ML23353A189
| ML23353A189 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/12/2023 |
| From: | NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML23307A078 | List: |
| References | |
| M231212B | |
| Download: ML23353A189 (78) | |
Text
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+++++
MEETING
+++++
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2023
+++++
The Commission met in the Commissioners' Hearing Room, at 9:58 a.m. EST, Christopher T. Hanson, Chair, presiding.
COMMISSION MEMBERS:
CHRISTOPHER T. HANSON, Chair DAVID A. WRIGHT, Commissioner ANNIE CAPUTO, Commissioner BRADLEY R. CROWELL, Commissioner ALSO PRESENT:
TOMAS HERRERA, Acting Secretary of the Commission BERNICE AMMON, Deputy General Counsel for Licensing, Hearings, and Enforcement
2 NRC STAFF:
ROBERT LEWIS, Deputy Director, Officer of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards EXTERNAL PARTICIPANTS:
MANUEL HEART, Chairman, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe DR. MICHAEL GOFF, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Nuclear Energy, U.S. Department of Energy KYLE WENDTLAND, Land Quality Division Administrator, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality KIRK SCHNOEBELEN, President, URENCO Inc RICH AUGI, LWR Fuel Product Director, Global Nuclear Fuel NICKOLAS ROTH, Senior Director, Nuclear Materials Security, Nuclear Threat Initiative
3 PROCEEDINGS 9:58 a.m.
1 CHAIR HANSON: I will now call to order today's Discussion 2 of the Administration's Short- and Long-term Domestic Uranium Fuel Strategy.
3 All right. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for being 4 here. I think this is a great opportunity. I understand Mr. Augi may be slightly 5 delayed on the Metro. But hopefully by the time we make our way down the 6 table to him, he will have overcome Washington area mass transit issues and 7 will be here to join us. I look forward to a good discussion.
8 There's, of course, a lot going on in this space, both on 9 Capitol Hill and in the Administration. And it's a great opportunity for the 10 Commission to engage directly with our agreement state partners, our 11 government-to-government Tribal partners, other parts of the administration as 12 well as those from the nonprofit and private sectors to discuss the uranium fuel 13 strategy and NRC's readiness to support licensing and oversight. I'd like to 14 extend a special welcome to Manuel Heart, Chairman of the Ute Mountain Ute 15 Tribe. And Chairman Heart, I'd invite you to open us with a prayer if you'd like 16 to this morning.
17 CHAIRMAN HEART: Thank you for that. I really 18 appreciate that. So if you just bear with me, I'd like to stand. I'll say a little 19 bit in my own language. (Native language spoken.)
20 Creator, thank you for this day, this time of the year that we 21 -- Thank you for all the blessings that you've given upon us and our families 22 and our children and our elders, wherever we may live. Continue to bless us
4 1 in that way, Creator.
2 Help today open the hearts and the minds of us talking at 3 this table that we may better understand you, Creator. That we may better 4 understand that your children here that work together for a better future for 5 things that'll be good for all of us. The holiday seasons are upon us.
6 Your son is born end of this month, Creator. We thank you 7 for your son, what he has done for us, that he's helped us, a better 8 understanding -- a better understanding about love, a better understanding 9 about trust, a better understanding about respect for all of us that things will be 10 good for us, Creator. I put this prayer to you this morning in a good way from 11 my heart, from my mind and how I think today for everybody and everything, 12 not only us as human beings and taking care of one another but everything 13 that you've created from the winged ones to the four legged to the fish that live 14 in the water, and everything grows through Mother Earth.
15 Thank you for all the different seasons. As we look upon 16 water, water is life for everything. Creator, thank you for all these things that 17 you've given us, the day, the night, everything that we see in our daily 18 struggles.
19 Forgive us for our shortcomings as your son was born to help 20 us out on that day and that time and this time of the month. Creator, I ask all 21 these things, to care for the ones in the hospitals, in the nursing homes, all of 22 our armed forces of all branches, wherever they may be. Take care of them 23 that they'll be good and strong in heart and mind, things will be good for them, 24 Creator.
5 1 If there's anything I have left out or forgot, Creator, forgive 2 me. But take care of it in a good way for all of us that we may be open to 3 everything that we talk about today. We have these to listen, to talk, to notice 4 and acknowledge things, Creator.
5 But we can't do it without your blessing and your 6 acknowledgment, Creator. So through this prayer, I ask all these things that 7 things will be good for all of us, our families, our relatives, our coworkers, and 8 everybody, even new friendships that we have today and the ones to come in 9 the future that we have not met yet. So I ask these things as we're here in the 10 Nuclear Regulatory Commission building, that everything will be good for all of 11 us in a good way so help us to open our hearts and minds to a better tomorrow.
12 (Native language spoken.) Thank you.
13 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you, Chairman Heart.
14 CHAIRMAN HEART: Thank you.
15 CHAIR HANSON: I want to thank everyone in advance for 16 supporting the meeting today. It's good to have you all here. I look forward 17 to really engaging and thorough discussion. Before we begin, I'll ask my 18 fellow Commissioners if they have any remarks they'd like to make.
19 (No audible response.)
20 CHAIR HANSON: Okay. I intend to proceed in the order 21 in which you all are listed in the public notice for the meeting. We'll hold 22 questions until the end. And then we'll hear questions from Commissioners.
23 So with that -- ah, Mr. Augi, glad you could make it. Sorry about the --
24 welcome to Washington, D.C.
6 1 (Laughter.)
2 CHAIR HANSON: Let's just suffice to say. Well, with that, 3 we'll begin with Chairman Manuel Heart of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe offering 4 his perspectives on uranium milling. Chairman Heart?
5 CHAIRMAN HEART: Good morning Chair, 6 Commissioners, everyone here today. I really appreciate it. It's an honor for 7 me as a Chairman of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe.
8 Hello and good morning to all of the Commissioners today, 9 December 12, 2023. I am Manuel Heart, Chairman of the Ute Mountain Ute 10 Tribe from Toyak, Colorado. Today is an important meeting for the Ute 11 Mountain Ute Tribe and all of our enrolled members of the Ute Mountain Ute 12 Tribe.
13 I only have a short time to discuss the Ute Mountain Ute 14 Tribe's concerns, although it could take a long time to talk about it. But we 15 need to keep moving on. I want to make sure that we have given all the 16 information that we need to give you today.
17 We do have some packets that was handed out to all the 18 Commissioners. So here's my brief summary of where we are with the White 19 Mesa Mill in southeastern Utah. I hope this discussion continues so that we 20 may resolve some of these very big issues that we have on the Ute Mountain 21 Ute Tribal Reservation.
22 Before I move forward, I want to clarify our discussions.
23 There is a White Mesa community which is within the Ute Mountain Ute 24 Reservation in southeast Utah. There is also a White Mesa Mill four miles
7 1 north of the tribal reservation in southeast Utah owned by Energy Fuels.
2 So White Mesa community and White Mesa Mill, I'll only 3 pertain to the Mill as the Mill without saying White Mesa Mill. So the Ute 4 Mountain Ute tribal reservation is located in three states. The majority of our 5 reservation is southwestern Colorado and northwestern New Mexico and a 6 small community in southeastern Utah.
7 Our tribal membership is right around 2,100 enrolled 8 members, and we have 600,000 acres of tribal land. In southeastern Utah, 9 reservation lands are located within the White Mesa community and the 10 surrounding areas. This is where Ute people lived since time immemorial.
11 The state of Utah is named after us, and these lands are a 12 part of us as we are the mountain people and it was handed down to us through 13 our ancestors. In fact, at one time, San Juan County, Utah was designated 14 as the Ute Mountain Ute tribal reservation at one time. In the past, the 15 majority of us were forced back into Colorado by the state of Utah.
16 The ranchers and people that lived there didn't want to live 17 next to the Ute people. So they asked the governor to talk to the governor of 18 Colorado and they moved us back into Colorado. So that's where our main 19 office is in the state of Colorado.
20 Today, we have a small tribal community called White Mesa 21 on both trust land and allotment lands in southeast Utah. This community 22 consists of 150 of our Ute Mountain Ute tribal members. In the 1970s, the 23 current Mill that started the operations around that time is now owned and ran 24 by Energy Fuels today.
8 1 Our Ute Mountain Ute tribal community and our tribal lands 2 are located only four miles south of the Mill. This uranium mill site was located 3 on aboriginal lands of the Ute people, rich in culture and sacred sites to our 4 Ute people. All of these lands that the current Mill is located on are an area 5 designated as White Mesa Archeological District which includes hundreds of 6 archeological sites eligible for listing under the National Historical Register.
7 Many sites were destroyed during the construction of the Mill 8 and large portion of the Mill's lands, 2,560 acres, was acquired in 1985 through 9 a federal land exchange remains subject to a cultural resource study easement 10 reserved by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, BLM, who was supposed 11 to ensure continued protection of cultural sites. Obviously, we have a lot to 12 protect. And only one of us is recognizing that.
13 We were told that the Mill would only be around there for 20 14 years. So we supported that for the community of White Mesa. It'd bring 15 employment for our tribal members and educate them in the field of nuclear 16 energy as a possible benefit to both our two sovereign nations during the Cold 17 War.
18 But the Mill did not close within the 20 years like we were 19 told. In fact, the Mill has expanded since then, not shut down or reclaimed its 20 legacy tailing cells as we were promised. Then with the blessing of the state 21 of Utah and the federal government regulators, the Mill became a radioactive 22 waste dumping site, the only wet mill in the United States that is allowed to 23 receive and dispose of radioactive waste shipped from all over the United 24 States and foreign countries.
9 1 This Mill has received uranium cleanup waste from two tribes 2 in the country, one out of Oregon and one out of Oklahoma, and is now ready 3 to receive uranium waste from a third which is the Navajo Tribe. This Mill has 4 not done what it can do to ensure that there is no contamination. The shallow 5 groundwater beneath the Mill is seriously contaminated and continues to 6 degrade. A USGS study found radioactive dust on land and vegetation near 7 and around the Mill.
8 We have fought against this negligence in every way we can.
9 We have a post-issuance of licenses that lacked adequate environmental 10 controls. We urge that the Mill's inadequate reclamation bonding be 11 substantially increased so the Mill site does not become a massive 12 environmental liability like Moab and Monticello, Utah uranium sites.
13 We have urged the closure of the Mill's three legacy tailing 14 cells which lack modern dual liners and leak detecting systems. These liners 15 have outlived their life, and they could be leaking as of today. We have urged 16 aggressive action to stop ongoing groundwater contamination.
17 We have urged construction of a wildlife fence around the 18 Mill facility to protect the wildlife hunted by our Ute Mountain Ute tribal 19 members from being contaminated. We have attended public meetings. We 20 have spoken with the present and past Utah state governors directly and 21 personally.
22 Last spring, I flew with the lieutenant governor over the White 23 Mesa Mill and she could actually see a visual of how the environment has 24 receded back away from the Mill from where the Mill is at. So there is visual
10 1 of the site. We have brought to the attention of Region 8.
2 We have had meetings at office in Denver. We have met 3 with the national EPA office. We have offered reasonable settlements and 4 conditions to resolve our petitions, and we have spoken with the owners of the 5 Mill several times, but to no avail.
6 The Mill neglects and demands that we stop talking about it 7 in a negative way and stop the publicity opposing its existence. The Mill 8 doesn't think it's doing anything wrong to harm or to hurt anyone. And in fact, 9 it promotes uranium as an important tool in fighting diseases.
10 I don't think I need to point out the irony of that. Yet despite 11 all this, the United States is helping them. And let me repeat that, the United 12 States, our trustee through treaties between our sovereign nations and the 13 trust responsibility that they have to protect Tribal nations through the United 14 States government.
15 Just last week, I was at President Biden's Tribal Nation 16 Summit in Washington, D.C. at the Department of Interior. President Biden 17 signed an executive order in front of tribal leaders. And that executive order 18 said on reforming federal funding and support for Tribal nations to better 19 embrace our trust responsibilities and promote the next era of tribal self-20 determination, that was dated December 6, 2023, last week.
21 So I asked today why? Why is the United States helping 22 them, Energy Fuels? Why is the United States paying them millions and 23 millions of dollars to continue to bring in more ore and uranium tailings for 24 processing to have expanded and purchased more land around the mill?
11 1 We should be working toward protecting the health and 2 wellbeing of people today and into the future, especially for the Ute Mountain 3 Ute tribal community members of White Mesa, Utah and including the 4 surrounding communities and towns. Today, I come before you to this 5 meeting with the NRC, Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It is the first step 6 forward for my Ute people.
7 I know none of us want to harm -- any harm come to our 8 communities across this land. So let us work toward a better future of 9 domestic uranium production. We need to make sure that the Ute people, the 10 Ute Mountain Ute tribe, are protected and live productively and healthy lives in 11 White Mesa, Utah.
12 A few years ago at a public hearing in Blanding, Utah just 13 north of the Mill, non-Indians living in the community of Blanding supported the 14 Mill, even though some of them said they've had cancer more than once in 15 their families. Yet we have brought it up also for our Ute Mountain Tribal 16 members in the White Mesa community. We have also noticed that there was 17 an increase of cancer in our Ute elders and some have already passed away 18 due to the cancer.
19 So today, I ask, where's the United States in assessing the 20 impacts of the Mill on my tribal members' health? In our treaties with the 21 United States, it is said that we'll be prosperous on our lands and that our 22 health and welfare will be protected. My question today to you from the Ute 23 Mountain Ute tribal members is, who from the United States federal 24 government can say that the health of my tribal members in White Mesa is
12 1 actually being protected?
2 Who can say that living in the shadows of a uranium mill is 3 good for prosperity? Only the state of Utah for they are the one to gain the 4 revenue. Where is the equity of access to good health for my Ute Tribal 5 members living only four miles from a mill owned by Energy Fuels and their 6 uranium mill?
7 I ask, is these 150 human beings lives not important to you?
8 The Indian Health Service, IHS, has an epidemiology center in Albuquerque, 9 New Mexico. That is our regional health service for my tribe.
10 They have recently started looking into an epidemiology 11 study for the White Mesa community. But today, Indian country, a lot of 12 programs for the United States federal government are not fully funded through 13 the United States Congress. At times of struggle or challenges like today for 14 all our tribal nations across this country, all 574, we always bring it up, the lack 15 of and the shortfalls of funding to meet our needs and programs of our grown 16 nations -- grown tribal nations.
17 Yet state of Utah does have funding also to implement an 18 epidemiology study in White Mesa community and the surrounding areas. I 19 am a Ute Mountain Ute Tribal member, and I'm the chairman of the Ute 20 Mountain Ute Tribe. I love my people and I fight for them every day to protect 21 every one of my Ute Mountain Ute Tribal members.
22 I come before you today to make a request while it is still in 23 its early stages of expanding. The Mill has three legacy cells and two new 24 ones, 4A and 4B. Close them and reclaim the land.
13 1 I want to believe that we can work together. But I also want 2 to ensure from you that my tribal members are safe from any future 3 contamination of their aboriginal tribal lands and their inherent tribal right as a 4 human being and citizens of this country that they may receive 100 percent 5 quality of great water and access to clean water. We know that these current 6 cells will be there forever but funded to keep them protected from future 7 impacts of contamination.
8 We request that you help and to advocate to relocate this 9 uranium mill to a place that will have no impacts to people, the environment, 10 and any water resources. The budget for Department of Interior, DOE just got 11 approved for an increase for future nuclear development. Utilize these funds 12 for the best interest of everyone and everything that our Creator has created 13 here on Mother Earth.
14 Help to protect and serve the different trial governments, 15 state governments, and the federal government. I pray you will join me in this 16 endeavor. Thank you for this opportunity, Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Chairman 17 Manuel Heart.
18 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you very much for your remarks, 19 Chairman Heart. Next we'll hear from Dr. Michael Goff. He's the Principal 20 Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Office of Nuclear Energy at the Department 21 of Energy. Mike?
22 DR. GOFF: Good morning. And thank you very much for 23 the opportunity to be here and talk to you about the front end of the nuclear 24 fuel cycle, a topic that we focused on significantly in the Department of Energy.
14 1 The Biden Administration and Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm are 2 unequivocal advocates for nuclear power in both domestic and international 3 engagements.
4 Nuclear energy is a key element of our strategy to put the 5 United States on a path to net zero carbon by 2050. At almost 50 percent, 6 nuclear energy is the largest source of emissions free electricity in the United 7 States. And we see the need for approximately 200 gigawatts of new capacity 8 by 2050.
9 At COP 28 last week, 22 countries launched the declaration 10 to triple nuclear energy by 2050. The declaration recognizes the key role of 11 nuclear energy in achieving global net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 12 and it encourages shareholders of international financial institutions to include 13 nuclear energy in its lending policies.
14 To achieve these targets, we'll need our existing fleet to 15 continue operating. And we'll need to deploy new reactors which, depending 16 on technology, can use today's low-enriched uranium or LEU or could require 17 high-assay low-enriched uranium or HALEU. Given the unprovoked attack on 18 Ukraine, the world recognizes that Russia is not a reliable energy partner.
19 We are working to reduce our dependence on Russian 20 enrichment capabilities, including the production of HALEU. To that end, we 21 are working with like-minded partners including Canada, the United Kingdom, 22 Japan, and France to support a secure and stable supply of fuels for the 23 operating fleets of today and tomorrow. These five countries announced at 24 COP 28 last week their collective intent to expand nuclear fuel production
15 1 across trusted high-quality suppliers free from manipulation and influence.
2 They will work to mobilize at least 4.2 billion in government 3 led and private investment in the Five Nations' collective enrichment and 4 conversion capacity over the next three years. Along these lines, in October, 5 the Biden Administration submitted a domestic supplement budget request to 6 Congress that included 2.16 billion dollars to support this effort. The House 7 has also passed a mark that included a significant increase of this to 3.5 billion 8 dollars.
9 The requested funding will improve long-term domestic 10 enrichment capabilities for low-enriched uranium and HALEU. This is a 11 national security priority as a dependence of Russian sources of uranium 12 creates a risk to the U.S. economy. To be successful, this initiative would also 13 require a long-term ban on enriched uranium product from Russia.
14 The Office of Nuclear Energy is engaged in both near- and 15 long-term actions along these lines. The Department of Energy selected 16 American Centrifuge Operating, a subsidiary of Centrus Energy, to 17 demonstrate HALEU production at the Department's enrichment facility in 18 Piketon, Ohio. Starting up HALEU enrichment at the Piketon facility is a 19 significant step in securing domestic fuel supply for advanced reactors.
20 On November 7th, Centrus announced production of its first 21 20 kilograms of HALEU, a significant step in securing our advanced reactor 22 supply chain. This demonstration will be producing hopefully 900 kilograms 23 per year starting next year. The Energy Act of 2020 authorizes the 24 Department of Energy to establish a program to support the availability of
16 1 HALEU for a civilian domestic research development demonstration and 2 commercial use.
3 In the short term, DOE is working to provide small quantities 4 of HALEU from recycling limited DOE inventories and by leveraging the 5 HALEU enrichment capability at Piketon. In the long term, DOE will work with 6 the private sector to establish a commercial U.S. HALEU production and 7 supply chain capability. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 provided 700 8 million dollars to support the activities under the HALEU availability program.
9 DOE is now in the process of implementing the next steps in 10 establishing a commercial supply of HALEU in the United States with these 11 funds. Earlier this year DOE collected feedback on two draft requests for 12 proposals or RFPs to establish a HALEU supply chain. One RFP focuses on 13 acquiring services for enrichment and storage of HALEU material and a 14 second RFP focuses on deconversion activities to convert enriched uranium 15 hexafluoride gas into metal or oxide forms needed to fabricate fuel for the 16 various advanced reactor developers.
17 The deconversion RFP was released and issued to the 18 public on Tuesday, November 28th. Proposals from that are due on January 19 30th. We expect the enrichment RFP to be released within the next month.
20 DOE is also finalizing a transportation funding opportunity announcement that 21 will provide an NRC licensing pathway for HALEU transportation packages.
22 The Office of Nuclear Energy is additionally developing a 23 novel technologies funding opportunity announcement that will focus on 24 lowering energy inputs, lowering capital costs, and developing technologies
17 1 that will provide significant economic advantages to the front end of the fuel 2 cycle. DOE has also established a HALEU consortium to help inform 3 activities carried out by the department to secure a domestic supply of HALEU.
4 The roles of the HALEU consortium of which HALEU recipients need to be a 5 member, include providing HALEU demand estimates, carrying out 6 demonstration projects, and developing a schedule for cost recovery for 7 commercial use.
8 With respect to advanced reactors, Congress established 9 the Department of Energy's Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program or 10 ARDP in 2020 to support the most mature advanced reactor technologies to 11 be demonstrated on an aggressive schedule. The two awardees selected for 12 a demonstration project, X-energy and Terrapower, have reactor designs that 13 require HALEU fuel to achieve optimum operational efficiency and economic 14 competitiveness. DOE led the -- the Office of Nuclear Energy led the 15 establishment of an advanced reactor demonstration program, but those two 16 demonstrations are now under Department of Energy's Office of Clean Energy 17 Demonstrations or OCED. These two initial demonstration projects require 18 approximately 22 metric tons of HALEU for their initial cores. X-energy's fuel 19 manufacturing process requires HALEU in the oxide form while Terrapower's 20 fuel manufacturing process requires HALEU in the metal form.
21 Other ARDP projects, primarily the risk reduction and the 22 concept development ones, remain within the Office of Nuclear Energy. And 23 several of those projects do require near term HALEU needs that we're working 24 and tracking closely. And I should note, I was pleased to actually be here on
18 1 the day where you did the affirmation for the Kairos construction permit, one of 2 the ARDP award winners as well.
3 So appreciate the speediness and timelines of that.
4 Realizing the potential of nuclear energy can meet our climate targets will 5 require coordination where appropriate with the Nuclear Regulatory 6 Commission to ensure these technologies are available while continuing the 7 safety standards the public expects. NE and NRC have routine and 8 productive interactions on various aspects of expanding the domestic nuclear 9 supply chain.
10 Additional interactions occur as part of interagency review 11 process as well. DOE and NRC coordination has focused on activities which 12 intersect both of our agencies, including on coordination on activities under the 13 National Environmental Policy Act, on new or expanding capabilities that will 14 require new NRC licensing like enrichment and deconversion or fuel fabrication 15 facilities, and new transportation packages for HALEU forms. We have also 16 begun an in-depth coordination on criticality safety benchmarks as required by 17 Section 2001 of the Energy Act of 2020.
18 As part of this, we have established a joint management 19 structure to plan and execute a program that aims to achieve higher throughput 20 fuel cycle processes, higher capacity transportation packages, and reduce 21 licensing uncertainty. Together, we've developed a program management 22 plan in this area and are planning a public workshop toward the end of 23 February of this year -- of 2024. Additionally, DOE is preparing an 24 environmental impact statement that will analyze the impacts of DOE's
19 1 proposed action to facilitate the domestic commercialization of HALEU 2 production and acquire HALEU for commercial use on demonstration projects.
3 DOE and NRC engaged early on their respective NEPA 4 responsibilities to support the new HALEU supply chain and decided to 5 coordinate in these efforts but not be formal cooperating agencies. DOE 6 expects to announce the availability of the draft EIS in the Federal Register by 7 early '24. And once the EIS is published, there'll be a 45-day public comment 8 period as well.
9 Finally, again, to summarize, expanding nuclear energy to 10 help address climate change is a key priority for the administration. This can 11 only be achieved through the development and deployment of innovative 12 technologies across the nuclear fuel cycle. At the same time, we must reduce 13 our reliance on untrustworthy sources and improve the security of fuel supply.
14 There are clearly challenges ahead. Establishing new 15 supply chains is complex, time consuming, and of course, costly. At the same 16 time, commodity and service prices continue to arise amongst the uncertainty 17 of fuel supply.
18 Congress has indicated bipartisan and bicameral support to 19 address these issues. And I'll note they even passed a ban last night from the 20 House side as well. But we still lack some of the key tools, including funding 21 to enhance the LEU supply chain, an enduring import ban, and a revolving fund 22 to manage that funding. So we look forward to continued engagement with 23 the Commission and the NRC to address these critical issues. Thank you.
24 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you, Dr. Goff. Next we'll hear
20 1 from Kyle Wendtland. He's the Land Quality Division Administrator with the 2 Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. Mr. Wendtland?
3 MR. WENDTLAND: Mr. Chairman, thank you, and 4 members of the Commission, for the opportunity to be here. And I had a 5 presentation for you. Just move to the next slide right away, please.
6 This slide outlines the current license holders in Wyoming to 7 give you a sense of what we have. The category on the left is the six 8 conventional mill tailings sites. They're often referenced as Title II sites.
9 And on the right are the eight in-situ recovery sites. And I 10 would just add that the in-situ sites represent the current and most modern 11 commonly used extraction technologies in Wyoming for uranium. Next slide, 12 please. Slide 3 outlines the status of the Title II conventional sites.
13 I would make two notes on this slide. One is the 14 Sweetwater Mill still does hold some license capacity around 4.1 million 15 pounds. So that's just something of note.
16 And then I would also note in this slide that the Split Rock 17 site at the bottom. And this was a site that was recently transferred to the 18 Department of Energy through license termination. And I would just add that 19 the NRC staff was extremely helpful in this effort for us and very cooperative.
20 And it led to the conclusion of this site being moved to DOE 21 and long-term care and maintenance. And it really exemplifies the spirit of the 22 cooperative federalism between the agreement state and the NRC. Slide 4, 23 please. This slide starts and on into slide 5 also outlines the current status of 24 the Wyoming in-situ recovery sites or ISR sites.
21 1 As you'll note and you look at this table, the majority of the 2 facilities are in restoration or standby right now. As the state of the industry, 3 we kind of understand that, I think, at the table here. The producing sites in 4 Wyoming right now are Strata Ross and Lost Creek, and then there are six 5 sites that are yet to be constructed.
6 So moving on to the next slide. This slide represents the --
7 sorry, one more. This slide represents the current license capacities of the 8 Title II conventional and the ISR sites. And like I noted earlier, the 4.1 million 9 is on the one Title II site or conventional mill site.
10 And then we have 22.2 million pounds that is available to be 11 produced through the ISR facilities under current licensed capacity. And the 12 two operations that noted earlier, Strata Ross and Lost Creek, their license 13 capacity is 5.2 million pounds. So hopefully, that gives the Commission a 14 good sense of kind of what we have, what we are licensed to produce today.
15 Then I'd move on to slide -- I had one more side in there, 16 slide 7. This is the one I want to spend the most time on. And this outlines 17 the challenges from our regulatory perspective regarding the increased license 18 production.
19 The first bullet point I'd like to go over is aquifer exemptions 20 are key with the in-situ sites. If Commissioners have not been to Wyoming 21 and seen an ISR site and understand how this ties into the groundwater aquifer 22 and how we mine these, I would encourage you to come. And we certainly 23 have an open invitation for any Commissioner that would like to come out.
24 We will cater to you to come out and see us. But what I
22 1 would say on this key point is that the EPA and the aquifer exemptions is a 2 pretty arduous process. And it could use some streamlining and some clarity.
3 And in this regulatory space, that line between EPA and NRC 4 authority is somewhat blurred as to how that plays out. So some clarity there 5 would be helpful. The second bullet point, I'm going to bring up EPA again.
6 They need to stay in their lane.
7 We have clear authority that's been granted to the NRC 8 through the Atomic Energy Act. And again, we can use the CERCLA 108(b) 9 process that EPA was bringing up where these lines are being blurred again.
10 And it's adding confusion and uncertainty to the industry.
11 So some clarity there with NRC's role and EPA's role would 12 be really helpful. And additionally, and it's not a bullet point in there. But I do 13 want to bring up the recent activities of the Bureau of Land Management and 14 their resource management plans and using ACECs which is a new 15 conservation tool.
16 There's a push to have conservation as a higher priority in 17 the multiple use category. And they are essentially working to withdraw 18 mineral without a formal mineral withdrawal through their regional resource 19 management plans. And that is also a concern moving forward.
20 If you've not looked or heard about the Rock Springs RMP, I 21 would encourage the Commissioners to do so. There's a New Castle RMP 22 that's coming out with BLM that will also overlap in these areas of mineral 23 leasing and locatable minerals moving forward. The NEPA process in my 24 third bullet point, I've spoken to this to other federal agencies as well recently
23 1 is somewhat broken.
2 There was bipartisan laws that were passed recently that you 3 got one year for an EI, two years for an EIS. We see agencies not adhering 4 to that on the EIS process. So adhering to those, that streamlining and 5 requirement of the NEPA process is important moving forward.
6 Supply chain. Supply chain and labor. I don't think 7 Wyoming is unique that labor issues are tough and getting high quality 8 specialty valves and things that are difficult in the marketplace today. So if we 9 are going to tool up our industry and move towards a higher production limit or 10 capacity, both of those aspects are probably things that are going to impact 11 that. And there's going to be a little bit of a time lag to get the labor and those 12 supply chain things online, specifically on the labor.
13 I'm going to use one example here. Right now, Colorado 14 State University is really the key one for us to get a health physics professional 15 out of. And we're all recruiting for those health physicists. They're being 16 recruited as juniors out of CSU.
17 And if we're going to look at increasing or improving the 18 capacities of the uranium mining, we talked about the HALEU fuel just now.
19 Wyoming has the Natrium project coming online in the small mod reactor 20 space. We have to be bringing -- these technical professionals have got to 21 be in the system as part of this.
22 And it's clearly an area that we're going to have an issue of 23 supply with. Technical challenges, difficult geology in the ISR fields, that 24 happens and takes some time to understand and work through and can cause
24 1 some delays. And if new increased production is desired, encouragement of 2 the exploration space is also going to be important.
3 And there could be some considerations on how best to 4 incentivize that moving forward. A couple of the other outliers are 5 Endangered Species Act issues. And I don't think there's any secret here that 6 the sage grouse in Wyoming is a hot topic and can certainly impact how this 7 works out.
8 Again, the BLM is due to release its multi-state EIS on sage 9 grouse. So see how that works out. And litigation and protected litigation in 10 addition to that is an area of continued concern in how that works through.
11 So with that, I'll move to my last slide. I always use these 12 forums to put out there, this is an example of reclamation in Wyoming. This 13 is -- everything you can see in this photo is reclaimed ground.
14 And we're pretty proud of Wyoming that we do reclamation 15 as good or better than anybody else in the country. So being that was a core 16 part of my work ethic moving forward, I take that chance to show off Wyoming's 17 reclamation. So we believe that there is value in producing uranium 18 domestically and as referenced earlier.
19 And its licensed operators are definitely prepared to meet 20 that domestic production requirement. Limitations to increasing production 21 exist, and some additional time may be needed in the supply chain and labor 22 to come online as those production increases are realized. But long-term 23 stability in the uranium industry would also help buffer the supply chain and 24 labor concerns.
25 1 If we increase this production and having some stability in 2 that market to hold those people will help continue this space as well and make 3 it more sustainable. I would also just in closing like to recognize the role the 4 NRC has played in Wyoming's standup of its agreement state. The NRC has 5 been a valued partner.
6 And this is holding true with the standup of the new Wyoming 7 source material program as well. The NRC staff has been helpful, and they 8 have been encouraging. And they have demonstrated a cooperative 9 federalism spirit that I wish other agencies would work with us the same way 10 in Wyoming. So I wanted to make sure that you knew that your staff is doing 11 the right things. And Mr. Chairman, I'm just happy to stand for questions later 12 with that and hope that you come see us soon.
13 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Wendtland, for your 14 remarks. Next we'll hear from Kirk Schnoebelen, and he's the president of 15 Urenco. Mr. Schnoebelen?
16 MR. SCHNOEBELEN: Good morning, Chair Hanson, 17 Commissioners Wright, Caputo, and Crowell. Did I get your name correctly 18 pronounced?
19 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: Close enough.
20 MR. SCHNOEBELEN: Good, okay, yeah. Same for me.
21 I appreciate the --
22 (Laughter.)
23 MR. SCHNOEBELEN: I appreciate the opportunity to be 24 here today to discuss industry perspectives on enrichment capacity. My
26 1 name is Kirk Schnoebelen, and I am the president of Urenco, Inc. and head of 2 sales for Urenco. Urenco operates the nation's only commercial enrichment 3 facility for the production of low-enriched uranium.
4 The facility is located in southeastern New Mexico kitty 5 corner from your tribal lands, sir, and does business as Urenco USA.
6 Following a three-year licensing process and a four-year construction program, 7 Urenco USA began producing enriched uranium in 2010 and over the next 8 seven years ramped up its capacity to 4.6 million separative work units per 9 year or about one-third of typical U.S. annual demand. Development of 10 Urenco USA costs just over 5 billion dollars and highlights the capital-intensive 11 nature of investment in enrichment capacity.
12 Such investments are not undertaken without a solid base of 13 sustainably priced long-term contracts for the sale of enrichment services.
14 Regulatory certainly on the future role of Russian fuel supplies to the west is 15 essential for investors and customers to agree on the degree of western 16 enrichment capacity expansion. I have some slides. Yeah, this one, perfect.
17 The Energy Information Administration publishes annual 18 statistics about U.S. fuel market based on mandatory reporting by nuclear fuel 19 suppliers and users. In 2022, the last year for which statistics are available, 20 U.S. utilities purchased 14 million SWU. Of that total, the largest share, 27 21 percent, was delivered by Urenco USA.
22 An additional 49 percent was delivered by friendly nations 23 allied with the U.S. Twenty-four percent of 2022 purchases by U.S. utilities 24 were of Russian origin. The volume of Russian origin enriched uranium
27 1 permitted for use in the U.S. is restricted by an agreement between Russia and 2 the U.S. that suspends an antidumping investigation launched in 1989.
3 In 2023, Russia was permitted a roughly 24 percent market 4 share, but that share will drop to 20 percent next year through 2027 and then 5 to 15 percent from 2028 to 2040. Can I get the next slide, please? Russia's 6 war in Ukraine has had a significant impact on nuclear fuel market activity 7 around the world since February 2022.
8 To our knowledge, no new contracts for delivery of Russian 9 origin enriched uranium have been concluded by any nuclear power operator 10 in North America, Europe, Africa, Japan, or Korea. Prices for enrichment 11 services today, which have approximately doubled since the war started, 12 already reflect price for non-Russian fuel. In spite of this, however, there have 13 been no disruptions in deliveries of Russian nuclear fuel to Europe, North 14 America, or Korea under contracts that were signed before the invasion of 15 Ukraine.
16 In two areas of the world, countries in Europe that operate 17 VVER reactors and were 100 percent reliant on Russian nuclear fuel and in 18 the United States, nuclear power operators have taken a variety of actions to 19 mitigate against the risk is disruption in Russian fuel deliveries, including 20 signing significant new contracts and building inventories. Next slide, please.
21 The industry is fairly well positioned to help mitigate against Russian fuel 22 supply disruptions in the near term.
23 Prior to the invasion, a non-trivial fraction of total western 24 capacity was operating in an underfeeding mode which means that more
28 1 enrichment work was being used to produce the enriched uranium required by 2 customers than they were paying for and less natural uranium was being used 3 than customers were delivering. Reversing this underfeeding mode of 4 operations means the same enrichment capacity can be used to produce more 5 enriched uranium. There is a catch, however, insofar as this strategy requires 6 more natural uranium.
7 Happily, this requirement has coincided with the return to 8 service of the uranium conversion facility in Illinois and the debugging of 9 operations at the brand-new uranium conversion facility in France. Another 10 way to mitigate against Russian fuel supply disruption in the near term is to 11 boost production of enriched uranium by refurbishing existing cascades of 12 centrifuges. Although centrifuges are designed to be extraordinarily long 13 lasting, they do fail with some statistical certainty.
14 Failed centrifuges are left in place and don't affect the safe 15 operation of the associated cascade but do diminish the cascade's output of 16 enriched uranium. By replacing failed centrifuges, the cascade's original 17 enriched uranium output capacity can be restored. Finally, there are known 18 inventories of enriched uranium that can be used to help immediately replace 19 disrupted Russian fuel deliveries.
20 Between available U.S. government and U.S. and Japanese 21 nuclear power operators, inventories of enriched uranium are estimated to be 22 equal to about one year of total U.S. demand. Next slide, please. Western 23 capacity to enrich uranium is based entirely on centrifuge technology. And 24 one of the benefits of this technology is that capacity can be added
29 1 incrementally without affecting existing operations.
2 In the longer term to replace Russian deliveries of enriched 3 uranium, western capacity must increase. Some of the necessary increases 4 have already been announced. In July, Urenco USA announced a 15 percent 5 expansion of capacity, an additional 700,000 SWU per year to be entirely 6 online by early 2027.
7 Expansion of Urenco's capacity is always based on 8 contracted commitments to deliver enriched uranium at sustainable prices.
9 And based on current license limits, there's a potential for further expansion of 10 four and a half million SWU per year in New Mexico if sufficient contracts are 11 established. Centrus -- as Dr. Goff noted, Centrus has successfully started its 12 production of high-assay LEU based on its own centrifuge technology and has 13 announced a production target of 900 kilograms in 2024. Next slide, please.
14 In Europe, although Urenco has not yet announced any 15 expansion plans, there's potential for another 3.6 million SWU per year under 16 current licenses at its three existing facilities. Orano has already announced 17 an expansion of its existing plant in France. Beginning in 2028, Orano's 18 expansion will result in an additional two and a half million SWU per year when 19 it is complete.
20 Both Urenco and Orano have publicly stressed the need to 21 underwrite the significant capital investments required to expand enrichment 22 capacity in Europe with long-term contracts. Next slide, please. As other 23 panelists have and may explain in greater detail, there's future demand for 24 enriched uranium at U-235 concentrations of about 5 percent. Urenco USA
30 1 is taking a phased approach to production of these fuels in line with demand.
2 The Commission may be aware that Urenco USA submitted 3 a license amendment request to produce enriched uranium with up to 10 4 percent U-235 concentration less than two weeks ago. Thanks to pre-5 application engagement with NRC staff, we expect this licensing process and 6 associated site work will result in an ability to ship commercial quantities of up 7 to 10 percent U-235 from our existing facilities in New Mexico in 2025. These 8 deliveries will help support deployment of accident tolerant fuels.
9 It's for the light water reactor fleet and fabrication of fuels for 10 some specific advanced reactor designs. The second phase of high-assay 11 LEU production will focus on production of enriched uranium with up to 20 12 percent U-235 concentration which is needed by many of the advanced 13 nuclear concepts, including, as was mentioned, TerraPower's Natium and X-14 energy's XE100 reactors. While the exact same centrifuge technology will be 15 used, the arrangement of these centrifuges in a cascade will be configured 16 differently than existing cascades to optimize production of high-assay LEU.
17 Because very little enrichment work is needed to boost 18 concentrations of U-235 from around 5 percent to 20 percent, dedicated 19 HALEU production facilities are anticipated to be co-located at our existing 20 facilities and would have a much smaller footprint than LEU production 21 facilities. Urenco USA is working toward putting together long-term takeoff 22 contracts in place to underwrite the required investments. Final slide, please.
23 In summary, disruptions in Russian nuclear fuel supplies 24 have and can be mitigated through optimizing and refurbishing existing
31 1 enrichment capacity through use of inventories and ultimately by adding new 2 enrichment capacity. While there is adequate physical and regulatory space 3 to add sufficient additional capacity at existing sites in U.S. and Europe, final 4 investment decisions in such capital-intensive industry will require establishing 5 a robust portfolio of sustainably priced long-term contracts with customers.
6 Having regulatory certainty on the role of future Russian fuel imports to the 7 west is an important prerequisite to those contract negotiations. Thank you 8 again for the opportunity to participate in today's meeting, and I look forward 9 to your questions.
10 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Schnoebelen. Next 11 we'll hear from Mr. Rich Augi. He's the light water reactor fuel product director 12 for Global Nuclear Fuel.
13 MR. AUGI: Good morning, Chair Hanson. Thank you very 14 much and Commissioners. On behalf of GNF And GE, I'm happy to be here 15 and have this opportunity to brief the Commission.
16 On the next slide, as we look at the environment that we saw 17 in the mid-2010s, we had nuclear plants shutting down. We had investing in 18 plant upgrades was paused. We find ourselves facing new challenges today.
19 NEI performed a survey of domestic reactor operators earlier 20 this year and published the Future of Nuclear Power. Some of the key 21 statistics from this report point to the commitment to keep the existing light 22 water reactor fleet operating well into the future. The projections include 4 23 license renewals and 20 potential subsequent license renewals within the next 24 10 years.
32 1 And then tied with the IRA that has sparked interest in power 2 uprates, there's the potential for 19 power uprate applications over the next 10 3 years that will drive the continued need for uranium to support the existing fleet.
4 We also need to have regulatory infrastructure that aids licensees, including 5 fuel suppliers, in developing and employing enhanced technologies more 6 efficiently. This will help the industry to better utilize constrained LEU 7 materials. Next slide, please.
8 So to improve the safety and efficient operation of the 9 existing fleet, the industry has been working on the accident tolerant fuel 10 program. As an industry, we've taken some pretty big swings and have been 11 able to make some significant achievements. Starting in 2018 with the 12 insertion of the first ATF rods, the fuel vendors and utilities have been making 13 progress in the development of ATF concepts.
14 The Vogtle LTAs planned in 2025 will represent the first 15 domestic reactor to receive greater than 5 weight percent U-235. Next slide, 16 please. The industry has also been working very closely with the NRC to 17 achieve some significant milestones. The license amendments for 18 Constellation and Southern Nuclear will allow the industry to push forward with 19 high burn up and increased enrichment.
20 The fuel vendors have also been proceeding in license 21 submittals. Each vendor has submitted fresh fuel shipping container. And I 22 believe all three have now received their license there for higher enrichments.
23 And we are also working on facility licensing to handle the 24 high enrichments. This is based upon seeing early demand signals within the
33 1 industry for higher enrichment. Next slide, please. So specifically for GNF 2 and our advanced fuels program, we're continuing to innovate, working in 3 conjunction with a wide industry and national lab team.
4 We've been setting up the infrastructure for higher 5 enrichments, up to 8 percent. In August of this year, we received our fresh 6 fuel shipping container license for the RAJ-II container which increased the 7 allowable contents up to 8 percent. And for fabrication, we submitted a 8 license amendment for our Wilmington, North Carolina fabrication plant in June 9 of 2022 to process enrichments up to 8 percent.
10 And that is on track, my understanding to be issued by the 11 end of this year. We've been pushing to develop new technologies like our 12 armor coated cladding and advanced materials research to provide accident 13 tolerant benefit. We've been successful in installing and operating lead test 14 assemblies of both ARMOR and IronClad, our iron, chrome, and aluminum 15 cladding at Plant Hatch and Clinton Power Station and have successfully 16 transported irradiated material from reactor site to the Oak Ridge National Lab.
17 These early installations and ongoing examinations provide 18 key performance information needed to drive technologies to industrial 19 application. And with the development and licensing of advanced methods 20 and materials, GNF is embarking on developing the next generation of fuel 21 product. I also want to highlight the benefit of pre-submittal application 22 meetings.
23 We've taken advantage of that, both within the methodology 24 for our engineering methods and also for the RAJ-II and for our facility license.
34 1 We find those to be invaluable, having the time to get in front of any issues, to 2 review it with the staff and find that to be a very healthy relationship and look 3 to continue to do that, to give the NRC the opportunity to see where our plans 4 are heading and where our technologies are heading. One challenge that we 5 do see within the higher burn up program, the industry faced it with Reg Guide 6 1.183, recently issued Rev. 1, addressed the PWR issue for dose.
7 But there are some issues with BWRs that still need to be 8 addressed. And we're happy to see Rev. 2 has been started. That should 9 address those issues and take care of the calculation of dose, especially for 10 the control room that we've seen. Next slide, please.
11 As Dr. Goff pointed out, underneath the ARDP program, 12 GNF is developing advanced fuel manufacturing capabilities. In 2022, GNF 13 and TerraPower announced an agreement to build the Natrium fuel facility at 14 our existing site in Wilmington. The Natrium fuel facility will be jointly funded 15 by TerraPower and the U.S. DOE through the ARDP program and represents 16 an investment of more than 200 million dollars into advanced fuel fabrication.
17 In 2021, TerraPower announced its intention to build the first 18 Natrium reactor at a retiring coal facility in Kemmerer, Wyoming. As 19 TerraPower's senior vice president and Natrium project director Tara Neider 20 noted, the Natrium fuel facility will create a reliable source of fuel for our first 21 demonstration plant and additional Natrium plants in the future. The 22 construction of the Natrium fuel facility was anticipated to begin this year.
23 However, due to the lack of HALEU availability, the 24 construction has been delayed until 2025. As part of that, we did have the
35 1 opportunity to participate in early engagement meetings with the NRC to 2 discuss the project plans and have been in constant communication with the 3 NRC to update -- to provide those updates around the delays. In regards to 4 HALEU availability, the IRA authorized 700 million dollars related to supporting 5 availability of HALEU nuclear fuel for research, development, and construction 6 and demonstration.
7 This is a big step to greatly advance U.S. capacity to make 8 HALEU available for the two ARDP demonstration projects and the commercial 9 plants that will follow. GNF supports the DOE to establish a diverse domestic 10 market-based HALEU supply chain. And establishing a U.S.-based HALEU 11 supply chain supports energy security, nuclear technology innovation, and 12 achievement of climate goals.
13 GNF was pleased to see the DOE release the final version 14 of the HALEU deconversion RFP. And we are very interested in adding 15 HALEU deconversion at our site in Wilmington. And I believe it's an excellent 16 complement to the future Natrium fuel fabrication operation.
17 We have over 50 years of providing safe and reliable 18 commercial scale deconversion services to support the light water reactor 19 industry. And we're well positioned to support the advanced reactor and 20 advanced fuels market. Next slide, please. So while GE has partnered with 21 TerraPower for the development of the Natrium reactor, we also have our own 22 SMR which is the BWRX-300.
23 It is our 300-megawatt, 10th generation reactor, represents 24 our most competitive and fastest-to-market SMR. We've leveraged the
36 1 ESBWR, NRC approved design certification and proven BWR components 2 and fuel to bring the BWRX-300 to market quickly. We're very focused on 3 using proven technologies.
4 All of the components in the pressure vessel have been 5 already demonstrated in the fleet. The vessel is about the same size as the 6 KKM plant that just recently shut down in Switzerland after decades of safe 7 service. And most importantly, we have a proven nuclear fuel in the GNF2 8 product.
9 We've delivered more than 25,000 bundles to the fleet. It's 10 been utilized in more than 70 percent of the BWR fleet. Weve fabricated it 11 both in U.S. and in Europe, has an existing supply chain, and does not require 12 HALEU.
13 It can be operated with LEU up to 5 percent enriched fuel.
14 Qualified fuel is significant because it can take 10 years to qualify a new fuel 15 type. This does give us an advantage we feel, and we're currently targeting 16 to have the first reactor operational by 2029. Next slide, please.
17 From a commercial point of view, the BWRX-300 is being 18 well received. In Canada, OPG has signed a contract for the first reactor 19 along with the Ontario government. They've announced plans for a total of 20 four units at the Darlington site.
21 OPG along with TVA and Synthos Green Energy have 22 teamed up with GE Hitachi to develop the standard design of the BWRX-300.
23 And last week at COP 28, OPG announced their fuel contracts for the 24 upcoming Darlington reactor, further establishing that Darlington BWRX-300
37 1 as the lead SMR. And we continue to draw interest around the globe with 2 announcements from TVA, Sask Power, and multiple European nations.
3 We see the demand is out there for the X-300 and we're very 4 excited about it. Next slide, please. I would just like to acknowledge the DOE 5 for their continued partnership on the ATF program and also thank the NRC 6 for your time today. Thank you.
7 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Augi, very much for your 8 presentation. Next we'll hear from Nickolas Roth. He's a Senior Director for 9 Nuclear Materials Security at the Nuclear Threat Initiative. Mr. Roth?
10 MR. ROTH: Thank you. Good morning, Chair Hanson, 11 Commissioners Crowell, Wright, and Caputo. Thank you for providing me 12 with the opportunity to discuss safeguards and nonproliferation issues 13 associated with domestic uranium supply chain and international nuclear fuel 14 dependencies. To begin, the nonproliferation regime faces historically 15 significant headwinds.
16 The failure of last year's nonproliferation review conference 17 to achieve a consensus document ushers in the longest period in the history 18 of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty without a successful review. Adding to 19 the challenges, since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, relations between the 20 United States and Russia have been under enormous strain. Nuclear 21 weapons are at the forefront of policy in a way they have not been for decades.
22 Russia's occupation of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power 23 Plant raises new questions about the extent to which countries believe their 24 right to peaceful uses of nuclear technology are protected under the NPT.
38 1 And it goes without saying that a disaster in Ukraine at a nuclear facility would 2 have repercussions throughout the world. Beyond Ukraine, there are other 3 stresses on the nonproliferation regime, increasing stockpiles of plutonium, 4 interests in reprocessing and separation of plutonium in some countries as well 5 as increasing stocks in some countries of highly enriched uranium as well.
6 All of this provides context for last week's announcement at 7 the conference of the parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on 8 Climate Change 28, where more than 20 countries pledged to triple nuclear 9 energy capacity by 2050. Such a rapid and large-scale expansion of nuclear 10 power would be unprecedented in the history of nuclear technology 11 deployment. Not only would it mean a dramatic increase in the deployment 12 of reactors but could require a significant expansion and production of new 13 types of reactor fuel production.
14 The expansion of nuclear power has the potential to play an 15 important role in mitigating the risk posed by climate change. But any 16 expansion should be supported with effective measures to prevent the 17 proliferation of nuclear weapons and technologies capable of developing 18 nuclear weapons. Some of the new technologies currently being explored 19 could change many aspects of nuclear energy systems in ways relevant to 20 proliferation and to terrorism risks.
21 The implications for both need to be carefully considered 22 when evaluating the deployment of any new nuclear technology. I'd like to 23 focus on two important nonproliferation issues that should be considered when 24 evaluating new reactor designs and fuels. First, how might new reactor
39 1 designs and new fuel types impact state-based proliferation?
2 International safeguards are the foundation of the 3 nonproliferation regime, helping to detect the misuse or diversion of nuclear 4 material, and providing assurances that non-nuclear weapon states are 5 meeting their legal obligations for peaceful use under the NPT. Small modular 6 reactor designs currently being considered could potentially have important 7 nonproliferation advantages. Yet these new reactors do present some 8 challenges.
9 The deployment of a new fleet of advanced reactors will 10 require new approaches to safeguards than what currently exist today. As an 11 example, some new designs include reactor cores that would last ten years or 12 more or even for the lifetime of the reactor. Eliminating the need for shorter 13 refueling times has clear benefits but will also require new approaches to 14 ensure that a country does not divert material.
15 The development of new approaches will be required for 16 these designs to ensure that reactor cores exported to non-nuclear weapon 17 states are not opened. New seal technologies will likely need to be developed 18 and approved and potentially many different reactor seals will be needed for 19 different designs. Other designs being considered like pebble bed reactors 20 that require the tracking of thousands of objects will require entirely novel 21 approaches to safeguards.
22 Another important issue that will need to be resolved with 23 regard to the new small modular reactor designs is related to high-assay low-24 enriched uranium which is defined as Uranium-235 enriched greater than 5
40 1 percent and less than 20 percent. The Department of Energy projects that 2 more than 40 metric tons of HALEU will be needed to meet U.S. demands 3 before the end of the decade. From a nonproliferation perspective, a once-4 through approach using HALEU is certainly preferable to fuel cycles that use 5 weapon usable material.
6 But there are questions that will need to be answered with 7 regard to the use of HALEU like how the use of higher enriched uranium will 8 impact the ability of IAEA safeguards to engage in timely detection of diversion.
9 A recent National Academy study argues that a case can be made for reducing 10 the timeliness detection goal for HALEU from the current period of one year.
11 Developing new safeguard arrangements for new reactor designs and fuel 12 types will require planning that needs to begin as soon as possible.
13 Each reactor design will require a tailored approach to 14 safeguards based on its own unique features. The safeguard arrangements 15 for these designs will need to be agreed upon, tested, something that will take 16 time. Complicating the matter, the IAEA has limited experience addressing 17 issues related to safeguarding newly proposed reactor designs and has no 18 experience safeguarding newly designed fast reactors, little opportunity to 19 demonstrate safeguards at pebble bed reactors, limited experience with 20 safeguarding new molten salt fuel reactors, and limited experience with pyro 21 processing.
22 Any export of a new advanced reactor to a non-nuclear 23 weapons state should be dependent on the development and approval of an 24 effective safeguards approach. Once these new approaches are adopted, the
41 1 resources to expand the safeguards regime would also need to be identified.
2 If the preferred technology for such an expansion of nuclear power were newly 3 designed advanced small modular reactors that have been receiving much 4 attention in recent years, this would likely mean the deployment of hundreds 5 upon hundreds of small modular reactors around the world before 2050, most 6 of which would need to be safeguarded.
7 The IAEA will likely need significant additional financial and 8 personal resources to safeguard the number of reactors that are to be 9 expected. The next question, how might a new fuel impact terrorist risks? In 10 addition to safeguard implications, there's a need to look at what security 11 requirements will be needed for new HALEU fuels.
12 The deployment of new reactors with HALEU fuels should 13 be done so in a way that does not increase the risk of sabotage, theft, or 14 malicious acts. HALEU should be secured to a level consistent with the 15 potential terrorism and proliferation risks, threats that it could potentially pose.
16 While it may be difficult to build a -- prohibitively difficult to build a nuclear bomb 17 from HALEU, there's potentially greater risk than with traditional LEU.
18 This should mean that HALEU would likely require a new 19 security requirements beyond what has been adequate for traditional light 20 water reactors. That could mean the need for requirements -- this potentially 21 means the need for a requirement to protect against the design basis threat 22 and the potential for the requirement of installation of additional access 23 controls, security patrols, and communication at sites that require HALEU.
24 Another question is if HALEU does require more stringent security than
42 1 traditional LEU, what does this mean for exports?
2 Many of the countries with whom the United States might 3 engage in trade could have very difficult security -- more difficult security 4 environments than the United States. The NRC would need to determine 5 what security is needed for HALEU exports in order to allow to make a 6 determination that any exports or imports made under the general license will 7 not be inimical to the common defense and security. From a policy point of 8 view, it may also be necessary for the United States to negotiate within the 9 context of 123 agreements, specific pledges for higher levels of security than 10 have been previously required.
11 It also may be prudent for the United States to increase the 12 frequency with which it inspects security conditions around U.S. origin fuel.
13 While there are nonproliferation and security challenges associated with new 14 fuel chains, they are not insurmountable. It will, however, take time, 15 resources, and leadership to ensure that they are adequately addressed.
16 These are just some of the considerations that need to be 17 considered when thinking about nonproliferation implications of uranium 18 supply chains. There are others as well. Thank you for your time, and I look 19 forward to your questions.
20 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Roth. And we'll finish 21 up with Rob Lewis. He is the Deputy Director in our Office of Nuclear Material 22 Safety and Safeguards. Rob?
23 MR. LEWIS: Good morning. Thank you for including the 24 Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff on this panel and for the opportunity to
43 1 present our preparedness to support licensing and oversight of the 2 administration's short- and long-term domestic uranium fuel strategies. The 3 NRC staff has been entrusted with the important mission of protecting public 4 health and safety and the environmental for milling, conversion, enrichment, 5 and fuel fabrication for commercial uranium uses in the United States.
6 By conducting independent, clear, open, reliable, and 7 efficient regulation, the NRC staff affects the overall stability of the global 8 uranium supply chain and enables private sector and governmental strategies 9 related to uranium fuel cycle facilities. Our role as I see it has three aspects.
10 First, we want to ensure whatever is decided and proposed to us benefits from 11 a thorough safety and security review by our experts, second, to be prepared 12 when there are changes for our workload, and third, to frequently and clearly 13 communicate our regulatory expectations and anticipated timelines which 14 benefits everyone's planning. Next slide, please.
15 This slide illustrates external drivers. The images from top 16 to bottom on the left evoke the increasingly global nature of the uranium 17 market, the demand for new fuel types due to advanced reactors, and the 18 increasing interest in carbon neutral solutions like nuclear power to support 19 climate change -- to combat climate change, excuse me. On the right are all 20 the steps in the nuclear fuel cycle.
21 A working understanding of these external drivers and how 22 they affect each step in the fuel cycle is essential to effectively plan NRC's 23 work and skills needs. As you've heard from other panelists, the domestic 24 uranium fuel strategy must consider complex, evolving geopolitical shifts,
44 1 technological advancements, and changes to energy policies at the national 2 and local level. The administration has identified improving long-term 3 domestic enrichment capabilities for low-enriched uranium and for high-assay 4 low-enriched uranium as national security priorities and noted the risk of 5 current dependence on Russian sources of uranium. Next slide, please.
6 This slide covers how the NRC staff collects information to 7 keep our situational awareness high. Letters of intent, pre-application 8 engagement, and routine interactions with licensees and applicants are our 9 main tool to plan our work and to understand the external factors that they see 10 could impact the timing and scope of their submittals. I cannot underscore 11 the importance of meaningful, extensive pre-application engagement, 12 especially for new technologies.
13 Those help lead to high quality complete applications and an 14 efficient NRC review. My team always makes time for those important 15 interactions. At the very beginning of the fuel cycle uranium recovery, most 16 of the licensees are in agreement states as you heard from Kyle, like Wyoming, 17 where the state, not NRC, has regulatory responsibility.
18 To keep awareness of those plans, we work closely with the 19 states. Uranium in-situ recovery facilities are actively considering increasing 20 their production as we speak. Many of the licensing actions that will be 21 needed at several facilities are interconnected.
22 Enrichment of high-assay low-enriched uranium, for 23 example, supports several downstream activities and facilities with separate 24 but linked NRC licensing actions. And often these commercial activities are
45 1 existing alongside DOE activities that can supply some uranium -- some 2 enriched uranium for those facilities as well. Our ability to see and track the 3 big picture and identify which licensing actions are interconnected is an 4 important factor we count into our work prioritization.
5 We're developing some tools to track these permutations.
6 Regarding feed material, today's reactor fuel requirements can be met from 7 primary supplies such as uranium recovery facilities or secondary sources 8 such as stockpiles and downblending. These various secondary sources 9 make uranium unique among energy minerals.
10 Feed material can come not only from the USA but from 11 around the world and can enter the domestic fuel cycle at several steps.
12 Finally, the staff benefits greatly from our interactions with the Department of 13 Energy. We meet at all levels to keep awareness of DOE programs like the 14 high-assay low-enriched uranium availability program and the advanced 15 reactor demonstration program.
16 Both DOE and NRC also participate in a White House led 17 interagency policy committee on domestic uranium strategy along with several 18 other departments and agencies. While the NRC is an independent agency 19 and does not participate to further any administration's political priorities, the 20 NRC staff's participation in the interagency policy committee process does 21 provide regulatory and technical expertise to help inform those discussions.
22 At the international level, the staff notes as did Dr. Goff that in April 2023, there 23 was an agreement by Canada, France, Japan, and the United Kingdom and 24 USA to leverage their civilian nuclear power sectors to ensure a stable supply
46 1 of nuclear fuel for existing and future reactors.
2 We have worked with our DOE partners and Dr. Goff's 3 organization on some of those activities. And we've recently engaged 4 counterparts in some of those countries. Together, we use all the information 5 that this slide represents to make the best decision we can at any given 6 moment to manage our workload, workforce, and innovation risks.
7 Next slide, please, shows, I think, that we've been successful 8 to date. There has been increasing NRC licensing work related to domestic 9 uranium strategies. NRC has recently issued 11 major licensing actions and 10 2 authorizations, including the licensing of the high-assay low-enriched 11 uranium demonstration at Centrus' American Centrifuge Plant.
12 We've also issued several nuclear criticality methodology 13 amendments to support accident tolerant and advanced reactor fuels. We've 14 met the need by dates for all of these cases, all while performing thorough 15 and transparent, safety, security, and environmental reviews. We are 16 currently reviewing three major licensing actions, including the TRISO-X new 17 fuel facility review and an amendment to increase capacity at Centrus.
18 Over the next three years, we anticipate between 12 to 14 19 additional major licensing actions. Topics include, as you've already heard, 20 enrichments up to 20 weight percent for enrichment facilities and fabrication 21 facilities, and amendments for downblending high-enriched uranium. In 22 addition to these higher certainty future actions, we have had many informal 23 discussions with potential new enrichers, fuel fabricators, and reprocessors.
24 While the number of actions we've completed and the
47 1 number that we anticipate are similar, the future actions are more complex, 2 including completely new facility licenses. In these areas, we're putting extra 3 attention to ensure we have the critical technical skills and regulatory research 4 identified and in place when it's needed. Final slide, please. NRC's 5 enrichment, conversion, and fuel fabrication inspection activities are 6 centralized into NRC's Region II office in Atlanta, Georgia.
7 NMSS and Region II work closely with each other. And we 8 also ensure activities like fuel cycle construction inspection is coordinated with 9 NRC's parallel work on advanced reactor construction inspection. New facility 10 construction, new types of fuel, and inspections for Category 2 fuel facilities 11 are the current focus areas for us for inspection as those areas are the least 12 reflected in our current inspection guidance. NRC's regulations in 10 CFR 13 Part 70 covering accident analysis and mitigation was added in the early 2000s 14 after the currently operating fuel fabrication facilities had already been built for 15 many years.
16 That rule, nevertheless, gives us a good basis for applying 17 risk information, balancing regulations and guidance, and offers flexibility for a 18 wide range of new facility types. But there surely is lessons learned for 19 applying that regulation for the first time to a ground up new facility. Also, 20 before 2023, NRC had licensed only fuel facilities for Category 1 and Category 21 3 quantities of special nuclear material.
22 With several facilities intending to possess Category 2 23 quantities, the staff recently formed a working group to assess Category 2 core 24 inspection procedures for construction and for operations. That work is
48 1 ongoing. Let me end with the importance of communications and 2 transparency.
3 They increase public confidence in our competence for new 4 inspection activities and more broadly. We held public meetings on August 5 15th and November 8th to have initial discussions on fuel cycle construction 6 oversight, and additional meetings are being planned. We're also sharing the 7 draft inspection procedure language publicly to ensure a good dialogue.
8 And we have recently also been increasing our interactions 9 with Tribal nations. Historical uranium mining and milling practices have 10 caused contamination and other concerns. And Tribal nations bring valuable 11 perspectives to our decisions that we do not hear from elsewhere.
12 The NRC's Deputy Executive Director for Operations along 13 with my NMSS team went out west in August to meet with the Ute Mountain 14 Ute tribe and other Tribal nations. And I'm very honored today to share the 15 panel with Chairman Heart as I believe our recent interactions demonstrate our 16 commitment to ensuring our trust responsibilities, and engaging going forward 17 on a government-to-government level. Commissioners, thank you again for 18 the opportunity to speak at the meeting, for your time today, and I look forward 19 to responding to any questions you may have.
20 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you, Rob. Thank you, everyone, 21 for your remarks and your presentations this morning. We'll begin the 22 questions with Commissioner Caputo.
23 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Thank you all for being here 24 today. I want to give a special thank you to Chairman Heart for opening us
49 1 with a prayer and reminding us of the importance of public safety and 2 environmental protection and also to Mr. Roth for reminding us of the 3 importance of common defense and security. Friday marked the 70th 4 anniversary of President Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace speech where he 5 advocated the peaceful uses of nuclear technology for the benefit of humanity.
6 Now more than ever, U.S. international policymakers 7 recognize the need for significant growth in nuclear energy to meet the 8 objectives of both energy security and to mitigate climate change. As Mike 9 mentioned, agreements were signed at COP 28 among 22 countries to triple 10 nuclear generation and another agreement to invest 4 billion dollars, bolstering 11 the global supply chain for nuclear fuel. Here at home, DOE Secretary 12 Granholm toured TVA's Clinch River site and said, quote, we basically have to 13 build 100 Hoover Dams in nuclear. We've got to do it, and we've got to be 14 serious about it.
15 Similarly, Congress has shown strong bipartisan support for 16 legislation expediting nuclear energy development in order to meet energy 17 security needs, achieve climate objectives, and support foreign policy goals.
18 House Energy and Commerce Committee passed multiple pieces of legislation 19 last week, one similar to the Senate's ADVANCE Act and in particular with a 20 vote in committee of 47 to 2. Similarly, both chambers have advanced nuclear 21 fuel security legislation aimed at securing a robust domestic nuclear fuel supply 22 chain, both for LEU and high-assay LEU.
23 So again, remarkable bipartisan support for expanding 24 nuclear energy. And this is all in the last ten days. This reflects a powerful
50 1 sense of urgency at home and abroad.
2 This global momentum is far bigger than the NRC. But the 3 NRC is a gatekeeper of the nation's success in the is effort. As an agency, I 4 believe we need to conduct our work with a comparable sense of urgency.
5 Today, we heard about the administration's domestic nuclear 6 fuel policy and many company plans to develop or expand domestic nuclear 7 fuel capabilities. Many of the actions taken by DOE and the industry will 8 involve NRC licensing reviews. A year ago in a Commission meeting, I raised 9 questions about whether a strategic workforce planning was effective at 10 ensuring we have the necessary personnel to execute timely licensing reviews.
11 If we don't have enough people with the right skill sets, we 12 relegate our staff to struggling under a growing wave of incoming work.
13 Across the agency, we are continuing our staffing efforts, having hired 14 hundreds of new employees in the last two years. We also continue to be well 15 resourced as demonstrated by ending fiscal year 2023 with over 100 million 16 dollars left over.
17 However, out of our 929 million dollar budget, licensing 18 reviews were budgeted at only 73 million dollars. At a mere 8 percent of the 19 total budget, licensing must compete for management attention with the other 20 92 percent. Given the mounting sense of urgency outside the NRC and the 21 expectation of 12 to 14 fuel facility application submittals in the next few years, 22 I'm concerned about whether or not we are on track to have the skilled people 23 we need, trained, qualified, and prepared to execute predictable and timely 24 reviews.
51 1 So we've learned a lot this morning about the plans for what 2 is coming down the pike in terms of expansion of domestic nuclear fuel chain.
3 But I'm going to focus on our regulatory responsibilities since that is the role 4 that we play. So both the House and Senate versions of nuclear fuel security 5 legislation have language directing the NRC to, quote, prioritize and expedite 6 consideration, end quote, of the programs enshrined in the bills. So Rob, 7 what are you doing to prioritize licensing work over other activities and ensure 8 we will have the necessary skill sets to conduct expedited reviews?
9 MR. LEWIS: Thank you, Commissioner. We are 10 prioritizing our work. We have a priority scheme that we have applied which 11 includes things like is there a safety issue, obviously, safety or security issue 12 that work would get done at the top of the pile.
13 Also, when each application comes in, we sit down with the 14 applicant at the time of the acceptance review. And we talk about a mutually 15 agreeable schedule for that work and level of effort. We give a schedule and 16 a cost estimate for each application at that time. We hold ourselves to that.
17 Licensee need by dates which are a little bit different than 18 the agreed upon schedule in some cases are also factored into our priorities.
19 And then another issue would be, for example, as I mentioned in my talk, a 20 high-level -- a high-enriched -- a high-assay low-enriched uranium application 21 for enrichment that supports several downstream activities of various 22 fabricators or advanced reactor technologies. That would be in our priority 23 scheme put higher because it enables other things downstream.
24 In terms of the actual amount of licensing work, we have
52 1 done a lot of hiring in this division. And the division that does this work is 2 approximately 90 people. We hired 15 people into that group in the last year, 3 so it's a very high turnover.
4 Nine of those 15 were external hires. About 60 percent of 5 our work in that group is licensing. There's additional work related to 6 Homeland Security, inspection support, guidance development, supporting 7 research activities that makes up the balance, event response, another 8 category. And we had actually burned and executed to the budget in that 9 group in the past year.
10 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: So one of the things I think 11 we're often good at, at an agency is spending a lot of time focusing on meeting 12 and planning, perfecting rules, regulations, guidance ahead of time, et cetera.
13 When I look at the fuel for this, for fuel cycle facilities, only one-third of the 14 resources for this office are actually spent directly on licensing and inspection 15 work. So that means two-thirds of the office is supporting that one-third, right?
16 So that means that we're engaging in things like reconsideration of 17 construction inspection which the industry has questioned whether or not that's 18 really driven by a safety concern and the level of resources dedicated to that.
19 So can you ensure me that activities like that are not done at the expense of 20 actual license reviews, that you can ensure a proper balance between focusing 21 on what's actually mission direct and the work that should support mission 22 direct execution?
23 MR. LEWIS: Yeah, I can ensure that. And it's on top of our 24 list. And if we have troubles with that, we would engage the Commission in a
53 1 reprogramming space to make sure we had the resources for the key priorities.
2 So I would say as well if there is a national priority to license 3 a new capacity. So for example, if Russian uranium goes away, there's ability 4 to -- on the enrichment and the conversion facilities, I think those are kind of 5 the pinch points in supply chain in the situation where Russian uranium goes 6 away. The existing plants can increase their capacity some, but it may not be 7 enough to replace -- it may or may not be enough to replace.
8 So in the case where it was not enough, there would be a 9 national priority for a new capacity. The NRC staff would do our part to re-10 prioritize and put work in place. Bring people from other groups. We would 11 cancel developing guidance or some knowledge management activities or 12 something to make sure those cases got done.
13 But given it's a national priority, we need to be told, though, 14 that's a national priority. And we would treat the same for an evolving safety 15 issue or an event that happened. We would reprogram our resources to make 16 sure we got that work done.
17 And we would do add, shed, and defer work to ensure that 18 the other work gets tabled. The one other thing I would say, kind of a luxury 19 of this business line, there's only eight operating facilities, a quarter of which 20 are here today. And we sit down every six months, NRC and the industry, 21 with all eight represented and any new applicants are coming to that as well.
22 And we prioritize work together, and that's worked well.
23 And over the last several years, we've been able to prioritize our work with 24 them. I would say it's a -- I said it's a luxury for us to have that small group
54 1 and ability to set joint priorities which in the advanced reactor side, there's 2 many more applicants. It's harder to do.
3 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: All right. Thank you. Kyle, 4 it's good to see you again. I very much appreciated my visit out to Wyoming 5 and your hospitality in showing me the Nichols Ranch site. So thank you for 6 that.
7 The people of Wyoming are clearly very proud of their 8 contribution to our nation's energy security needs, and it really shows. So 9 thank you for that. Thank you also for the reminder on the need for health 10 physicists.
11 This is something I've raised with Dr. Goff's boss on a couple 12 different occasions. The need for health physicists is certainly something that 13 challenges the entire industry and certainly us here at the NRC. So thank you 14 for raising that.
15 So my recollection from early in my career was that the 16 existing nuclear fleet uses roughly 50 million pounds of uranium. It looks like 17 from your slides that Wyoming is capable of producing roughly half of that, 18 although not actively producing that much right now. So can you tell me, are 19 you confident that your agency is going to be able to handle the workload 20 associated with facilities resuming production and any potential new facilities 21 that might be slated for development?
22 MR. WENDTLAND: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Caputo, 23 thank you for that question. That's a good question.
24 Yes, we believe that we are staffed up in our agreements
55 1 stateside. And we do believe that we have the capacity and the expertise to 2 go ahead and move those licenses forward.
3 The one thing that we would say that might be helpful would 4 be in the NRC training classes for staff there's kind of limited spacing. There's 5 a high demand for those spaces. And getting our agreement state staff into 6 those spaces would be really helpful, or more offerings there.
7 And that goes back to that do we have the technical staff to 8 support that? If we have that training side addressed, I believe we do.
9 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Thank you.
10 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you, Commissioner Caputo.
11 Commissioner Crowell.
12 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
13 Thank you to all the panelists for being here today. There's 14 a lot of information presented, and 10 minutes isn't going to do it to get through 15 all of, all of what I think we each want to ask.
16 I think I'll start with going back to I believe, Rob, where you 17 and Commissioner Caputo left off. One takeaway I got from the whole panel 18 today is a related concern of mine about timing and how long things will take 19 to do once they are received and ready for review and action.
20 And this chicken and egg issue really comes back to top of 21 mind in terms of advanced reactors and the need for advanced and higher-22 enriched fuels.
23 On your Slide 4, Rob, you have some statistics about, you 24 know, licensing actions previously, ones in action now, and then it says, you
56 1 know, from 12 to 14 are expected between 2024 and 2026. If that 2 materializes, do you have the staff to manage that workload, and to do so in a 3 timely way that doesn't necessarily have to rely on a potential national priority 4 declaration of some sort?
5 MR. LEWIS: Yes is the, is the answer. And I'll let it lie.
6 We, we work with the licensees to understand the schedule 7 needs. We factor that into our combined integrated schedule.
8 For example, if there's, like, only a couple of nuclear 9 engineers or structural reviewers, and they have to work on several 10 applications, they become the pinch points in the schedule for our overall 11 reviews. And using our branch chiefs we, we work to manage those and add 12 people as needed.
13 If there was a priority issue, if there was a safety issue we 14 can call upon people that previously worked in that group to come back, things 15 like that. We could shed other work.
16 But, I do think that we're confident that going forward, 17 because of, again, the small size of the industry, the business line, that we can 18 manage all the work to meet the schedules. We've met them all to date, the 19 need-by dates.
20 And although there's increasing complexity going forward, 21 when we sit down to do the application, the acceptance review meeting, and 22 at that time we have an agreed-upon schedule and an agreed-upon estimate 23 of our resources that we'll spend on their review, that's the time when we'll 24 engage with the industry if we're not meeting their needs, and add resources
57 1 as we need.
2 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: I mean, the work that NRC is 3 going to do in this space is not only relevant to our domestic needs and 4 imperatives, but also will be a benchmark or a baseline for the international 5 community, you know, advanced on these issues as well.
6 But that might, you know, it gives me concern that if we end 7 up in a scenario where we're pushing things through under a national priorities 8 designation where you're, you know, not necessarily having as much 9 knowledge management and knowledge transfer in those kinds of baseline 10 information, how that impacts, potentially undermines the international 11 community in replicating best practices or things like that.
12 So, I hope that doesn't come to fruition.
13 Mr. Roth, your testimony was compelling to me particularly, 14 you know, given how you've highlighted the complexity and the seriousness of 15 some of the proliferation and safeguards issues. And, you know, you 16 mentioned that they are all manageable issues. But manageable issues need 17 to be managed. And we need to take into account how long, I mean how 18 much time and how many resources are needed to manage.
19 And so, I hope that the NRC is looking at this through a prism 20 of what really needs to be managed here and are we ready to do it?
21 So, appreciate that.
22 I'm going to switch gears here a little bit and go down the 23 other end here.
24 Chair Heart and Mr. Wendtland, both of you evoked
58 1 memories of my past life today that gave me chills at some level. I haven't 2 had to deal with mining, and reclamation, and sage grouse, and BLM and all 3 of those fun things since my former life as a state regulator. And, you know, 4 before coming to the NRC I was the head of the Nevada Department of 5 Conservation and Natural Resources, which included our environmental 6 Division of Environmental Protection. And so, Kyle, give my best to Todd 7 Parfitt who I worked with closely.
8 But, you know, I would say the same thing about Nevada 9 that, you know, I'd put their reclamation process up against anybody else's as 10 well. And part of the reason Nevada's has been a success over time is our, 11 you know, historical engagement on these issues, but also because we set up 12 a very strong state-based surety and, you know, bonding requirements that 13 were adequate.
14 And if you look at the work with, you know, what Nevada's 15 success in reclamation looked like before we had that more robust bonding 16 requirements, it doesn't look so good.
17 But as you look at the reclamation activity after, it looks great.
18 And, yes, new technologies and new ways of doing 19 reclamation lead to great outcomes, like the picture you showed up there. But 20 those outcomes are only, you only achieve those outcomes when you have 21 adequate financial assurance to make sure that the outcome can be achieved.
22 So, Mr. Wendtland, I guess my question is how are -- can 23 you talk a little bit about in Wyoming how you are approaching this issue to 24 make sure you avoid issues like the Ute have experienced in Colorado and
59 1 Utah?
2 MR. WENDTLAND: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner, 3 Wyoming has been a full cost bonding state since the Environmental Quality 4 Act was stood up. And basically, though, you would have to go back in our 5 history a little bit.
6 We had primacy of our coal program in 1982, so we spent a 7 lot of time on the financial assurance space in that.
8 And you also have to remember Wyoming is the number one 9 producer in coal, uranium, trona, bentonite. So, we have vast experience in 10 bonding across multiple industries.
11 We've also established in 1996 a guideline. It was called 12 Guideline 12. And I'd hate to say my age here, but I was one of the original 13 authors of that. Because we wanted to standardize how a reclamation bond 14 is calculated so that there's standard procedures about doing that.
15 That guideline's been updated annually, and revised and 16 tweaked every year since its creation. And it's now considered a benchmark 17 document. We actually have two provinces in Australia that are using parts 18 of our guideline. We have other states that use pieces of our guideline on 19 how to calculate, you know, equipment productivities, et cetera, to right down 20 to getting to a solid calculation on a bond.
21 So, that's the first piece. Do you calculate the bond 22 correctly?
23 Do you have high confidence in that number?
24 We do.
60 1 Secondly, we updated our bonding provisions in 2018.
2 Governor Mead at that time signed those into law. And we have a very robust 3 side of how we do the full cost bond and what we'll accept as far as surety.
4 We even go as far as using the Circular 570 out of Treasury for reinsurance 5 on our sureties.
6 We don't allow standby letters of credit, they have to be fully 7 funded letters of credit.
8 We could go on through the list, but we're very confident in 9 our ability to calculate the bond, how we hold the bond. And if we have to 10 collect a bond, we're confident in that process as well.
11 Hopefully, that answers your question on that.
12 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: Yep. I think it does. And 13 then, hopefully, you know, those funds will be put to good use at the 14 appropriate time.
15 So, you know, one of the other, when I was in shoes similar 16 to yours, one of my major frustrations in working with the Federal Government 17 was, you know, a lot of the federalism worked well when you were doing a one-18 off, oftentimes when you were doing a one-off engagement with a single 19 federal agency.
20 But then when you have multiple federal agencies involved 21 with overlapping jurisdictions, or complementary jurisdictions, having those, 22 having multiple federal agencies talk to each other in a constructive and timely 23 way was a huge point of frustration.
24 So, can you take a minute just to talk a little bit more about
61 1 your point you highlighted about NRC and EPA coordination and how that can 2 be improved?
3 MR. WENDTLAND: Commissioner -- Mr. Chairman and 4 Commissioner, I think the best example of that is, you know, when we talk 5 about, like, the CERCLA 108(b) that I mentioned in my presentation and, you 6 know, I think that, you know, EPA's role needs to be clear, NRC's role needs 7 to be clear. And I know that's been a discussion with the Commission for a 8 long time.
9 And some rulings on that would be helpful. And I think that 10 the EPA is, it continues to have its tentacles reach beyond probably its lane in 11 a lot of cases. The aquifer exemptions, again, that's going to be key. If you 12 want to increase production in our licensed capacities, you know, those aquifer 13 exemptions are key because we have to be able to do those to get to that 14 resource and that ore. And doing those timely is a big tie-in here.
15 So, those are frustrations in those overlaps. And I think 16 where those lines are blurred, some clarity there between the two agencies 17 would be extremely helpful.
18 And I do have to add that I always am a little uncomfortable, 19 if I seem a little nervous, because these meetings are always a long way from 20 an 8th graduating class in rural Wyoming with 22 kids in it.
21 So, I appreciate your comments from Nevada as well.
22 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: Thank you. I'm out of time, 23 but if I had more, I have questions for all of you.
24 Thank you, Mr. Chair.
62 1 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you, Commissioner Crowell. And, 2 again, thanks, everybody, for being here today. I think the discussion has 3 been, has been really robust.
4 Chairman Heart, I wanted to thank you in particular, because 5 I think as we talk about, and we've really covered the gamut today, right, we've 6 covered global changes, you know, wars halfway around the world, et cetera.
7 And I think your remarks, Mr. Chairman, really helped us remember that there 8 are communities where a lot of these issues really start, and that's it incumbent 9 on us as regulators, along with our state partners, to help protect those 10 communities and the environment.
11 But I really wanted to give you an opportunity to comment on 12 some of the other presentations that you've heard here today. And I might 13 have a couple of other questions as well.
14 CHAIRMAN HEART: Thank you, Chair, and Commissioners.
15 I really appreciate it.
16 As I look around the table, everybody is knowledgeable 17 about the nuclear field and energy, and what we're facing today through 18 climate change. It's here. We need to address it.
19 I agree. I wholeheartedly agree on that that weve only 20 done this to ourselves, through the fossils fuels and what happened to them, 21 but now we have to change, to modify, to make things better.
22 But two sides that are not having a negative impact to people 23 around you, I look at this whole room, everybody has children, or 24 grandchildren, or a relative. And if they're drinking water that smells like sulfur
63 1 or looks greyish, then you should feel that empathy in what's going on and 2 what we're building today. That's what my people are seeing today in White 3 Mesa.
4 I have to go to the Department of USDA to get money, $2 5 million, to put in a treatment facility in White Mesa. We did it, state-of-the-art 6 facility. But once you get it and you get that water coming out of the faucet, it 7 still smells like sulfur.
8 Our infrastructure, glad that we've got the infrastructure bill 9 that past. I need to replace all of it.
10 Yes, as we start to look at how things are moving into the 11 future, and with bipartisan support from the Congress, and 22 countries looking 12 at the nuclear industry, then really look at where we put these sites. Energy 13 Fuels in Wyoming, 22 million pounds of yellow cake. I don't know what their 14 projection is for White Mesa and what they're planning to do.
15 Russia is probably bringing in a lot of the uranium ore that 16 you guys have utilized today in these facilities.
17 Things are really challenging for each and every one of us.
18 All I ask is for accountability.
19 I had one of our cells, 4B, had no liquid cover. That's how 20 we got a hold of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission because there were 21 about 40 percent liquid cover over that site, over that cell. That's how they 22 stepped in and said, well, we're going to go out there and take a look.
23 Thank you, Mr. Lewis, for coming out and really looking at 24 that in that way. Really appreciate that.
64 1 As we start to look at HALEU, I don't know what that is. I'm 2 just a person that was elected to be the Chairman for the Tribe to advocate for 3 them in the best interests of the youngest to the oldest, and to the future for 4 the children that are not here yet.
5 We don't want to be moved off our aboriginal lands. We've 6 been moved around too much as Tribes across this country. They've taken a 7 lot away from us. And we end up on these small reservations, and we end up 8 having the challenges to face what we're put on.
9 And we want to reach out. We want to partner. We want 10 to work together. If that's the true future that we're moving toward, then let us 11 come to the table.
12 Yes, we might not agree. We might choose to disagree.
13 But at least put us here, that I know in my heart that I can take back to my 14 people and say this is the direction the United States is going, or the world.
15 But work with us, too. Work with us to say, yes, we'll hold everybody 16 accountable.
17 I heard a couple times that Nuclear Regulatory Commission 18 is a standalone. I deal with 40 different departments, if I say, all right, 19 departments, if you're going to be standalone, is that a silo that's going to stay 20 on its own? Or should I break the silo down and say, I want to work with EPA?
21 I want to work with Department of Energy. I want to work with USDA. I want 22 to work with whatever department there is under the Federal Government.
23 We can't say I'm a silo by myself, because that's only working 24 toward just their goals and objectives. I need to be able to look at it across
65 1 the board and say, how can we work together to make things better?
2 Yes, we're working toward a better future. Yes, we're 3 working toward looking at what global warming has happened to us. I have 4 574 Tribes last week meeting with the President. And a good example is the 5 Transportation Department. And I'm just putting this out as an example.
6 To fly from Alaska costs about $600 to $700 to Washington, 7 D.C., Dulles. Within the state of Alaska, to move from one village to another 8 is $1,200 to $1,500, just within their state.
9 Where is the United States Government really helping that?
10 On law enforcement, I have 600,000 acres of land and I only 11 have four officers to cover the whole reservation.
12 I have a tribe in South Dakota, Sioux Tribe, has only five 13 officers for over a million acres.
14 Where is our collaboration? Where is our communication?
15 If we're all under the United States Government and we're all citizens of the 16 United States, then feel that empathy. Feel that empathy. Step into my 17 shoes. Step in the shoes of my people so that you know where we're heading 18 to, that we may both understand.
19 If that's a true area that we're moving forward to, nuclear, 20 because the hydropower plants are going away because of lack of water on 21 the western side of the United States and the Colorado River Basin, then where 22 do we actually move toward? Global warming is here, everyone. We just 23 need to be able to work together.
24 I appreciate all the panelists, and I appreciate the
66 1 Commission, Chairman. Appreciate you just sitting down with me and talking 2 to me and giving me that opportunity to pray for all of us, because that's what 3 it's about: humanity.
4 Here to here. The road of life is not measured in miles. It's 5 not measured in any measurement, but only from here to here, to understand 6 where you're going in life. Then back to here, and then back out to here, so 7 that people truly understand who we are and where we're at. Whether you're 8 Tribal nations, citizens of a state, citizens of a country, anywhere around this 9 world, we have to have that empathy to see where we're heading.
10 So, with that, Chairman, Commissioners, I really appreciate 11 the opportunity today. It was an honor.
12 Thank you.
13 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you again, Chairman Heart. We 14 really appreciate your being here.
15 And I think your comments about the government-to-16 government relationship that is so important between the United States 17 Government and our Tribal partners, as you say, it's the government to 18 government, not government to governments.
19 So, even though the NRC might be an independent agency, 20 we are still an arm of the Federal Government. And I think we have a saying 21 here at the agency that we're independent but we're not isolated.
22 And I think it's incumbent on us, and I hope the staff 23 continues to take it to heart, that we're connected to our interagency partners 24 and in order to make easier the way of those interactions with our Tribal
67 1 partners going forward.
2 So, thank you again.
3 Just switching gears here in the last couple of minutes that I 4 have left.
5 Mr. Schnoebelen, I wanted to ask about you had Phase 1, 6 which is a 15 percent increase, I think, to the URENCO facility in New Mexico 7 to 700,000 SWU.
8 And then you had Phase 2, which was 4.5.
9 And I wasn't clear -- and this is going to be partly a question 10 for Dr. Goff as well -- I wasn't clear on kind of what the key, you know, we were 11 talking about kind of key indicators or key kind of market signals that were 12 going to be needed for us to deploy resources, I wasn't sure what the -- if, if 13 Phase 2 was firm, or if you were kind of waiting on contracts.
14 Or can you kind of talk about the status of that a little bit?
15 MR. SCHNOEBELEN: Sure. Happy to. And thank you 16 for the question, Chair.
17 So, the first incremental expansion that will occur at 18 URENCO USA is going to be 700,000 SWU. This is going to be constituted 19 of centrifuges that will go into existing buildings. So, it is facilitated by, you 20 know, the existence of those buildings already, and accelerates the timing that 21 we could deploy that additional capacity.
22 The reason that we have made the final investment decision 23 for that capacity is the amount of commercial activity that we've engaged with 24 U.S. utilities in.
68 1 I think the next phase of expansion of low enriched uranium 2 production would be to build another building out, out at UUSA. We have 3 three such buildings on site right now. A fourth building would be capable of 4 hosting another 2.1 million SWU of capacity.
5 We will make a final investment decision on that based on 6 the amount of backlog that we have with customers for delivery of the output 7 of that, of that equipment.
8 It's approximately a $2 billion investment. It's not to be 9 taken lightly. So, we, we need some certainty on the revenue stream that's 10 going to be generated by such an investment.
11 But the entire site is licensed currently for 10 million SWU.
12 So, we can continue to incrementally expand, provided that we have the 13 commercial support for those expansions.
14 Does that answer?
15 CHAIR HANSON: Yeah, it does. Based on those kind of 16 firm contracts; right? I think, I think it was Commissioner Crowell who 17 broached the phrase that I love, the chicken and egg. Somebody mentioned 18 chicken and egg around here. Maybe it was, yeah, Brad or Rob. It was 19 someplace on that end of the table.
20 But I guess I'm, I guess my next kind of question would be 21 then is, is there -- is that part of the, is solving in a way that financial part of the 22 chicken and egg problem part of the strategy then that's being developed by 23 DOE?
24 DR. GOFF: Yes.
69 1 You know, when we -- well, after Russia's invasion of 2 Ukraine, when we --
3 CHAIR HANSON: Yes.
4 DR. GOFF: -- started talking and recognized we couldn't 5 continue to subsidize Russia by buying this. And there's a significant gap in 6 the western world if Russia's materials not there. We had a lot of discussions 7 with industry and our colleagues from URENCO and all.
8 And, yeah, and the message we heard was, you know, we 9 need certainty of contracts, and we needed to know Russia is not going to 10 come back into the market as well.
11 So, that's why the strategy that we put forth and the 12 President's supplement included was we need a ban on Russian material.
13 And we, you know, we, the Department of Energy, the Government, can be 14 that first movers to ensure long-term contracts.
15 So, that's been our approach with both HALEU and 16 enrichment capacity for LEU. We're willing to say we will be the first movers 17 for new capacity. So, we'll put in contracts that are long-term contracts from 18 the Government to buy material, to provide a surety that there's contracts out 19 there.
20 Now, in doing that we've got to make sure we're balancing 21 as well because, obviously, utilities, we want the utilities to be buying that new 22 capacity. So, we want to make sure that we're not working utilities out, but 23 that capacity is first for the utilities and all is well.
24 But we can be that first mover, pay that first cost of being the
70 1 first mover to put those contracts in place. So, yes, to help provide that surety 2 of contracts out there.
3 MR. SCHNOEBELEN: And if I could just add. You know, 4 URENCO sees a bit of a difference between the existing market for low 5 enriched uranium, and I'll include up to 10 percent material in our conversation 6 here.
7 There's a very mature market, global market for that, for that 8 kind of fuel production with existing technologies, existing sites, existing users.
9 So, to come to a decision to make final investment decisions in new facilities 10 it's strictly a matter of business. It's just a matter of placing the contracts at 11 the right prices for the right terms.
12 We do see a bit of a difference with the high assay LEU.
13 And by that I'm defining up to 20 percent. There is no functioning market for 14 high assay LEU. And this is where we really see a role for government in 15 establishing a market and then transitioning to a well-functioning market once 16 there is long-term demand and many reactors are on the ground that require 17 fuel in the long term.
18 CHAIR HANSON: Great. Yeah. No, thank you, you 19 touched on the final point I think about HALEU is very well taken. So, thank 20 you both very, very much.
21 With that, I'll hand it over to Commissioner Wright.
22 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Thank you, Chair.
23 Good morning. Thank you for your presentations. And 24 before I get started I do want to associate and echo the opening comments
71 1 today of Commissioner Caputo thanking Chairman Heart for your opening 2 prayer. That was very special. Thank you so much.
3 And also to Mr. Roth for the recognition of the importance of 4 the whole non-proliferation issue. And also, I think, the recognition that there 5 are some technologies that are coming that will help possibly play a role in that 6 space to help address that problem, that concern.
7 So, thank you for that.
8 You know, this meeting comes at a very important time for 9 our country. And as we've heard this morning, how we move forward is going 10 to be important, too, you know, especially since Russia's illegal invasion of 11 Ukraine.
12 And it called into question many of our long-held 13 assumptions about nuclear safety, security, and safeguards, and caused all of 14 us, both domestically and internationally, to pause and reassess our 15 partnerships, you know, our supply chains, our internal needs, our resource 16 needs, and our available resources.
17 And, Kirk, as you mentioned this morning, there has been a 18 demand worldwide for non-Russian uranium, including HALEU fuel. And we 19 can't afford to rely on Russia for HALEU or anything. Right? That's obvious.
20 And having a reliable supply of domestically produced 21 HALEU is important for moving forward with many advanced reactors.
22 Now, I also want to note that I understand the industry is in 23 a tough position here. Back to that chicken and egg problem that you all have 24 spoken about here this morning. The advanced reactors need to know that
72 1 the HALEU is going to be there when they, you know, when they're ready and 2 they need it. And you, you all making the fuel need to know that there's going 3 to be a long-term commitment to have a place for the fuel to go.
4 So, I really appreciate the work that DOE is doing here to 5 help bridge this gap a little bit. And I want to acknowledge that work here 6 today, Mike.
7 In going into these and being last at these meetings there's 8 a lot of ask and answered stuff already. And then basically I'm going to play 9 clean-up a little bit and give you maybe another opportunity to either add or 10 maybe clarify something, too.
11 So, Dr. Goff, one, it's good to see you again. We, you know, 12 we don't see much of each other inside the United States, but outside we see 13 each other a good bit. And it's been fun and important, too.
14 You know, as I mentioned in my remarks, I think that the 15 work that the Department is doing to assist the HALEU supply is the right way 16 to go. But, you spoke a second ago about kind of what you, how you envision 17 the work going. And Kirk also kind of added to that.
18 So, is there anything more that you need to add or can tell 19 us, or do you need to clarify or expand on anything about how you envision 20 that the work that you're doing now is going to impact the long-term fuel 21 supply?
22 DR. GOFF: I'll speak to HALEU about that.
23 So, yes, we do want to make sure we have an assured 24 supply. But we do have some near-term needs. So, everybody needs to
73 1 know that.
2 Within the, you know, there's not a commercial source right 3 now, so we, within the Department, have worked with our colleagues, 4 especially in the National Nuclear Security Agency, to really start identifying 5 how much material we have as far as existing material.
6 So, we've sort of started developing that list of materials.
7 And we are now working to develop a methodology that we hope to be able to 8 release fairly soon on starting to decide how we start allocating that material.
9 Because we realized we don't have enough material for everyone that's 10 deploying right now, until we get that commercial source out there.
11 So, our folks in our fuel cycle, director Jon Carmack, our 12 deputy assistant secretary for the fuel cycle here, he's been tasked to come up 13 with that methodology so that the vendors can start coming to us -- and they 14 already have -- and start providing us here's our need, here's what we need 15 and when we need it. And then we have a methodology to start allocating that 16 to provide the surety on when those people could have that material.
17 So, we're doing that internally as well until we can get that 18 commercial source out there. Which, again, that commercial source I think is 19 very critical to enable to continue to build out as well.
20 So, that's why we're real happy we'll hopefully have that RFP 21 for the initial $500 million for us to start buying material. And, hopefully, with 22 the President's supplement we'll have additional material to provide a little bit 23 more long-term certainty on the buying of that HALEU material.
24 But, yes, it's very critical for us to have, to start allocating
74 1 material to support those demonstration projects, like the Kairos reactor that 2 you approved earlier, but also the X-energy one, and the TerraPower as well, 3 and started defining what materials can go where in the very near future here, 4 so.
5 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Thank you so much.
6 Kyle, good morning. I want to again associate my 7 appreciation and associate with your comments on Commissioner Caputo's 8 comments on the HPs. It's critical. And everywhere I've gone, I guess, in the 9 last year, year-and-a-half, that has been like a -- we're, we're beating that drum 10 everywhere we can to try to do what needs to be done to try to improve that 11 pipeline.
12 So, you know, thank you for your recognition of that.
13 And if you heard a scream a while ago, it was probably my 14 admin from upstairs when you said come see us. Because we're doing 15 schedule right now, so you have added a little complexity to it. So, we're going 16 to come see you. So, thank you. Thank you for the offer.
17 You know, you mentioned that there's challenges with the 18 supply chain; right? And that can make it difficult to ramp up production.
19 Talk to me a little bit more about this. Is the supply chain for 20 the yellow cake? Or are you talking about supply chain issues for plant 21 equipment and things like that?
22 Or then maybe more importantly, what can be done about it?
23 MR. WENDTLAND: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, thank 24 you for that question.
75 1 And, yeah, we are looking forward to you coming and seeing 2 us by the way.
3 And it is plant equipment. I mean it's there's no, there's no 4 getting around it. I don't think it's unique to Wyoming where we're seeing plant 5 equipment, or specifically specialty type equipment in that supply chain, 6 difficult to get at times, or difficult to get to your site or location.
7 But along with that is labor. You know, Wyoming sites are 8 a lot like Nevada's. We're remote. And, you know, getting people that are 9 willing to come out and work at those more remote sites, that's a unique labor 10 pool. So, that is part of that whole supply chain.
11 As far as what we can do, you know, on the mechanical side 12 of it or plant equipment side of it, I think that's a tough one. I'm not sure I'm 13 really prepared to answer that as, you know, can we produce those, that 14 equipment domestically? Can we source a better or more reliable chain of 15 that equipment? That's, I think that's a little out of my wheelhouse.
16 On the labor side, I think longer term stability in the 17 marketplace, we were just talking about, you know, having stability in 18 purchasing, like HALEU. You know, do we have a long-term stability in 19 purchasing the base supply of uranium?
20 Do we have longer-term contracts for when we bring those 21 people into the industry, can we then hang onto them for that longer, make that 22 longer period of time and make that commitment to those employees?
23 I think that would be helpful.
24 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: And I guess underlying all that
76 1 is market signals, price; right?
2 MR. WENDTLAND: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Wright, 3 yeah, price is it. You know, I mean I didn't go into that for obvious reasons 4 today. But, you know, a stable price and a high enough price for the domestic 5 supply is key.
6 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Right. Okay.
7 MR. WENDTLAND: And I'm seeing nods around the table, 8 so.
9 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Right. Okay, thank you.
10 Thank you.
11 And Chairman Heart, you've got four commissioners sitting 12 here today who are very interested, very concerned about legacy waste, 13 especially on tribal lands. And we are very cognizant of the issue. And we're 14 trying to do everything we can to help promote development of some of these 15 technologies that might address some of the cleanup.
16 And I don't know who those people are, you know, because 17 there's probably a number of them out there. There's a few we've heard of.
18 But just know that we are paying attention to that, and that's something that we 19 are committed to try to do something to help.
20 CHAIRMAN HEART: Thank you, Chair and Commissioners.
21 I have a packet that we each handed out, I have my staff 22 member here Scott Clow, the Director of Environmental Department, one 23 picture that shows a grader going across the top of a cultural site. That's 24 something that we need to protect and take care of when these cultural sites,
77 1 as I mentioned in my speech, is something very important to not forget where 2 our people come from, and to protect them the best we can. Not to have a 3 grader go across a cemetery and say, oh, we forgot about it. We're going to 4 build something on top of it based on economic development.
5 So, really trying to protect it and take care of it based on 6 legislation that's been taking care of the cultural sites and protect them in that 7 way.
8 Just so you're aware, if you have any questions, Scott Clow 9 will be here for the next day to meet any of you if you have any other questions.
10 Appreciate it.
11 Thank you, Chair, Commissioners.
12 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Thank you.
13 And very quickly, Rich, I want to come to you in the short 14 time I have left here.
15 You know, you talked about the work being done on the 16 Natrium design and the ARDP, and you showed the NRC has a lot of touch 17 points with the fuel for the Natrium design, from construction to shipping, and 18 from fabrication to transportation.
19 Do you feel like you're getting consistent and cohesive 20 support from the NRC across these different areas?
21 MR. AUGI: Yes, we have.
22 And as I've said, we've kept the engagement frequent, 23 especially when we've had delays because of the HALEU availability and the 24 impact that that's had to the overall program.
78 1 So, we've had very good relationships, very good 2 interactions with the NRC across, because we are working across from the 3 facility licensing to new container for shipping.
4 So, yeah, there's, there's a lot of activities that are going on.
5 And we do appreciate the NRC's working with us.
6 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Thank you so much.
7 Good.
8 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you, Commissioner Wright.
9 Well, that brings us to the end of our time together.
10 Mr. Roth, please dont feel neglected. I appreciated your 11 discussion and your presentation very, very much.
12 I want to appreciate particularly Chairman Heart, and Mr.
13 Wendtland, and Mr. Schnoebelen, the great distance that you all came to be 14 here today. And I wish everyone safe travels and healthy and happy holidays 15 and New Year.
16 I want to thank my colleagues for their thoughtful comments 17 and remarks today as well.
18 And with that, we're adjourned.
19 (Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.)