[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 116 (Thursday, July 11, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H5594-H5724]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020
[...]
Amendment No. 35 Offered by Langevin
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 35
printed in part B of House Report 116-143.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of subtitle B of title XXXI, add the following
new section:
SEC. 31__. FUNDING FOR LOW-ENRICHED URANIUM RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT.
(a) Increase.--Notwithstanding the amounts set forth in the
funding tables in division D, the amount authorized to be
appropriated by this title for defense nuclear
nonproliferation, as specified in the corresponding funding
table in section 4701, for low-enriched uranium research and
development is hereby increased by $20,000,000.
(b) Offset.--Notwithstanding the amounts set forth in the
funding tables in division D, the amount authorized to be
appropriated by this title for atomic energy defense
activities, as specified in the corresponding funding table
in section 4701, for Federal salaries and expenses is hereby
reduced by $20,000,000.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 476, the gentleman
from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment funds ongoing efforts to assess the
viability of using low-enriched uranium fuel in naval reactors,
including those in aircraft carriers and submarines, something this
Congress has supported for many years now.
The United States has demonstrated strong leadership to minimize, and
wherever possible all but eliminate, the use of highly enriched uranium
for civilian purposes. Doing so reduces the risk of nuclear terrorism
and makes clear that the accumulation of HEU is solely for nuclear
weapons purposes, undercutting any nation's argument that they need it
for anything else.
Using low-enriched uranium, or LEU, in naval reactor fuel can bring
significant national security benefits with respect to nuclear
nonproliferation, lower security costs, and put naval reactor research
and development at the cutting edge of science. Pursuing the
development of LEU fuel offers the opportunity to achieve
transformational progress on fuel technology.
Additionally, unless an alternative using low-enriched uranium fuel
is developed in the coming decades, the United States will have to
resume production of bomb-grade uranium for the first time since 1992,
ultimately undermining U.S. nonproliferation efforts.
Using LEU for naval reactors is not a pipe dream. France's nuclear
Navy already has converted from using HEU to using LEU fuel for its
vessels. We must evaluate the feasibility of a similar transition for
the U.S. Navy and take into account the potential benefits to the U.S.
and international security of setting a norm of using LEU instead of
nuclear bomb-grade material.
{time} 1600
As America confronts the threat of nuclear terrorism and as countries
continue to enrich uranium for naval purposes, the imperative to reduce
the use of HEU will become increasingly important over the next several
decades.
As such, as I said, Congress has sought to advance these efforts in a
bipartisan, bicameral way over the last several years by evaluating the
potential of utilizing LEU fuel in reactors for U.S. Navy aircraft
carriers and submarines.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H5623]]
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chair, I would like to point out that there have
been multiple studies done on this.
In 2014, the Department of Defense and the Department of the Navy
pointed out the negative impacts that low-enriched uranium would have
on the capability of the Navy.
In 2016, another report, and I remind the folks here in the Chamber
that this report was specific about saying the negative impacts that
low-enriched uranium will have on the capability of our United States
Navy.
In 2018, letters from both the Director of Naval Reactors, Admiral
Caldwell, and from the Secretary of the Navy, Richard Spencer, all
stated the negative impact that low-enriched uranium would have on the
capability of the Navy.
We look, too, at the dollars that are being proposed to offset this.
The $20 million reduction in the National Nuclear Security
Administration would reduce salaries in that area by 15 percent.
According to NNSA, this reduction would likely require a reduction in
force to achieve this staffing level. They will let people go if this
money is transferred to another study, a study that has been done
multiple times in the past with the same outcomes, that this would have
a harmful effect on the National Nuclear Security Administration.
They also say that the amendment would negate recently implemented
improvements in oversight and accountability and slow down the
execution of critical nuclear security and safety programs.
It would also affect weapons modernization and nuclear
nonproliferation efforts. The same thing the gentleman from Rhode
Island said that this bill is meant to address, it actually takes money
away from the efforts that NNSA is putting forward.
It also would inhibit physical security, cybersecurity, and
environmental remediation programs.
Not only has this study been done multiple times, but it would take
money away from the critical elements that are being proposed that this
study would seek to find out. Again, the conclusions have already been
reached. The impact of LEU on the Nation's naval capability has already
been identified.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chair, let me say that we can't fear the future. We
must invest in research and development.
I want to point out that the then-chair, the Naval Reactors Director,
Admiral Richardson, testified before the House Armed Services
Committee. He said, with current technology, ``the potential exists
that we could develop an advanced fuel system that might increase
uranium loading and make low-enriched uranium possible while still
meeting some very rigorous performance requirements for naval reactors
on nuclear-powered warships.''
To address the concerns of my colleague, I want to mention that this
House has already included $20 million for this research in the Energy
and Water appropriations package that passed the House on June 19,
which also included a $15 million increase to NNSA Federal salaries and
expenses over fiscal year 2019.
These spending levels have already been set by the House. This
amendment simply matches the authorization level with the House-passed
appropriations level.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chair, I remind the gentleman from Rhode Island that
this is the National Defense Authorization Act. It is not another
appropriations bill. This is specific to the use of these dollars here
for these purposes specifically.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs.
Luria).
Mrs. LURIA. Mr. Chair, as a Navy veteran, I believe in focusing our
limited resources toward efforts that will make our forces more
effective, reliable, and efficient.
I oppose this amendment that would decrease the National Nuclear
Security Administration's budget by $20 million and allocate the money
to a program to develop low-enriched uranium fuel for submarines and
aircraft carriers.
Drawing on my 20-year Navy experience in the supervision and
operation of naval nuclear propulsion systems, it makes little sense to
divert these resources. Our highly enriched uranium reactor design has
successfully powered our submarine fleet, delivering a critical leg of
our nuclear deterrent and our aircraft carriers, providing our unique
sustained forward presence capability for nearly seven decades. There
is no need for this amendment.
Top Navy leadership and the Secretary of Energy clearly state that a
low-enriched uranium design for naval nuclear propulsion ``would result
in a reactor design that is inherently less capable, more expensive,
and unlikely to support current life-of-ship submarine reactors.''
Meanwhile, Admiral James Caldwell, Director of the Naval Nuclear
Propulsion Program, says that investing in LEU would negatively impact
reactor endurance, reactor size, and ship costs, and its success is
``not assured.''
I have no doubt that we could eventually develop a reactor design
using LEU, but would it continue to meet our operational and strategic
defense needs? No. It would make our platforms inherently less capable,
less operationally available, and more expensive to operate. In turn,
it would require more of these assets to accomplish the same
objectives.
If the genesis behind this amendment is to advance issues of
nonproliferation, it makes little sense to draw down the budget of the
very agency that is tasked with the security of nuclear weapons and
nuclear fuel.
I will conclude as I began. We need to commit our limited resources
where they are most efficiently used to support our operational forces
and our national defense. These dollars are best spent on the National
Nuclear Security Administration.
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time remains on both
sides.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Rhode Island has 2 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Virginia has 45 seconds remaining.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the
amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Foster), who is the House's only nuclear physicist.
Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chair, I rise today as the only Ph.D. physicist in the U.S.
Congress. During my career, I have designed and led the construction of
giant particle accelerators and other nuclear equipment, led high-risk
and successful R&D programs, and designed equipment using classified
neutron transport codes.
Because of its importance to national security and nuclear
nonproliferation, I have studied at length the question of minimizing
the use of highly enriched uranium in naval propulsion reactors. I
received numerous individual and highly technical classified briefings,
examined reactor core specifications, and visited the naval nuclear
fuel fabrication facility in Virginia.
I believe that continuing the research supported by this amendment is
worth pursuing for the reasons given by my colleague.
Several factors must be dealt with in determining the practicality of
utilizing LEU in naval propulsion reactors, including the total energy
and power deliverable by the core, the volume of the reactor, the
enrichment level of the fuel, reactivity limits, and the heat transfer
area required for a given power level.
It is complicated, but a 2016 report by the JASON scientific advisory
board concluded that using an optimized LEU design instead of the
existing HEU design could result in a significantly more compact core.
This would be a true operational advantage and one that we should not
give up by abandoning this R&D program that has been going on for
years.
I close by pointing out that I am not alone in this. This is not only
about optimizing submarine performance. As
[[Page H5624]]
pointed out by 35 Nobel Prize-winning scientists, it is crucial for
nonproliferation that we set a good example for the rest of the world
and not use weapons-grade uranium for applications where it is not
required. Countries like France and others do not use weapons-grade
uranium in their submarines and in carriers. We should set an example
and do likewise.
This R&D program will enable that possibility by continuing it for
the next decade.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I rise today as the only PhD Physicist in Congress. During
my career I have design and led the construction of giant particle
accelerators and other nuclear equipment, led high-risk and successful
R and D programs, and designed equipment using classified neutron
transport codes.
Because of its importance to National Security and Nuclear
NonProliferation, I have studied at length the question of minimizing
the use of HEU in our naval propulsion reactors.
I received numerous individual and highly technical classified
briefings, examined reactor core specifications, and visited the naval
nuclear fuel fabrication facility in Virginia.
I believe that the research supported by this amendment is worth
pursuing, for the reasons given by my colleague.
The reason is simple, that HEU is one of the most dangerous
substances known to man, because it can be used to make a simple, gun-
type design nuclear bomb with a multi-kiloton yield.
This is not true of LEU--low-enriched, non-weapons grade uranium.
This distinction is important for the enforcement of Nuclear
Nonproliferation. Since the detection of even minute amounts of HEU can
and has been used as clear evidence of a weapons program in a nation
that has allegedly committed to only peaceful uses of atomic energy
based on LEU.
Which is why the elimination of globally held stockpiles has been a
U.S. policy objective for over 40 years, and recently supported by a
letter from 35 Nobel Prize winners.
But let's talk about the physics and reactor systems engineering.
Several factors must be dealt with in determining the practicality of
utilizing LEU in naval propulsion reactors, including total energy and
power deliverable by the core, volume of the reactor, and enrichment
level of the fuel, reactivity limits, and the heat transfer area
required for a given power level.
A 2016 report by the JASON Scientific Advisory Board concluded that,
that using the existing HEU design, in order achieve the same total
deliverable energy using LEU, the core would have to be approximately
4.5 times larger.
This does not mean, however, that you would need a reactor system
with 4.5 times the volume, since most propulsion components scale with
the power of the reactor, which would be unchanged in the conversion
from HEU to LEU.
The purpose of the R and D funding in this amendment is to develop
and qualify a fuel element and reactor design the will result in a much
more compact overall design.
Although the exact improvement factor is classified and has been
redacted in the public version of the JASON report.
If the R and D program succeeds, it will verify the feasibility of
using LEU in Naval reactors with smaller or no performance compromise.
The independent JASON scientific review committee gave this R and D
program a positive outlook.
In a July 2016 report to Congress, the Office of Naval Reactors
stated that, ``The advanced LEU fuel system concept has the potential
to satisfy the energy requirements of an aircraft carrier without
affecting the number of refuelings.''
This would massively reduce U.S. consumption of Weapons Grade
Uranium.
The situation is more nuanced for submarines.
The Virginia-class replacement propulsion plant is being targeted by
this R and D program, with a decision time for transition to LEU of
about 10 years from now.
But such progress over the next two decades can only happen if we
continue aggressively pursuing the R and D now.
As the JASON report stated, ``If a decision is made soon to proceed
with ELE-LEU development, then by the time the design of the Virginia-
replacement propulsion plant is being solidified in the 2030 time
frame, NNPP will have a good idea of whether ELE-LEU will succeed. . .
. [T]hen the Navy's final HEU core might be built as early as 2040.''
If any of my colleagues would like to continue this conversation in a
classified setting, I would be more than happy to answer any questions.
I urge my colleagues to join me and vote yes on this critical
amendment.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chair, in conclusion, I want to point to the 2016
report that assessed that additional refuelings would increase Navy
fleet operating costs by several billion dollars a year.
Mr. Chair, as we are looking to rebuild the Navy, that means ships
that will not get built. That will mean less operating capability. That
will mean ships that need to be at dock for longer periods of time for
maintenance and for refueling.
A larger submarine reactor core, which is what DOD says would be
needed for LEU, requires a larger submarine, and it makes those
submarines less capable and less efficient.
It also requires massive redesigns, so it interrupts existing
submarine construction programs.
All of those things have significant impacts on the capability of the
Navy.
Take the Virginia-class submarine reactor, which operates on a 33-
year ship expectancy. That would cut that by one-third, which means it
would have to come back and be refueled again.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
The amendment was agreed to.
[...]
