[Senate Hearing 112-5]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-5
PETER B. LYONS NOMINATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TO
CONSIDER THE NOMINATION OF PETER B. LYONS, TO BE AN ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF ENERGY (NUCLEAR ENERGY)
__________
MARCH 8, 2011
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
65-652 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
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
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
RON WYDEN, Oregon LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont MIKE LEE, Utah
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan RAND PAUL, Kentucky
MARK UDALL, Colorado DANIEL COATS, Indiana
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia BOB CORKER, Tennessee
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
McKie Campbell, Republican Staff Director
Karen K. Billups, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator From New Mexico................ 1
Lyons, Peter B., Nominee to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy
(Nuclear Energy)............................................... 3
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska................... 1
APPENDIX
Responses to additional questions................................ 13
PETER B. LYONS NOMINATION
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff
Bingaman, chairman, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW
MEXICO
The Chairman. OK, why don't we get started? The committee
meets this morning to consider the nomination of Pete Lyons, to
be the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Nuclear Energy.
Dr. Lyons is no stranger to this committee. He served as
Senator Domenici's Science Advisor for 6 years and as a
professional staff member on the committee staff for 2 years
after that.
Nor is he a stranger to nuclear energy issues. He holds a
doctorate in Nuclear Physics. He worked at Los Alamos National
Laboratory for 28 years. He served as a member of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission for four and a half years.
Moreover he's already well acquainted with the office to
which he has been nominated. He's been the principle Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy since 2009. He has
served as the Acting Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy
since last November.
In addition to all that he's from New Mexico which is a
major factor in his favor. I think the President made an
excellent choice in nominating Dr. Lyons as he is superbly well
qualified. I strongly support his nomination. I'm delighted to
welcome him here this morning.
Let me call on Senator Murkowski for any statement she
wants to make.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning.
Good morning to you, Dr. Lyons. I'm pleased to have you with us
here this morning. I join with the chairman's comments in my
support of you.
Senator Domenici was just mentioned here, as well as your
background and your relationship with him. He is disappointed
he couldn't be here today to introduce you. But he asked me to
read the following statement.
Mr. Chairman, if I may read this into the record, it is as
follows.
``Mr. Chairman, ranking member, members of the committee,
thank you for allowing me to be heard on the nomination of Dr.
Pete Lyons, as Assistant Secretary of Energy for Nuclear Energy
in abstentia. I want to assure Pete and everyone else that if I
could be with you today, I would be there with bells on. It's a
rare privilege to recommend to the committee today the approval
of this nomination.
To Pete, I want to say I have known you more than 20 years
as a world class scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory,
as an elected local official and as a valued advisor. I have
been truly fortunate to have had you by my side.
To the committee, I say that it is rare indeed that we get
a nominee of such exceptional qualifications and with such a
record of service to his country. Rarely can we say, I
recommend this nominee without the slightest doubt that he is
deserving of your enthusiastic, favorable endorsement. You have
his resume before you so I won't bore you with the details you
already know.
I will note for the record, however, that when Pete Lyons
talks about nuclear technology, nuclear non-proliferation and
nuclear weapons, everyone in any room in the world pays
attention. He simply is one of the best in a discipline
critical to America's energy and international security.
America is lucky to have someone like Pete Lyons, who is
willing to continue to serve his country in such a critical
capacity.''
That's Senator Domenici's statement. I whole-heartedly
agree with that statement. I really don't think that I can add
much, Dr. Lyons, other than to say that I too, appreciate your
willingness to serve in this capacity.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
The rules of the committee that apply to all nominees
require they be sworn in connection with their testimony.
Could you please stand and raise your right hand?
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to
give to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Lyons. I do.
The Chairman. Please be seated.
Before you begin your statement let me ask 3 questions that
we address to each nominee who comes before this committee.
First question is will you be available to appear before
this committee and other congressional committees to represent
departmental positions and to respond to issues of concern to
the Congress?
Mr. Lyons. I will.
The Chairman. Second question. Are you aware of any
personal holdings, investments or interest that could
constitute a conflict of interest or create the appearance of
such a conflict should you be confirmed and assume the office
to which you've been nominated by the President?
Mr. Lyons. My investments, personal holdings and other
interests have been reviewed both by myself and the appropriate
ethics counselors within the Federal Government. I've taken
appropriate action to avoid any conflicts of interest. There
are no conflicts of interest or appearances thereof to my
knowledge.
The Chairman. Very good. Let me ask the third and final
question.
Are you involved or do you have any assets that are held in
a blind trust?
Mr. Lyons. No, sir.
The Chairman. Alright. At this point our habit is to invite
you to introduce any family members that you have with you, if
you do have any?
Mr. Lyons. Thank you, Senator. My son, David is here, also
well known in your office. David.
The Chairman. We welcome David to the hearing as well. At
this point why don't you go ahead with any statement that
you've prepared to give to the committee, Dr. Lyons?
STATEMENT OF PETER B. LYONS, NOMINEE TO BE AN ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF ENERGY (NUCLEAR ENERGY)
Mr. Lyons. Thank you.
Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Murkowski and
distinguished members of the committee, it's an honor and a
privilege to appear before you today as President Obama's
nominee for Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy within the
Department of Energy. It's a special honor for me to appear
before this committee. I worked with members and staff of this
committee for 8 years while I was in Senator Domenici's
personal office and later when I served on the staff of this
committee.
I originally came to the Senate on a detail from Los Alamos
National Lab where I'd worked for nearly 30 years. In 2005 I
was nominated to the NRC where I served until my term ended in
June of 2009. In August 2009 I was honored to accept a request
from the Administration to join the Department of Energy as
Principle Deputy to Assistant Secretary Dr. Pete Miller, again
in the Office of Nuclear Energy. It's been a pleasure. It's
been an honor to work with Secretary Chu, Deputy Secretary Dan
Poneman, Assistant Secretary Miller and the dedicated team at
the department.
The President has clearly articulated his goal of a clean
energy future. Has emphasized that nuclear power must be a
significant component of that future. In order to reach this
clean energy future nuclear energy technologies must be
carefully evaluated to enable the public, the Congress and the
utility industry to select the best energy options for our
Nation.
Last year, Dr. Miller and I worked to develop the Nuclear
Energy R and D Roadmap. A document that I believe will guide
the American public and the department for many years into the
future. In that roadmap we focused on 4 objectives around which
our entire program is organized.
Those objectives are to develop technologies to improve the
reliability, sustain the safety and extend the life of current
reactors.
Second, to develop improvements in the affordability of new
reactors to enable nuclear energy to help meet the
Administration's energy security and climate change goals.
Third, to develop sustainable fuel cycles.
Fourth, to understand and minimize the risks of nuclear
proliferation and terrorism.
The corresponding R and D programs in our recently released
Fiscal Year 2012 budget request reflect those objectives.
My experience for almost 5 years as an NRC Commissioner and
now for a year and a half in a leadership role with the
Department's Office of Nuclear Energy provides a foundation on
which, if confirmed, I believe I can continue to serve the
Nation in the field of nuclear energy.
While the NRC and the Department of Energy have distinctly
different roles they also have important similarities. They
share 2 sides of the same fundamental goal to enable safe,
secure use of nuclear power for the United States. The NRC has
the regulatory focus and responsibility. While the DOE has the
research development and deployment focus. But there are times
when it is appropriate for the 2 organizations to work together
while carefully respecting the responsibilities of each.
I regard my time at Los Alamos, on Senate staff, at the
NRC, 42 years in total, as contributions to our national
security. Over those years and through many different venues
and roles I've worked to try to make our Nation stronger,
safer, cleaner, more competitive and more secure. My desire to
continue to serve after those years, if confirmed is simple to
explain. I want an even better world for my children and my
grandchildren.
Thank you and I look forward to addressing your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lyons follows:]
Prepared Statement of Peter B. Lyons, Nominee to be an Assistant
Secretary of Energy (Nuclear Energy)
Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and distinguished
Members of the Committee, it is an honor and a privilege to appear
before you today as President Obama's nominee for Assistant Secretary
for Nuclear Energy within the Department of Energy.
It is a special honor for me to appear before this Committee. I
worked with the Members and staff of this Committee for eight years
while I was in Senator Domenici's personal office, and later when I
served on the staff of this Committee. I originally came to the Senate
on a detail from Los Alamos National Laboratory, where I worked for
nearly 30 years.
In 2005, I was nominated to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC), where I served until my term ended in June of 2009. At the NRC,
I focused on the safety of operating nuclear reactors and on the
importance of learning from operating experience, even as new reactor
licensing and possible construction emerged. My work emphasized that
NRC and its licensees remain strong and vigilant components of the
Nation's integrated defenses against terrorism. I was a consistent
voice for improving partnerships with international regulatory
agencies. I also emphasized active and forward-looking research
programs to support sound regulatory decisions, address current issues
and anticipate future ones.
In August of 2009, I was honored to accept a request from the
Administration to join the Department of Energy as principal deputy to
Assistant Secretary, Dr. Pete Miller, in the Office of Nuclear Energy.
It's been a pleasure to work with Secretary Chu, Deputy Secretary Dan
Poneman, Assistant Secretary Miller, and the dedicated team at the
Department. Working together, I think we've made some tremendous
strides in the past two years, including the award of the first
conditional loan guarantee for a new nuclear reactor project from the
Department's Loan Programs Office--a program authorized by this
Committee in 2005.
The President has clearly articulated his goal of a clean energy
future and has emphasized that nuclear power must be a significant
component of that future. In order to reach this clean energy future,
nuclear energy technologies must be carefully evaluated to enable the
public, Congress, and the utility industry to select the best energy
options for our nation.
Last year, Dr. Miller and I worked to develop the Nuclear Energy
R&D Roadmap, a document that I believe will guide the American public
and the Department for many years into the future. In that Roadmap, we
focused on four objectives, around which our entire program is
organized. Those objectives are to:
1. Develop technologies and other solutions that can improve
the reliability, sustain the safety, and extend the life of
current reactors.
2. Develop improvements in the affordability of new reactors
to enable nuclear energy to help meet the Administration's
energy security and climate change goals.
3. Develop sustainable nuclear fuel cycles.
4. Understand and minimize the risks of nuclear proliferation
and terrorism.
The corresponding R&D programs in our recently-released fiscal year
2012 budget request reflect these objectives.
There is one new program in particular that I would like to
highlight--small modular reactors (SMRs). We first proposed the SMR
program in FY2011 and we have expanded the proposal in the FY2012
budget request. Secretary Chu penned an op-ed in the Wall Street
Journal last year where he laid out some of the reasons why we are so
excited about the prospect of small modular reactors. It's no secret
that large reactors face significant financing challenges. But if we
can reduce the capital-at-risk with small reactors, and if the reactors
can be built in factory settings, with forgings done here in the United
States, and shipped to plant sites where they are essentially plugged
in, that could offer advantages from a number of perspectives. As a
result, we have proposed a Light Water Reactor SMR Licensing Technical
Support program that is a near-term, multi-year initiative focused on
cost-sharing for first-of-a-kind engineering associated with design
certification and licensing activities. We think this program can
accelerate the availability of SMRs to help meet the nation's need for
low-carbon power, and provide an American-made platform for U.S.
companies to export reactors and compete in the international
marketplace.
A second, innovative Nuclear Energy program highlighted in the
President's recent State of the Union address is the creation of a
nuclear energy ``hub''. The nuclear energy Hub will be the first time a
working nuclear reactor has been simulated using modern computational
tools. I am very excited about the prospects for the Hub. Last year, we
announced the winning team for the Hub, headed by Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, and this May we will have the ribbon-cutting ceremony for
the opening of their new collaboration site. Simulations of both
existing and future nuclear reactors hold great promise for further
optimizing the U.S. nuclear fleet.
Turning to the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle, a little over a
year ago, Secretary Chu announced the formation of the Blue Ribbon
Commission (BRC) on America's Nuclear Future to study and make
recommendations on management of used nuclear fuel. The BRC has
traveled around the United States, as well as to other countries that
have had greater success in moving forward with a disposition path for
nuclear waste. The Commission is due to release its interim report
around the middle of this year. If confirmed, one of my highest
priorities will be to tackle this critical set of issues.
My experience for almost five years as an NRC Commissioner and now
for a year and a half in a leadership role with the Department's Office
of Nuclear Energy provides a strong foundation on which, if confirmed,
I believe I can continue to serve the nation in the field of nuclear
energy. While the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of
Energy have distinctly different roles, they also have important
similarities; they share two sides of the same fundamental goal: to
enable safe, secure use of nuclear power for the United States. The NRC
has the regulatory focus and responsibility while the DOE has a
research, development, and deployment focus. But there are times when
it is appropriate for the two organizations to work together, while
carefully respecting the responsibilities of each.
I regard my time at Los Alamos, on Senate staff, and at the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission--42 years in total--as contributions to our
national security. Over those years, through many different venues and
roles, I've tried to make our nation stronger, safer, cleaner, more
competitive, and more secure. My desire to continue to serve after
those years, if confirmed, is simple to explain--I want an even better
world for my children and grandchildren.
Thank you and I look forward to addressing your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Let me ask a couple of questions. The Department's fiscal
year 2012 budget requests $67 million for small modular reactor
development. Last year Senator Murkowski and I introduced a
bill to authorize a small modular demonstration program at the
Department and we had Senator's Udall and Landrieu and Risch
and others co-sponsoring that. It was unanimously reported from
the committee.
My question is whether you have had a chance to look at
that bill and do you believe enactment of that bill would
provide the Department with useful authority in developing
small modular reactors?
Mr. Lyons. Senator Bingaman, we certainly very much
appreciate the interest and support from the committee for
small modular reactors. Our level of enthusiasm at the
Department is very high. This was reflected in an editorial
that Secretary Chu penned for the Wall Street Journal within
the last few months on this subject.
We regard SMRs as providing at least the possibility of an
important new paradigm for nuclear energy possibilities within
the United States. We look forward to the opportunities that
would be enabled by the FY12 budget to move ahead with a
multiyear, competitive, cost share program to evaluate the
small modular reactors.
The Chairman. I guess the more specific question though is
whether the legislation that we introduced in the last Congress
is a useful additional authority to the Department in doing
what you would like to do in this area or whether you think you
have full authority to do what you want to do without it?
Mr. Lyons. I should probably review the bill again. My
memory from last year is that that bill was regarded very
favorably and would indeed be of assistance. But I'd like the
opportunity to review the current bill as it's introduced.
The Chairman. Alright. We would appreciate that.
Secretary Chu shut down the Office of Civilian Radioactive
Waste Management and transferred the functions of that office
to the General Counsel and the Offices of Nuclear Energy and
Legacy Management. I guess my first question is what's the role
of the Office of Nuclear Energy on nuclear waste at this point?
Mr. Lyons. Within the Office of Nuclear Energy we have a
broad research and development program exploring a number of
different approaches to the back end of the fuel cycle. I could
go into additional detail if you would like. But I might also
note that we're, of course, paying great--we are waiting with
great interest the report of the Blue Ribbon Commission on
America's Nuclear Future.
We anticipate the interim report to be in July of this
year. We're very optimistic that that report, both the interim
and the final, will provide some very important guidance to the
R and D programs that we have within my office.
The Chairman. Now once that report is issued, the report of
this Blue Ribbon Commission, do you expect to propose a new
waste management program to Congress based on the
recommendations of that report?
Mr. Lyons. Certainly, Senator, we will--we look forward
toward studying that report in great detail. There may well be
elements of that report that would suggest some changes in our
program. But I think until we see the report it's a little bit
premature to say exactly how we would respond.
I can assure you we will be studying that report very, very
carefully and with great expectations.
The Chairman. Alright.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to ask a couple questions about the nuclear waste
fund and the collection of fees. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act
expressly identifies Yucca Mountain as the sole permanent
repository. It also directs the Secretary to collect or to
propose an adjustment of fees if the costs are insufficient to
meet the costs of construction of the repository.
So with all that is going on with Yucca, including the
attempted withdrawal of the licensed application, do you
believe that the fees that have been collected thus far and
deposited in the nuclear waste fund are in excess of the amount
needed to meet the repository's cost? Is there an adjustment
that would be required at this point?
Mr. Lyons. On the specific question, Senator, of collection
of the fee. Let me start from the perspective that the
Department recognizes that we have a continuing responsibility
to provide for the eventual disposition of the used fuel and
the defense wastes. With that continuing responsibility I think
it is reasonable to expect that there needs to be continuing
funding extracted to enable that eventual disposition.
On the specific question of the details of the fee, that's
been reviewed by our General Counsel. Their view is that at
this point in time there is no basis on which to propose either
an increase or a decrease in the fee. So the fee has continued
to be collected.
The Department is required to annually review that fee.
Again, the General Counsel would be involved in that review.
Senator Murkowski. But what you're saying is that you don't
think that the fee needs to be adjusted at this point in time
or we're not certain as to whether or not it is appropriate?
Mr. Lyons. The opinions from our General Counsel, and I'm
certainly not a lawyer. But as I understand the report of the
General Counsel there is no basis to suggest a change.
Therefore the fee has continued unchanged.
Senator Murkowski. The contractual obligation to collect
the spent nuclear fuel from the individual nuclear plants
started back in 1998. Do we know how much the government has
paid out for breaching the contract thus far? Do we have a
sense as to what that number is?
Mr. Lyons. The most recent number, Senator, that I saw on
that was slightly below one billion.
Senator Murkowski. Do we have any information on how many
additional cases might be before the Federal court, and what
the amount of that liability might be?
Mr. Lyons. The General Counsel has prepared an estimate of
future liabilities anticipating an opening of a future
repository in 2020. I believe that estimate is about $15
billion.
As to the details of number of cases, I don't have that
information. I think it would perhaps be difficult to obtain
given the nature of the cases and that there tends to be
appeals. Again, I'm not a lawyer. But I think it would be
difficult to define how many cases are operating at any one
time.
Senator Murkowski. So do we have an idea--just even in the
ballpark--of how much we anticipate the final tally will be
when the government finally takes title of the spent fuel?
Mr. Lyons. Again the General----
Senator Murkowski. About $16 billion right now between what
has been paid and what is anticipated in terms of liability.
But do we even have a guess?
Mr. Lyons. That is based on a 2020 repository opening.
Again, until we see the Blue Ribbon Commission report, until
both the Department and potentially the Congress act on
whatever is in that report, I can't speculate on exactly what
the future path will be. But the estimate I provided was based
on 2020.
Senator Murkowski. OK. Alright.
Let me ask you about the situation with Yucca, recognizing
that even with Yucca Mountain off the table we're still going
to need a permanent repository for the spent fuel. Do you
support an interim storage program to meet the government's
contractual obligations, to end these lawsuits?
Mr. Lyons. Senator, at least for the next few months I
think we would all be well served to wait for the report of the
Blue Ribbon Commission. They may well recommend such an interim
storage facility. They may also recommend, I don't know. But
they may recommend alternative management systems that might be
used to enable whatever suggestions they make.
I think at this point in time given that that interim
report will be available before the end of July. I think it
behooves all of us to wait, see what they do recommend and then
certainly within the Department and within Congress evaluate
what the next steps will be.
Senator Murkowski. I think we're all waiting for it.
Concerned though, of course, that as we wait these liabilities
continue to mount and to accrue. We still don't have that
permanent repository.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Franken.
Senator Franken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Both the chairman
and the ranking member have spoken to a couple of areas that I
want to talk to you about. I wanted to ask you to look 20 years
down the road and what technologies do you see will be, we will
be using to reduce nuclear waste. But it sounds like your
answer would be let's wait til July. Right?
Mr. Lyons. As far as the short term, sir. Yes, I would
agree on the wait til July. As far as the longer term I
indicated we have a robust research program looking at a number
of different options.
I can describe that in greater detail and it might provide
some answers if you'd like me to go in that direction.
Senator Franken. Sure.
Mr. Lyons. Within options for the back end of the fuel
cycle we're looking at three divergent approaches.
One is the once through system which is what we have been
on in this country where fuel would be used once in a nuclear
reactor. The used fuel would go directly to a repository.
There also has been some research in this country on what
we might call a full reprocessing system where there would be
multiple reprocessing steps, multiple exposures in different
types of reactors to extract the maximum amount of energy from
the original fuel.
Senator Franken. I'm sorry but would that be done without
producing any kind of fuel that could be used in a
proliferation, in nuclear proliferation?
Mr. Lyons. That was going to be my next sentence.
Senator Franken. OK. Sorry.
Mr. Lyons. That concern with full processing is that at
least with existing technologies there are significant
proliferation concerns to say nothing of significant
environmental concerns from the standpoint of different wastes
that are produced along the way. So whether it will make sense
even with substantial research to ever move toward full
reprocessing, I simply don't know at this point in time.
We also are trying to explore a range of possibilities
between those 2 divergent options that might involve far less
processing of the fuel, avoid proliferation concerns and while
not utilizing all of the energy in the fuel use a lot more than
we are now.
To put these numbers in perspective the once through system
uses about 0.6 percent of the energy content of the fuel. Full
reprocessing is 100 percent essentially.
The in the middle stuff, what we're calling modified open
cycle we think might get up to 10 to 20 percent utilization but
without the complications of full reprocessing. Again, we'll be
guided by the Blue Ribbon Commission.
Senator Franken. OK. I was going to ask as the chairman did
about modular reactors. How long do you think it might be until
they're deployed til we actually have a modular reactor that's
working, up and working?
Mr. Lyons. The first thing we have to do is start this cost
share program. We're, at the moment, unable to do that until we
get out of CR. I think it is still possible to realize
operation on the grid in 2020 with a possibility of 2019.
Senator Franken. OK. I just wanted to ask a question
about--this was actually brought up to me by a student at the
University of Minnesota, Morris. I'm new on this committee, so
I haven't been studying nuclear as much as I will be.
Can you tell me what the role of thorium may be and what
the thinking is on thorium as a fuel? What the advantages are?
What the disadvantages are? What the pros and cons are of
thorium?
Mr. Lyons. Might start from the perspective that the first
commercial reactor operated in this country at Shippingport was
based on thorium fuel. Thorium fuel was extensively evaluated
in the early days of the development of nuclear reactors.
Thorium is substantially more abundant than uranium. That may
present a benefit.
In terms of looking at other attributes of the fuel cycle
at least the studies that we have done to date and we have
ongoing studies do not show a dramatic benefit for thorium.
There may be slight differences in the waste but they do not
appear to be large. In addition while we are certainly
interested in continuing to look at thorium as a possibility
and particularly a possibility for the future. The fact remains
that we have an entire fuel cycle built up around uranium. It
would be a dramatic shift and a very costly shift to move on
any sort of short time scale to thorium.
But is it interesting? Yes. Some countries, India for
example, has large quantities of thorium and virtually no
uranium have been extremely interested in the thorium cycle.
Senator Franken. OK.
Mr. Lyons. That's at least a little bit.
Senator Franken. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Murkowski, did you have any
additional questions?
Senator Murkowski. Just one very quickly, Mr. Chairman.
Relating to nuclear workers: we talk a lot about an aging
workforce. We haven't seen anything new happen, unfortunately,
in nuclear, despite the renaissance that Senator Domenici
dreamed of and was certainly working toward. Can you give some
kind of an overview of what educational programs your office is
engaged in as we try to develop the next generation of nuclear
workers?
Mr. Lyons. I thank you, Senator. I too, have been very,
very interested in developing the future workforce. There's
substantial numbers of retirements anticipated in that
workforce. Whether one visits any of the National Laboratories
or nuclear power plants far too many have the grey hair that I
have.
For those reasons, yes, we have been extremely interested
in programs that prepare the future generation. Within the
Nuclear Energy Office we have provided up to 20 percent of our
R and D funds as grants to universities in a variety of
different ways, R and D grants, infrastructure development
grants. Over the last 2 years we've provided $110 million to
universities spread across the United States for those
programs.
In addition at least through, I hope, this Fiscal Year, we
have had a program for scholarships and fellowships. That's
called the Integrated University Program. That is a program
that asks that we coordinate among the NNSA part of the
Department of Energy, the NRC and my office. Each of those 3
entities receive funding for scholarships and fellowships and
coordinate the way in which those scholarships and fellowships
are awarded.
Within the Office of Nuclear Energy, for example, last year
we awarded 110 scholarships and fellowships. Now within the
FY12 budget that Integrated University Program is zeroed for my
program, for, assuming I'm confirmed, the NNSA Program and the
NRC Program. The rationale for that as explained to me is that
the Administration believes that there will be ample motivation
for students to enter those programs. Having said that, I have
spoken frequently in support of all of these programs.
Senator Murkowski. I have a son in college considering
where he might want to land. The thing that guides his
decisionmaking process is where the jobs are. If a young person
doesn't believe that he or she is going to see the activity
within the nuclear industry, that person is going to take his
or her energy and talents elsewhere.
I'm concerned that as we try to ramp up and truly build out
our nuclear industry, the trained workforce is not timed right.
I appreciate the focus that you have given to it. I think that
this is something that we clearly need to watch closely.
Mr. Lyons. I very much share your concern that the future
workforce is vitally important. Even if your son looks only at
the retirements anticipated with the existing nuclear plants
there's thousands of jobs available over the next few years. If
we can move toward additional construction in this country
there will be many more job opportunities.
Senator Murkowski. I'll let him know.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Franken, did you have additional
questions?
Senator Franken. No, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Alright. Pete, thank you very much. Let me
just advise members that they will have until 5 o'clock
tomorrow afternoon to submit any additional questions for the
record.
Then we will hope to act quickly on your nomination and
report it to the full Senate. But that will conclude our
hearing. Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 10:31 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Peter B. Lyons to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. The Light Water Reactor SMR Licensing Technical Support
program anticipates a cost of $452 million over five years. Do you
expect this program to run longer than five years or do you believe two
SMR designs will have made it through the licensing process in that
time frame? What role can the Department of Energy play in the
licensing process?
Answer. The Department expects the program to run for five years
and expects that the two SMR designs will have made it through the most
critical steps of the licensing process in that time frame. The
Department expects that SMR vendors will have sufficiently learned from
interaction with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and that
continued support by DOE will not be necessary after the five year
program. It is anticipated that industry will have completed its
licensing submittals on a schedule that supports completion of NRC
design certification, construction, and operating license reviews soon
after completion of this program.
The Department plans to work with the NRC and industry to
facilitate any changes to the current licensing framework that may be
appropriate based on the features and designs of SMRs in general. The
Department intends to provide the analytical, computational and
experimental resources to support SMR licensing.
Question 2. Could you provide more detail on what types of
technologies you expect the new Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies
program to develop and support? Is it necessary to have a new, separate
program from the Reactor Concepts and Fuel Cycle programs to achieve
these goals?
Answer. The mission of the Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies
(NEET) program is to conduct research and development to deliver
crosscutting technologies that directly support and enable the Office
of Nuclear Energy's (NE) broad research and development portfolio and
to encourage the development of transformative, ``outside-the-box''
innovations in nuclear energy science and engineering.
The NEET program will conduct crosscutting research and technology
development relevant to the various reactor and fuel cycle concepts
within the scope of NE research and development (R&D) programs that
offer substantially improved economic and safety performance. The NEET
program will be able to coordinate efforts on common issues and avoid
duplication of efforts in technology development in separate programs.
The NEET program is intended to carry out research that is beyond the
scope of individual NE R&D programs, lead and coordinate research that
is needed by several NE R&D programs, and identify and deliver enabling
technologies to achieve critical steps in technology deployment. The
activities undertaken in this program complement those within the
Reactor Concepts Research Development & Demonstration and the Fuel
Cycle R&D programs by providing a mechanism for pursuing broadly
applicable R&D in areas that may ultimately benefit specific reactor
and/or nuclear fuel concepts. Reactor and fuel cycle designs are
currently limited by technologies at the subsystem and component level,
and NEET research is aimed at providing new options to the system level
designs.
Through coordinated R&D, this program will ensure that resulting
technologies and solutions are scalable to individual reactor and fuel
cycle applications (e.g., development of high-temperature resistant
materials and radiation-hardened electronics, proliferation risk
assessment of different nuclear fuel cycle options, etc.). This R&D
will ultimately result in lower costs for needed capabilities across NE
R&D programs, better use and coordination of expertise and leveraged
facilities across the enterprise, and assurance that the best
technologies are available for nuclear energy deployments when needed.
Examples of the types of technologies expected in NEET crosscutting
areas include the following:
New, innovative reactor materials concepts for fuel cladding
and structural materials well beyond those currently considered
by most industrial interests will be explored to provide alloys
with improved performance over traditional materials. Improved
performance may include a 5- to 10-fold increase in strength,
or increased maximum operating temperature by over 200 Celsius
(C), with a service period of at least 80 years.
Advanced manufacturing technologies that could provide
simplified, standardized, and labor-saving outcomes for
manufacturing and civil works processes (both technologies and
methods) for new nuclear component manufacturing and plant
fabrication will be investigated. For example, concrete
installation is one of the most costly (up to $1 million per
day) and time-consuming aspects of building a new nuclear power
plant. Potentially, the use of high-strength concrete or steel-
concrete composite wall construction could significantly reduce
construction cost and schedules. Advanced instrumentation and
sensors that could: (1) operate in the temperature regimes and
harsh environment (e.g., 1000C gas environment, liquid metals)
that preclude the cross-compatibility of existing
instrumentation, (2) directly measure primary process
parameters that would otherwise be inferred or measured from a
distance with a corresponding loss in precision and increase in
uncertainty, (3) minimize measurement drift that can support
longer intervals between maintenance and service outages, as
envisioned for advanced reactors, and (4) include electronics
that are, or can be made to be, radiation tolerant due to their
proximity to the nuclear reactor core and back end of nuclear
fuel cycle process.
Advanced modeling and simulation tools are being developed
that will provide a greater understanding of the long-term
performance of fuels both in the reactor during operations and
once discharged (useful to regulators, designers, and
operators). For example, the Advanced Multi-Physics (AMP) code
being developed at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory models
fuel at the ``pin'' level in three dimensions with very high
temporal and spatial resolution. The AMP code is presently
being considered for use in the virtual reactor model being
developed by the Energy Innovation Hub for Modeling &
Simulation of Nuclear Reactors.
Question 3. If the United States were to start construction on a
nuclear fuel recycling facility today, how long would it take to
construct and for how much?
Answer. At present, the Department does not see a need to construct
a nuclear fuel recycling facility for the foreseeable future. Instead,
the Department is focusing on research and development of advanced
technologies which could be used to treat nuclear fuel.
If the current research and development program proceeds as
planned, the Department would eventually need to construct a fuel cycle
research laboratory capable of receiving, storing, and separating
commercial fuel assemblies and remanufacturing. Existing facilities
within the United States are not sufficient to conduct these research
and development activities. It is premature to estimate the potential
cost and schedule for such a facility.
Question 4. What is the Department doing to ensure the scientific
data and information gained during the Yucca licensing process is
preserved for future repository development?
Answer. DOE currently maintains the approximately 3.65 million
electronic documents that comprise the Licensing Support Network (LSN)
collection on file servers located in northern Virginia, which are
routinely backed up on tape, and are currently searchable and
retrievable through an NRC hosted web portal. Once there is a non-
appealable final decision and the licensing proceeding is terminated
the LSN collection will be archived in a manner that complies with the
Federal Records Act and with National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA) guidance. NARA is the agency authorized to
determine how long records are maintained. The archived LSN collection
will be searchable and retrievable. In accordance with the Federal
Records Act, DOE submitted a ``Request for Records Disposition
Authority'' (Standard Form 115) to NARA for the LSN collection and is
awaiting NARA's decision on the LSN record disposition schedule.
In addition to the LSN, DOE's Office of Legacy Management (LM) has
been tasked with ensuring that all other technical databases used by
the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) will remain
available to support a restart in the licensing process, should that
occur. Like the LSN, LM will also maintain these databases until there
is a non-appealable order. Even after all appeals have been exhausted,
LM will preserve the technical content contained in these databases at
the LM storage facilities.
Responses of Peter B. Lyons to Questions From Senator Portman
Question 1. Do you agree with Secretary Chu's comments in the
Senate Budget Committee's hearing on the President's Fiscal Year 2012
budget request for the Department of Energy, on March 2 of this year
that supporting a domestic enrichment technology is important for our
nation's energy and national security?
Answer. Yes, I agree with Secretary Chu about the importance of a
domestic uranium enrichment capacity as a critical element of the fuel
cycle for nuclear power reactors. In support of this critical area, the
Department has made available $4 billion in loan guarantees for the
deployment of advanced enrichment technology in the United States. In
May 2010, AREVA was granted a conditional loan guarantee to construct a
centrifuge enrichment facility in Idaho. In addition, USEC, Inc. has
publicly announced that the Department is reviewing its application for
the American Centrifuge Plant.
Question 2. Do you agree with Secretary Chu's comments in the
Senate Budget Committee's hearing on the President's Fiscal Year 2012
budget request for the Department of Energy, on March 2 of this year
that having a domestic production capability for tritium is vital to
the U.S. arsenal?
Answer. Yes, I agree with Secretary Chu's comments in the Senate
Budget Committee hearing earlier this year regarding the importance of
a domestic tritium production capability.
Question 3. As you know, I am concerned about the slow pace of
deployment of loan guarantees for nuclear energy projects under the
federal loan guarantee program. Nuclear power is the only base-load
emissions-free option that we have. Due to the scale of the projects,
much of the work needed to build the plants will be done domestically;
this means jobs and economic development will be created here at home.
The low cost of natural gas, the slow growth of the U.S. economy,
and an uncertainty over a future price on carbon are certainly
discouraging many companies from making the substantial investment
needed to build a traditional nuclear power plant. Yet there is still
significant interest in nuclear. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has
received applications for 26 reactors. And the $18.5 billion that the
Department of Energy has available for nuclear projects under the
Federal Loan Guarantee Program, while not distributed, is fully
prescribed.
While Secretary Chu stressed the need for a Clean Energy Standard
to drive market draw for nuclear, it appears to me that if we can just
get the loan guarantee program operating efficiently, we could at least
get three or four large scale nuclear projects off the ground. In your
opinion what steps should the federal government be taking to jumpstart
nuclear production capabilities today?
Answer. There are several things that Federal government could do
to jumpstart our domestic nuclear energy capability. The administration
has requested an additional $36 billion in loan guarantee authority,
which would bring the total amount to $54.5 billion. That should be
enough to help support 6 to 9 new reactors. The Department has also
proposed an aggressive small modular reactor (SMR) program that would
help accelerate the availability of SMRs for the US market and
international markets. Both the larger nuclear reactors, as well as the
smaller ones, would enjoy significantly greater attraction from private
investors if the federal government were to put into place a mechanism
to at least partially account for the external costs associated with
fossil fuel use. President Obama's call for a clean energy standard,
for example, would go a long way toward jumpstarting nuclear production
capabilities.
Question 4. I want to thank you for attending The Ohio Nuclear
Taskforce Roundtable on September 27, 2010, in Columbus, Ohio. As you
know, the taskforce was a collaboration of stakeholders including:
representation from the nuclear power industry, Ohio's major electric
utilities, seven universities and community colleges, nuclear supply
chain companies, engineering and technology resource organizations, and
nongovernmental organizations. They had a unified goal: make
economically viable nuclear power a major component of the nation's
future energy profile.
One of the report's recommendations was the Department of Energy
should conduct an enterprise study on the future market potential of
the U.S. nuclear power supply industries. The questions that were to be
answered in such a study included: How many power plants will be
constructed and over what period of time, what will be the volumes of
productions for given products, what are the market niches in which
U.S. companies can best compete, what are the trade skills and
manufacturing requirements necessary to make a company highly
competitive in a particular product group, and what are the costs
associated with upgrading to become a nuclear-grade producer? Can you
tell me if the Department of Energy moved forward on conducting such a
study? Does the Department of Energy have the resources to conduct such
a study?
Answer. It was my pleasure to attend the Ohio Nuclear Taskforce
Roundtable. I appreciated the opportunity to receive valuable feedback
and suggestions on the role of nuclear power as an economically viable
component of the nation's future energy profile. The Office of Nuclear
Energy (NE) is not currently pursuing an enterprise study on the future
market potential of the U.S. nuclear power supply industries, though it
is working on similar and related research, such as the market
potential for small modular reactors. DOE has adequate resources to
conduct such a study, and will evaluate this opportunity within the
context of the NE mission and strategic plan.
Responses of Peter B. Lyons to Questions From Senator Barrasso
Question 1. Table 8 of the Department's Excess Uranium Management
Plan lays out a schedule for uranium transfers, sales, and barters. The
schedule follows a ``ramp-up'' policy that gradually increases to 10
percent of the market in 2013.
Question 1a. Are you aware of this proposed ramp up?
Question 1b. Why is the Department abandoning this schedule?
Question 1c. Why did the Department include Table 8 in the
Management Plan if it does not plan to abide by it?
Answer. The Department's 2008 Excess Uranium Inventory Management
Plan (Plan) provided guidelines for the management of the Department's
excess uranium inventory and clearly stated that it described planned
and future projects under consideration, as envisioned in 2008, and
might change in the future. The Plan was a 10-year estimate of future
sales and transfers, as illustrated in Table 8, and it contained the
provision that situations could arise where DOE's actions could change
in response to unforeseen developments. Nevertheless, as a result of
close coordination among the offices within DOE responsible for the
disposition of excess uranium inventories, the Department's total
actual transfers, including transfers for accelerated cleanup services
and for NNSA's pre-existing commitments, represented a ramp up of 3.0
percent and 5.8 percent of average U.S. reactor demand in 2009 and
2010, respectively. Accordingly, the material actually transferred was
significantly below the 10 percent guideline set forth in the Plan. It
should be noted that the Secretary's most recent Determination,
announced on March 2, 2011, established a clear ceiling on both an
annual and a quarterly basis for the amount of uranium that could be
transferred for accelerated cleanup services through the third quarter
of calendar year 2013.
Question 1d. Will the Department seek any additional barters,
transfers, or sales of its excess uranium over the next three years?
Does this include barters, transfers, or sales of uranium tails? Does
this include agreements to enrich uranium tails?
Answer. At this time, the Secretary has not authorized the
Department to make any transfers beyond the planned NNSA transfers to
fund the down blending of highly enriched uranium and the transfers to
fund the Portsmouth site cleanup work authorized by the March 2, 2011
Secretarial Determination. Depending on programmatic and policy goals
and needs, the Department may seek additional transfers, including
those associated with the re-enrichment of uranium tails. However, all
transfers will be consistent with the policies and guidelines set forth
in the Uranium Management Plan and any transfers that fall within the
parameters of section 3112(d) of the USEC Privatization Act will be
preceded by the requisite market impact analysis and Secretarial
Determination that the transfers will not have an adverse material
impact on the domestic uranium mining, enrichment, and conversion
industries.