00:00Thank you, Mr. Burns. I was finding it ironic as I was sitting here listening to your testimony that your name is Mr. Burns, and I'm sure you've heard that joke before.
00:10Yes, I have, and in fact, I was in a French airport once, and I realized that they had given me the wrong luggage tag,
00:16and I heard the woman at the desk call down to the luggage handler, and he said, the name, and he said,
00:24come, come, Mr. Burns? I said, yes, yes, like Mr. Burns. He was referring to the Simpsons.
00:31So anyway, yes, it was, it's been a kind of a joke over the years. Good one.
00:37Well, thank you for, thank you for that. All right, I now recognize myself for five minutes, and I'll begin with Mr. Smith.
00:44I was recently told by one company based here in the United States that they will have a fully functioning MMR abroad in the next year.
00:54They specifically stated that they couldn't accomplish that in the United States, that they'd have to go on foreign soil to demonstrate to the American public and the government that their technology is ready.
01:08What's holding back companies like that from doing this in the United States?
01:13Thank you. Fundamentally, the problem is we have too many barriers between people who want to build and their ability to put shovels on the ground and put up structures.
01:24So take one example. It's important that we do continued modeling. It's important that we continue doing extensive testing.
01:30But we also need to do real-life testing rather than just rely on the data that we currently use.
01:36In particular, one of the exciting recent state-level endeavors is as Governor Spencer Cox in Utah signed a memorandum of understanding with Valor Atomics to develop an SMR within Utah by July 4th, 2026.
01:51I just got back from the American Legislative Exchange Council meetings with state legislators from across the country.
01:56Every single energy conversation was pulled in by some gravitational force to talk about nuclear policy and what they could do.
02:04There's extensive interest and opportunity, but the states need to actually be allowed to lead.
02:10I'm going to jump to one of my questions then regarding the states.
02:14One of the key differences between the designs of the 60s and 70s and today is they're very, very different.
02:32So there's little need for containment structures in some of these new designs.
02:35Part of the problem with having a lot of expertise at the NRC is simply that they have a hammer, they see everything as a nail, and so we have a problem where new companies come in.
02:46They don't need a containment chamber or containment facility for their design, and yet the NRC prescriptive regulations say thou shalt have one.
02:56And so state-level interest can develop new rules that avoid this kind of old problem, and we could do some of this at the federal level.
03:03Of course, I think there's room for Congress to get involved and spin off new agencies within the NRC or separately entirely to pursue these new designs.
03:11States have already taken the right kinds of steps, either in Texas has been developing an advanced nuclear working group.
03:16Utah similarly has an Office of Energy Development official who's purely devoted to nuclear now, in addition to extensive legislative efforts within the state Congress.
03:26So very exciting and lots to do.
03:31Mr. Epstein, what approach should the United States be taking in regards to this?
03:37Should we follow the model of the previous administration where we used taxpayer dollars to subsidize this development, or should we let the free market dictate what happens?
03:48Well, definitely free market, but it really hinges on how you're approaching the issue of safety, and I really want to push against any idea that the NRC has been a success.
04:01The NRC has been one of the greatest failures in policy history.
04:04So we hear things like, oh, the NRC was helpful maintaining the nuclear fleet.
04:09Well, why are we saying maintaining?
04:10It's because they prevented anything from being done from 1975 when the NRC was founded until 2023.
04:17Not one new plant went from conception to completion.
04:21So if nuclear is the safest form of energy ever, and it was safer than any form of energy before the NRC, and the NRC basically criminalized it, that's a failure.
04:30So we need to recognize the NRC as it exists is a failure.
04:33Now, that doesn't mean that it necessarily shouldn't exist.
04:36I do believe states have a real role, but we need radical, radical reform.
04:40So it needs to be done within the law.
04:41It needs to be done at the NRC.
04:42In particular, we need some good commissioners.
04:44We don't have enough commissioners right now, but we need commissioners who can radically reform the NRC, and we need innovation at the state level.
04:51Because what we really want is abundant energy.
04:54If we just do a bunch of subsidies, then we're just going to have another subsidized energy industry.
04:59That's not what we need.
05:00We want to unleash an unsubsidized energy industry.
05:02And what's happening with the manufacturing of these micronuclear reactors is that they're eventually wanting to get it to scale.
05:10That's the only way that you're going to do this that's cost effective.
05:14And yet what I'm told is that they have to get these permitted, each one.
05:18It would have to go through the same process as if you're doing a large-scale nuclear site.
05:25Is that correct, Mr. Smith?
05:26I believe so.
05:29The Idaho National Laboratory in April 2025 report suggested legislative reforms to enable general licenses.
05:37So after you have your first-of-a-kind, you would be able to apply, and through some notice and regulatory requirements,
05:44you would still be able to apply and build your reactor under a general license.
05:48But I believe that INL's advice requires legislative action.
Be the first to comment