opportunities and partnerships between DOD and private 

industry like with what we’re doing in possibly DOE in showing 

that this can work. But DOD has been hesitant to, I would say, 

take the lead on doing these reactor technologies because I think 

they still perceive them to be more on the developmental stage and 

not quite as ready for deployment. And we’re hoping to change that 

perception very soon. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hopkins, do you have any comments on that 

aspect of it or just the applicability of the small reactors? 

Mr. HOPKINS. My understanding, Senator, is that in fact the 

DOD are looking now at small modular reactors. I think one thing 

that helped us all is the Administration’s Executive Order on Alternative Energy last year came out and included SMRs as part of alternative energy which could open the brand with four Federal facilities. 

If you look at your state in an area of Fairbanks, we have quite 

a few military installations, Fort Richardson, Fort Greeley, a large 

air force base. If you could work out a PPA with the local utility 

to provide the military installation reliable energy of which they 

need, not only for the military installations but also the surrounding community where the support staff is and where these 

people live. I envision that I could see applications for micro or 

small modular reactors in those types of instances. 

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate that. 

Very interesting discussion this morning. I appreciate the contributions of all of you and your leadership in this area which, 

again, I believe very, very strongly, needs to be a robust part of our 

energy portfolio. 

So thank you for your contributions. 

And with that, we stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:59 a.m. the hearing was adjourned.] 

(80) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

81 


Insert offset folio 105 here 22127.105
82 


Insert offset folio 106 here 22127.106
83 


Insert offset folio 107 here 22127.107
84 


Insert offset folio 108 here 22127.108
85 


Insert offset folio 109 here 22127.109
86 


Insert offset folio 110 here 22127.110
87 


Insert offset folio 111 here 22127.111
88 


Insert offset folio 41 here 22127.041
89 


Insert offset folio 42 here 22127.042
90 


Insert offset folio 43 here 22127.043
91 


Insert offset folio 44 here 22127.044
92 


Insert offset folio 45 here 22127.045
93 


Insert offset folio 46 here 22127.046
94 


Insert offset folio 47 here 22127.047
95 


Insert offset folio 48 here 22127.048
96 


Insert offset folio 49 here 22127.049
97 


Insert offset folio 50 here 22127.050
98 


Insert offset folio 51 here 22127.051
99 


Insert offset folio 52 here 22127.052
100 


Insert offset folio 53 here 22127.053
101 


Insert offset folio 54 here 22127.054
102 


Insert offset folio 55 here 22127.055
103 


Insert offset folio 56 here 22127.056
104 


Insert offset folio 57 here 22127.057
105 


Insert offset folio 58 here 22127.058
106 


Insert offset folio 59 here 22127.059
107 


Insert offset folio 60 here 22127.060
108 


Insert offset folio 61 here 22127.061
109 


Insert offset folio 62 here 22127.062
110 


Insert offset folio 63 here 22127.063
111 


Insert offset folio 64 here 22127.064
112 


Insert offset folio 65 here 22127.065
113 


Insert offset folio 66 here 22127.066
114 


Insert offset folio 67 here 22127.067
115 


Insert offset folio 68 here 22127.068
116 


Insert offset folio 69 here 22127.069
117 


Insert offset folio 70 here 22127.070
118 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 71 here 22127.071