Hearings to examine proposed legislation entitled

Good morning. Uh, welcome to the EPW committee, uh, and its subcommittee on clean air, climate, and nuclear innovation and safety. Now, this hearing is entitled " A Legislative Hearing to Examine the Build Nuclear and Local Materials Act, the Discussion Draft Recharged Recharge Act and Discussion Draft Enrichment Licensing Modernization Act. And we thank you to our witnesses and attendees um and I am so grateful that uh ranking member Kelly who is uh very conversant with these issues and very involved in this subject is uh is here today. Thank you um Senator Kelly. So I'm gonna begin with my opening statement, uh and then I have to go to another committee to introduce a a colleague, and then I'll be back, uh and Senator Kelly will take the gavel uh for that time. Um, Doctor Stein, I presume? I'm so sorry that you got waylaid in line. Uh, but we're delighted you're here. Um, and I wanna thank again all of our witnesses for your willingness to, uh, inform our discussions today. We look forward to your, hearing your, uh, download of your expertise. Uh, I'll start with my opening statement. America must remain an economic superpower in the decades ahead, and that requires smart energy policy to ensure the United States And states like Wyoming and Arizona continue to lead the way. For my state of Wyoming, uh, we fueled American prosperity through coal, natural gas, oil, and uranium production for decades. We even have a miner on our state seal. We have number one status in uranium reserves and had a robust uranium industry for years, uh, before the technology, uh, fell asleep, but like um Rumpelstiltskin, isn't that who fell asleep for years? Uh, it has awakened and

Rip Van Winkle.

Rip Van Winkle, that was it. It was Rip Van Winkle, excuse me. Uh, it has awakened and is more robust than ever. Uh, Wyoming workers and producers strengthen our grid and support the reliable energy systems that make economic growth and national security possible. We all know that our new embrace of technology, including artificial intelligence, the data centers that support them, the advanced manufacturing that comes from it, and bitcoin mining, all of these demand reliable base load power, and that's the key, the base load power we need to continue to grow. The US needs more reliable generation, more infrastructure, and a diverse energy strategy, that supports affordability, reliability, and long-term energy security. Advanced nuclear energy must be part of that future. So, uh, we're so glad that Rip Van Winkle is awake, and, uh, alive and well, and, uh, experts representing it are here today to help us understand it. So, Senator Kelly and I, uh, have a bill that we're gonna talk about today, the Advance Act. Uh, and it is, has bipartisan support, in addition to us. Uh, we need to, we need to discuss that bill today and work to build on the momentum, um, that other bills, uh, before us, uh, help represent. Um, the Build Nuclear and Local Materials Act, that's the one you, you're the prime sponsor, yeah, um, addresses unnecessary cost ex- escalation in nuclear reactor construction by modernizing uh the nr c rules governing commercial grade steel and concrete in non-safety related structures while preserving oversight of safety critical systems that means more opportunities for local manufacturers suppliers and

mmm

skilled workers to participate in nuclear projects while reducing unnecessary costs we will also examine the recharge uh is it's a discussion draft and will focus on deploying advanced reactors at retired fossil fuel facilities and brownfield sites. These communities already have energy infrastructure and experienced workforces. Repurposing these sites for advanced nuclear development can attract long-term investment, strengthen local tax bases, and create new opportunities in energy communities. wyoming's already demonstrating how this model can work terra power uh which is um a project that's going up in my state near kemer wyoming uh is being developed on a brownfield site and it's bringing new investment and development to an existing energy experienced community and finally we'll examine the modernizing enrichment facility licensing act it also is a discussion draft As the United States moves towards ending reliance on Russian uranium imports in twenty twenty eight, which is a big deal, and we have to be ready for it. Um, this is about strengthening domestic uranium conversion and enrichment capacity, uh, which are very limited. Uh, we only have, what, one conversion facility and perhaps only two enrichment facilities in the whole country. Um, so this is really important for both energy Uh, my state of Wyoming is excited about this technology. We're positioned to lead. Wyoming has uranium resources and uranium mines. A lot of them now are in-situ mines rather than open-pit mines. Um, it's a transformative technology in producing, uh, uranium out of the ground. It's just amazing. When you come upon it, it looks like you're looking at a bunch of beehives off in the distance. And it's, it's a uranium field. Uh, so the surface disturbance is almost nil. Um, and uh, y- y- it's, it's incredible. I, I just admire these uh brilliant minds that work in this area so much. Uh, what America lacks, as we said, is the domestic enrichment capacity necessary to support a growing nuclear sector. So, this committee needs to explore, and I'm committed, policies that limit the ability of Wyoming and other states' resources to power the world. So the discussion draft seeks to modernize portions of the licensing process, while maintaining an RSI oversight and operating license agreements. However, discussions on this proposal remain ongoing, and I trust today's hearing will inform negotiations with Senator Kelly, moving forward. If America intends to lead the future of advanced manufacturing, intelligence, digital infrastructure and emerging technologies, then we must also lead in reliable energy production, especially base load. That future will require more power, more investment, and especially smarter policies that enable Wyoming and other energy communities to continue to power this country. Again, I want to thank our witnesses, and I look forward to your testimony. I'm gonna go introduce a friend in another

Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, thank you for all the work you've done on this issue. Thank you to our witnesses for appearing before the subcommittee today to discuss nuclear deployment and the future of American energy security. Energy demand is going up. We all see it. We know it. It's gonna continue to grow in Wyoming, in Arizona, across the country. We're gonna need more reliable, affordable, and abundant power on the grid. That's clear. Nuclear energy needs to be part of the solution. It's a proven technology. We've been building and operating nuclear reactors since the nineteen sixties. And this is not an engineering problem. It's a regulatory problem. Um, and if we're serious about expanding nuclear power, we need a regulatory framework that helps us build the fleet faster and more efficiently. We can't afford to wait ten or fifteen years to bring a new nuclear facility online, not when families and businesses and the economy need clean and reliable power. But common sense regulatory reform should not mean cutting corners. we can streamline permitting, and we can streamline deployment, while maintaining the high standards that protect communities. And that's what the NRC's job was set up to do. So now more than ever, the NRS- NRC needs to keep the authority and independence given to it by Congress to oversee this indus- industry, and protect public health, and protect the environment, and make sure reactors are being operated responsibly. That's how we move forward faster, bring down costs, strengthen our energy security, and keep people safe at the same time. One challenge we have to address here comes down to the very materials that we used to build these facilities from. Nuclear grade construction standards and materials are important for safety, But NRC rules can still force their use in parts of a nuclear plant that do not perform a radiation safety function. This broad, one size fits all approach increases costs and extends project timelines, without making nuclear plants any safer. That's why I was very happy to work with uh chairwoman lammes uh on the build nuclear with local materials act and our bill allows commercial grade materials to be used in parts of a nuclear facility where there are no radiological hazards um commercial grade materials i may have said nuclear um but it also makes clear that the nrc has to certify where those materials are appropriate and where they're not appropriate. And that's just one way we can speed up nuclear deployment without cutting corners. Fuel supply is another critical part of this equation. And as I discussed in this committee just last week, building more reactors won't mean anything if we don't have the fuel to operate them. Nuclear power plants depend on a steady, reliable supply of enriched uranium. Yet today, the United States, we import eighty percent of our enriched uranium supply, uh about twenty percent of that comes from Russia who is an adversary, not ideal. And we only have two operating enrichment facilities in the United States and only one that can do this at commercial scale. And that leaves us short of the fuel capacity we need to protect against energy and economic and national security risks. We need more of these facilities, but the licensing process had made this a lot harder than it needs to be. So right now, NRC requirements include well-intentioned but outdated procedural hurdles that create a lot of uncertainty. It also drives up costs, and it delays the projects that we need to get new production capacity online. The licensing rules for new uranium enrichment facilities have not been updated in forty years. Technology has advanced. The world has changed. So should the rules. If we want to expand nuclear power and strengthen our domestic fuel supply and reduce our dependence on foreign sources we need a licensing process that moves faster while keeping the right kind of oversight in place. My enrichment licensing modernization act would address this imbalance by creating a framework more consistent with the process already used for other nuclear fuel facilities it would allow certain construction activities to begin while making clear that developers move forward at their own risk and that early construction does not guarantee final approval. The bill would also give the NRC authority to determine the appropriate level of environmental review based on the specific facts and the risks of each application. This bill is included on the hearing agenda today as a discussion draft. And I believe it's a more targeted, practical approach than the status quo, one that can reduce unnecessary delays while also preserving the safeguards we need and expect. But I look forward to getting the feedback from our witnesses today as we work to finalize and introduce this bill. I also want to acknowledge the third bill on our agenda today, the discussion draft of the Recharge Act, introduced by Secretary or Senator Lummis. This bill seeks to streamline the NEPA review requirements for new advanced reactors built on brownfields or other retired energy sites. And I think the concept of making it easier to build nuclear facilities, where an older, dirtier energy facility existed, has some merit. I hope the testimony we receive today helps us understand how we could advance the concept in a bipartisan way. taking together the bills before us today move us toward more reliable clean and affordable power on the grid while maintaining the strong oversight and accountability that the public deserves and expects so i wanna thank our witnesses for being here and taking the time to review this package of bills with us each of you brings real expertise and a range of perspectives that will help inform this discussion and improve the legislation before us And I'm glad we have the chance to discuss these proposals today. I also wanna thank Senator Lummis for all of her hard work and the hard work of her staff to put this hearing together. This is a bipartisan topic, and I hope we can showcase that this is a space where we can reach some common ground. As two Western senators, Senator Lummis and I have had the chance to work together a lot over the years, from truck parking to uranium clean-up and so much more. And her commitment to finding areas of common ground is commendable, and I want to thank her for that work. I'll try to do that again when she gets back. But I know we've got a lot more ahead of us, um, before the end of the year, including today's hearing, uh, where we hope to find some areas of bipartisan agreement. So with that, I want to introduce our three witnesses, uh, from left to right. um, Mr. Loris is the President of C three solutions. His work focuses on how a free market can signal for innovation and emerging energy technologies like nuclear energy to serve our communities with baseload power and lead in US exports of advanced nuclear reactor designs. So welcome, Mister Loris, I'm gonna introduce all three witnesses and then we'll start with Mister Loris for opening remarks. Our ne- next witness this morning is Doctor Adam Stein, the Director of Nuclear Energy Innovation at the Breakthrough Institute. With over twenty years of experience in the energy sector, his advanced education at the intersection of engineering and public policy, has led him to work in um nuclear facility offsite risk analysis, published work with Idaho National Laboratory, and lead the Breakthrough Institute nuclear initiatives and engagement with the nrc doctor stein welcome and then finally we will hear from doctor patrick white group lead for fusion safety and regulation at clean air task force doctor white's phd in nuclear engineering and work has focused on developing new licensing methods and regulatory frameworks for commercial advanced nuclear technologies He also leads the Clean Air Task Force International Working Group, aimed at creating a globally harmonized regulatory framework for commercial nuclear technology and US exports. Doctor White, welcome as well. So let's start with Doctor Loris's five minutes of opening remarks.

Thank you. Chairman Lemes, Ranking Member Kelly, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to testify this morning. My name is Nick Loris and I'm the president of the conservative coalition for climate solutions and an energy fellow with the abundance institute. After two decades of flat demand, power consumption is surging. Grid strategies forecast five percent annual growth over the next five years, and the peak demand could be equivalent to fifteen times New York City's peak energy consumption. Meanwhile, electricity prices are rising faster than inflation, and families and businesses across the country are feeling the effects. It's clear we need more supply, and nuclear power can be part of the solution. It's safe, clean, dependable, and scalable. The key question for policymakers and rate payers alike is, is it cost competitive? While that is ultimately a question for the market to answer, there are reasons to be hopeful. The private sector is making big bets, investing across companies and technologies, directly financing projects, and helping reduce the costs and risks Encouragingly, there has been bipartisan support and recognition that federal policy has not kept pace with private sector innovation and investment. Bills signed by both President Trump and President Biden in recent years helped address some of the government imposed regulatory burdens that increase costs and slow deployment. This is a long overdue shift, one toward a risk-informed performance-based framework that preserves the nuclear regulatory commission's core safety mission while cutting unnecessary costs and delays elsewhere. And it's already paying dividends. Terrapower's Natrium reactor in Kemmerer, Wyoming, received its construction permit nine months ahead of schedule and eleven percent under budget. In the coming months, the NRC will finalize several rules to further improve the licensing process and modernize outdated regulations. However, now is not the time to be complacent. And the bill and discussion drafts under consideration today would build on that progress. first the build nuclear with local materials act addresses the cost premium for construction materials in non-safety related areas of a nuclear plant the concrete steel and rebar used in nuclear power plants must meet strict quality assurance standards to be considered nuclear grade these materials and components cost considerably more than alternatives even when they are identical in performance and composition because the approval requires extensive analysis testing and documentation the cost of nuclear grade concrete can fifty percent higher than non-nuclear concrete and in some cases, components can be fifty times more expensive. Another reason for the higher costs is the shortage of suppliers and less competition. When nuclear-grade materials and components are required, nuclear energy companies are, in many respects, captive customers, paying stadium and airfor airport-level prices when suitable suppliers can offer grocery-store-level prices for the same product. Expanding the use of commercial-grade materials will broaden the supplier base, increase competition, and enable local manufacturers and construction firms to participate in nuclear projects. Second, the Recharge Act would accelerate deploy the deployment of advanced nuclear technologies at retired fossil facilities and brownfield sites, by categorically excluding deeper reviews, all while keeping the NRC licensing requirements intact. These sites already have the grid connections, transmission infrastructure, skilled workforces, and communities that understand energy development. the recharge act eliminates redundant reviews where the environmental tradeoffs are already well understood. in fact we just saw a version of this this week where the nrc issued a finding of no significant impact for the dal and x energies advanced nuclear project in seadrift texas the finding comes after an environmental assessment that took months rather than an environmental impact statement that would have taken years more efficient reviews like this will spur private investment strengthen local tax bases and position rural and industrial communities as hubs for the next generation of American energy and technological leadership. The reality is that the federal permitting system is overly complex, often redundant, and prone to litigation. While wholesale modernization is necessary, the Recharge Act represents a step in the right direction. Third, the Enrichment, Licensing, and Modernization Act addresses a vulnerability in our nuclear fuel supply chain. The US imports roughly eighty percent of its enriched uranium and despite efforts toward a complete ban by twenty twenty eight twenty percent still comes from russia enrichment is safe and it's well understood america has the technology capital and human ingenuity to expand expand domestic enrichment capacity federal policy should help clear the path this draft would allow at-risk construction construction to begin while licensing continues entirely at the developers own risk and with no taxpayer exposure it would also allow tailored environmental assessments rather than mandating environmental impact statements and eliminate hearings when no party has requested one these are common sense reforms that improve timelines without touching the nrc's core mandate in conclusion if the us wants to be a leader in nuclear energy to meet rising demand revitalize industrial communities and deliver clean reliable power we must build and to build on time and on budget we must fix the rules that make permitting and construction unnecessarily expensive and slow the reforms under consideration today will empower the industry to invest

thank you mister l- loris uh doctor stein you're recognized for five minutes

thank you chair lemes ranking member kelly and members of subcommittee thank you for the opportunity to participate in this hearing today my name is doctor adam stein i'm the director of nuclear energy innovation at the breakthrough institute we work on continued use and safe use of nuclear and clean energy we act in the public interest and do not align or receive funding from the industry nuclear power continues to simultaneously contribute to reliability energy security national security emissions and pollution reduction and long-term electricity price stability reliable and affordable electricity underpins um advanced manufacturing defense readiness artificial intelligence infrastructure industrial production and economic competitiveness the united states needs a nuclear regulatory system that protects health and safety in a way that is credible predictable timely and proportionate to actual risk such a system is necessary not only to maintain safety but to ensure that nuclear energy can benefit society the central challenge facing nuclear regulate regulation today is an implementation and decision architecture problem. Congress has already provided substantial direction to modernize the nrc through legislation including NEMA and the advance act, and the nrc has begun to make visible progress. But modernization will ultimately be judged by implementation. Nuclear deployment exists in an ecosystem. Nuclear projects are simultaneously satisfying financing requirements, customer demand, supply chain readiness public acceptance permitting systems environmental review and regulatory approval any monocausal explanation of nuclear costs or delay is incomplete one challenge facing the nrc is a decision architecture problem to truly consider benefits to society as defined and reinforced under the advance act this committee this subcommittee and larger committee endorse the advance act and forward it to adjust the nrc's mission to align with the atomic energy act to ensure that bipartisan support of the nrc's actions continues considering actual benefits to society in decision architecture is imperative to continue implementation that remains in the the best interests of society. There are currently approximately seven of the ongoing regular rulemakings at the nrc. And, although it is impossible to say exactly what is going on in those rulemakings, many of them relate to the bills in front of the subcommittee today. There may be some overlap, but due to reduced transparency by the engagement with oira at this point, it's unclear whether these bills will be duplicative, or exactly the direction the nrc's needs in this moment implementation of both statute and rule making is critical and significantly dependent on the predictability and governance of the nrc's commission decisions another challenge is radiation protection coherence this committee has stressed that reducing safety would be counter-productive to the bills at hand safety must be maintained while streamlining the rulemaking process. Environmental review of fuel facility licensing faces a similar challenge. While it has already been mentioned that the US imports about eighty percent of its enriched uranium, what hasn't been mentioned is that to increase demand we would need to increase enrichment production domestically, if we move away from Russian capacity, by two to five times, about seventy to a hundred and fifty million swu. or separate of work units. That is a significant increase compared to the status quo, and will require streamlining and and logical uh expansion of environmental reviews. The committee is currently evaluating three specific bills that are have been introduced to help address these implementation challenges. All of them work to enable smarter, risk-informed, and performance-based regulations. reducing the costs associated with nuclear grade concrete and steel to use commercial when available and appropriate without compromising public health and safety the nrc has said in its own rule making that increased quality assurance costs add about thirty five percent to a nuclear power plant's costs enabling appropriate environmental review of brownfield sites can significantly reduce the time deploy new nuclear energy while still protecting the environment and regulatory barriers to enriching facility licensing to make them more aligned with other fuel facilities and other nuclear power production facilities. Ultimately, successful energy modernization will be measured by whether the United States has created a regulatory system capable of enabling the safe deployment of nuclear technology at scale required for the nation's future. Thank you.

Thank you, Doctor Stein. Doctor White, five minutes.

Great, thank you. Madam Chair Lemes, Ranking Member Kelly, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Uh, my name, oh, Madam Chair Lemes. Fantastic timing. Uh, my name is Doctor Patrick White, and I'm the Group Lead for Fusion Safety and Regulation at the Clean Air Task Force, and an Advanced Nuclear Technology and Regulation Expert. I cover both vision and fusion technology, but really with a focus on regulation, safety and licensing. How do we get these processes right? Clean Air Task Force is a non-profit organization that's really focused on all clean energy solutions and how we can deliver abundant, affordable and clean energy at scale in the United States and around the world. In my work, I lead CATF's work on licensing and regulation, and I think anyone that knows me, my friends and unfortunately my colleagues will say, nuclear regulation is one my favorite topics to talk about. So, really excited to be here with the subcommittee today to provide testimony on these bills, and discuss it with the committee. So, at at a very high level, nuclear energy has this potential to help us meet our growing energy and climate needs. How do we provide the affordable, reliable and clean energy that we need to ultimately see the continued growth of society. And efficient, effective and predictable regulation for these technologies is gonna be absolutely critical to ensuring investment, helping to facilitate new projects, build out supply chains, build out order books, and maintain trust in nuclear technologies. And so I'm really interested in the work that the committee's been doing over the last several years, and that we expect that the committee and congress to do over the next uh the next several years to ultimately create this predictable regulatory framework uh the proposed legislation that's under discussion today during the hearing really helps to address some of the outstanding gaps and weaknesses that i think we see in the licensing the environmental reviews and the construction requirements for both new nuclear reactors and for uranium enrichment facilities while i agree with the intent of the bills under discussion today i think there are specific targeted changes that we could make to the draft legislation to ultimately provide greater clarity on kind of technical and legal justification for some of these changes, help enable more robust public engagement with stakeholders during public comment processes, and really help ensure that these regulatory changes don't have an inadvertent effect on ultimately other licensing processes that we're gonna need to complete to get nuclear energy deployed at scale in the United States. So the first bill, the Build Nuclear with Local Materials Act, will direct the NRC to initiate a rulemaking that, on the use of commercial grade concrete for non-safety related structures. while nrc regulations already enable the use of commercial grade concrete for many non-safety related structures uh both this legislation and recent experience by the nature and reactor in wyoming highlight potential gaps and weaknesses in some of the existing regulation and guidance and i believe that an nrc rulemaking on this topic could provide an opportunity for the nrc private companies and public stakeholders to provide input to update this regulation and guidance on the topic and ultimately help accelerate and lower the cost of new nuclear reactor construction uh the second piece of legislation under discussion today the revitalizing energy communities by hosting advanced reactors and generating energy or the recharge act uh we're really focused on licensing and deploying new nuclear reactors um at brownfields sites and those retired fossil fuel sites that can ultimately become the hub for the next generation of energy technology um by streamlining the environmental reviews i think there's a really unique opportunity to try to accelerate the deployment of new nuclear energy technology with a specific focus on again repowering those sites where we have had energy produced for decades. While i believe that the environmental reviews uh that are completed to meet the need for requirements can be streamlined for both nuclear energy and for all energy technologies i don't believe that a a legislative categorical exclusion for all advanced reactors is necessarily the most effective way to address licensing timelines and instead creation of a legislative categorical exclusion for these projects would risk limiting some public engagement um and input and that potentially applying a categorical exclusion to all advanced reactors at any covered site could be overly broad instead however i again really support the intent of this bill and think that leveraging existing NEPA reforms that are underway at the nrc and other federal agencies could be used to accelerate licensing reviews in the near term and that the proposed legislation potentially could be refocused to direct nrc rulemaking on the use of environmental assessments or to develop more specific or targeted categorical exclusions for certain advanced reactor projects ultimately meeting the intent of this bill of figuring out how can we get more nuclear energy on the grid and how can we really prioritize some of the existing communities and existing sites finally the enrichment licensing modernization act would update the statutory licensing requirements to help accelerate and expand us domestic uranium enrichment capacity um i think like senator uh kelly said a lot of these requirements were really created in nineteen ninety when we updated nrc regulations for commercial enrichment facilities and there is an opportunity to go back and figure out how can we modernize those statutory requirements that we made um while again i agree with the uh need to enable certain pre-licensed construction activities and remediation plans can be really useful at kind of ensuring public trust in these i do think that there are changes that we could potentially look at in regulation instead of legislation that provide for a more streamlined approach and ultimately gives opportunity for the agency to incorporate best practices on nuclear licensing and uh provide opportunities for stakeholder engagement so with that again i thank you all for the opportunity to testify uh, on these bills under discussion, I look forward to the questions from the committee.

Thank you for your testimony. Um, I'm going to begin with Senator Kelly's questions, uh, so he can get them in and then he has to go to another committee. So, you are recognized, Senator Kelly.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, all three of you, for your opening remarks and for being here today. Doctor White, I wanna start with with you and get to a topic that you mentioned at the end of your opening remarks, and that's the enrichment licensing modernization act. So, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, we need to rebuild this country's capacity to enrich uranium. And that's critical for our existing nuclear fleet, and it's going to be even more important if we're serious about bringing more reactors online in the years ahead. So, the enrichment licensing modernization act makes significant reforms to streamline licensing. But here's the thing. Each reform is balanced with a safeguard. For example, the bill eliminates the requirement for a hearing when nobody asks for one. Makes sense. I mean, why would we hold a hearing when nobody is asking for a hearing? But when the public does request a hearing, The bill makes that hearing mandatory. So we preserve the public's ability to weigh in on this kind of development, without adding more bureaucracy for no reason. Similar to that, the bill changes when a developer is allowed to begin building an enrichment facility. So under current law, the NRC has to review the application and issue a construction license before any then the nr c has to issue a second license for operation this causes months of delay it drives up costs and it creates a kind of uncertainty that holds back investment in these facilities so my build changes the law to simply require an operating license that's a real change but at the same time we shouldn't allow a developer to start building something as sensitive as a uranium enrichment facility on the basis of an application alone, we can't break ground without any protections in place for the community. So that's why the legislation includes a requirement that developers submit a remediation plan in case construction stops or is not completed, or the operating license ultimately is not issued. So you're not just, the community is not just stuck. with this facility. It also gives the NRC the authority to require implementation of that plan. So, Doctor White, do you believe this type of remediation requirement is appropriate to ensure the responsible development of a re enrichment facilities?

Uh, yes I do, Senator. I think it's an opportunity to provide essentially an additional public check on the creation of any potential new uranium enrichment infrastructure.

And, is it within the NRC's purview to require this type of remediation

uh yes i i do and i think there is some really interesting opportunities to look at other uh licensing activities that the nrc completes and kind of see this precedent for trying to provide additional assurances to the public on creation of new facilities uh the best example that i'll go to is the requirements that the nuclear regulatory commission has for what we call limited work authorizations or lwas for essentially early construction of new nuclear reactors it's a very similar process where you look at trying to uh propose what are your construction activities, and then you provide a redress plan as part of that application to demonstrate that if your facility is not ultimately completed, what activities will you take to help kind of return that site back to its original condition or another suitable condition for development.

So there are similar requirements in place for other regulated facilities.

Uh, there are similar uh regulations that are in place for other facilities like commercial nuclear reactors. they're not necessarily the same exact requirements for other uranium facilities, such as conversion plants or fuel fabrication facilities. They're subject to different regulatory requirements. Uh, the one difference that I would highlight, though, is that those regulatory requirements are implemented entirely through regulation and not through statute.

And, and can you speak briefly to why maintaining NRC authority and independence over enrichment licensing is critical, especially if we allow pre-licensed construction of these facilities.

Yes, I think as we start talking about the deployment of nuclear energy at scale, it's going to be something that requires really societal acceptance and societal demand. We don't necessarily wanna create nuclear technologies that communities are scared of that they're skeptical of or that they don't feel that they had a voice in actually the siting and licensing of. And so I think by maintaining NRC public trust, by enter maintaining NRC independence, and by providing opportunities for public engagement with the NRC, it helps build the societal trust and continues essentially the momentum that we have on nuclear energy as something that's uh broadly bipartisan supported, as opposed to potentially creating uh gaps in public support or public trust in nuclear technology more broadly.

Alright, well thank you, and thank you for working with my staff and this committee to draft legislation that's both practical and responsible.

Mm-hmm. I'm gonna take the liberty to ask both of you a question. Uh, so I have a question. I I don't obey the rules of chairman, and so you'll have to forgive me for being uh the way I am. Um, Senator Kelly and and Doctor White, if a nuclear facility of some sort, uh or nuclear related facility is built on a brown site, does that relieve the initial polluter of liability so does the liability for cleanup shift entirely to the nuclear facility

i don't know uh unfortunately i have to say uh chairman lemes that this is a place where i'm but a humble nuclear engineer and not a lawyer so i'll definitely defer to my colleagues that have a little bit more expertise on the specific legal nuances of liability associated with it

ok does do any of our witnesses know the answer

chair lamas the liability could or could not be transferred depending on how the remediation plan would be defined

oh ok thank you um and thanks senator kelly for uh your involvement in this topic and uh i've always enjoyed working with you on this topic it's um it's a very productive working relationship um and if you choose to come back when your next Hearing is completed. We'd love to see you again. While you're gone, I'm gonna take the liberty to take more than five minutes. Um, again, thanks witnesses for being here. Uh, Mister L- uh, Loris, uh, I'm gonna start with you. Uh, one of the goals of the Recharge Act, uh, discussion draft is to create a strong incentive for private industry to reinvest in retired fossil fuel sites and brownfields. instead of leaving those communities behind. Uh, in many cases these communities are already dealing with declining tax bases, stranded infrastructure, and costly clean-up needs. So, how can advanced nuclear development leverage private capital to accelerate site remediation restore long-term economic activity and bring new investment into communities that have powered this country for generations?

well thank you for the question yeah i think it's critical and there is just given the infrastructure in place um the understanding of what energy means to these communities as well as environmental protection if you look at you know places like alaska who very much understand the benefits of energy production uh as well as environmental protection uh a lot of the states in the west and wyoming uh this represents just really critical opportunities um to be uh new hubs of technological growth and and given the data center demand that we are already seeing uh i know there's uh a lot of skepticism and hesitancy but the uh amount of additional revenue that can be generated for tax basis not just from the energy investment itself but all of the additional investment that comes with it um loudoun county right outside of here in d. c. uh is a tremendous example of kind of what that's built because these data centers while they don't employ a lot people they bring in a lot of revenue um and that's almost a sweet spot for a lot of these communities because that that doesn't mean a huge influx of people for the schools for the roads but it does mean a lot of investment in the the roads and the schools and all of the businesses and so having affordable reliable clean energy infrastructure as the kind of driving force for that uh is really essential and that's why i think places like camero wyoming um and texas and other places are are really starting to be and get off the ground for what we can hope to continue to see across the country.

Yeah, and it's my experience that the people of Kemmerer, a town that would have dried up uh but for uh Terra Power's uh involvement in that community is very supportive of uh its presence there and it was very welcoming. And because Wyoming has a history of uranium mining, uh you don't have some of the same um uh fears of the unknown because it's unknown in wyoming and uh so the reemergence of this new technology is is something that we have a tendency to welcome especially those of us who are native to wyoming and have that legacy history uh with this industry. So mister loris um opponents of permitting reform sometimes argue that additional process automatically produces better environmental outcomes. But under the recharge framework, we're specifically incentivizing private investment into already disturbed industrial sites and brownfields, instead of pushing development onto undeveloped land. Um, and one of the things I've seen with TerraPower, for example, is their initial permitting process, uh, was completed in nineteen months rather than the projected twenty seven months uh which which i saw as uh uh an indication that uh permitting is working uh but others i think fear that uh because uh the time spent on that initial phase of evaluation was shortened that maybe steps were missed um so how can we assure people that um permitting that is expedited uh can still produce uh a complete thorough safe permit process

yeah well it has to for these projects to have uh uh uh opportunity to move forward and and you see

ok

what what companies do um with pre-application processes and as doctor white mentioned you know it's incumbent upon not just industry but also the permitting process to assure the public to engage communities for sure uh we just can't get into a system of kind of analysis paralysis or subject these projects to endless litigation and these kind of litigation doom loops that uh uh energy projects of all stripes face and so i think that there is a kind of goldilocks scenario here where yes you can have uh the public engagement uh you can ensure that we're not duplicating efforts if there is a reactor of technology that's already been uh reviewed by the department of energy or the nrc or there's this brownfield sites that there's opportunities to just. make a more efficient process and and also again rein in kind of some of the successive litigation that we have seen and sometimes it's just a few bad apples that can upset the cart and we have seen this. again not just with nuclear but with energy projects across the board and and even more industrial projects. one example in new york with a semiconductor fab. this is uh in.

Are there currently overlapping federal reviews, Mm. and in the case of Brownfields remediation processes?

yes i i and uh i think just with the the process generally i think that's one of the hopes of reforming the national environmental policy act or or nipa is to reduce some of the redundancies not just at the federal level but also at the federal and state level and not not allow for some of the abuses of these laws for litigation so looking at kind of what previous analyses have already done what previous engagements with communities and tribes That those are things that we can learn from and we should build upon, so so we're not doing it over and over again.

Well, and as we all know, reforming the way NEPA is implemented transcends so many sectors.

For sure.

Um, and so hopefully that can benefit this sector as well. Um, I, again, um, Mister Loris, um, does codifying a clear rulemaking standard provide more certainty for regional manufacturers and fabricators and construction firms than otherwise uh might cause them not to participate in nuclear projects because of that kind of regulatory ambiguity

It it does and and Doctor Stein uh talked about this in his remarks that you know the the NRC already has the ability um for um permitting uh commercial grade uh concrete steel rebar but um based on the nrc s report to congress after the advance act it does seem like this is complex it's unclear um for both the developers of the power plant but also for uh these companies and so um having the nrc provide just more simplicity and more clarity about what can be done and what can't be done opens up that opportunities for more local manufacturers construction firms to participate and engage with nuclear companies not be kind of frozen out thinking that uh because their uh they don't want to go through the um you know the quality assurance checks or or there is a a a constrained supply um if there is more clarity on that that's going to open up this for more opportunities and that ultimately means more competition more choice in lower prices

thank you so you mentioned doctor stein and doctor stein i um i'm sorry i missed your opening statement but i i understand that um you've noted that the nrc is beginning to adopt right-sized environmental reviews in cases where impacts are limited. So what would it signal to private capital markets if Congress codified um that kind of streamlined review for redevelopment on previous energy sites?

It would be a signal that one, the history of building nuclear power projects shows that the impacts are commensurate to other industrial sites and therefore, disturbing the same land that has already been disturbed would not increase and may actually leave the site better than found it would also signal that the process should be scaled relative to the size and environmental impact statement as mister loris mentioned does become disrupted by litigation at times but having an environmental assessment when environmental back statement is not necessary because the site impacts would be minimal would also streamline the entire overall process and reduce nrc resources that would be necessary to complete such a study

are there capital markets that are reluctant to engage in nuclear projects in the us is it is it a problem is it hard to get money

absolutely

and is it because it it's nuclear

it is in part because it's nuclear yes the capital markets understand that the cost for nuclear materials alone because of regulation or because of uh siting cost because of regulatory uncertainty all increases the uncertainty the project being completed and that puts their capital at risk that would be more at risk simply due to regulatory risk than it would be to invest in other projects.