NE’s Approach to Advanced Reactor R&D Supports Several Advanced Reactor Technologies

NE’s approach to its advanced reactor R&D is to support research on  technologies associated with three main types of advanced reactors:  high-temperature gas-cooled reactors; liquid-metal-cooled fast reactors,  including the sodium-cooled fast reactor; and fluoride-salt-cooled high- temperature reactors. This approach provides several advantages,  including flexibility in responding to changes in future U.S. energy policy  or other circumstances. NE’s Approach Addresses Broad Programmatic Goals and Policy Objectives, and Provides Flexibility in Responding to Changes in U.S. Energy Policy

While the broad goals of NE’s advanced reactor R&D efforts are to  improve the economics, safety, and proliferation resistance of nuclear  power plants, the R&D efforts also aim to develop advanced reactor  technologies that can prepare the United States to address policy  objectives such as reducing nuclear waste and greenhouse gas  emissions. NE’s approach to advanced reactor R&D is to conduct  research in support of multiple advanced reactor technologies. A  key objective of NE’s advanced reactor R&D efforts is to conduct  research to remove technology barriers or reduce technology risks, while  collaborating with industry and academia, with the ultimate goal for  industry to take the results of NE’s research to the next step of  development and commercialization. To remain aware of industry’s R&D needs and international nuclear  energy developments, NE regularly collaborates with industry and  international organizations, according to NE officials and NE documents. For example, NE  is currently collaborating with industry on advanced fuels and materials,  among other things. However, in its June 2013 report, the  Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee was critical of NE’s approach, saying  that NE needs to better prioritize its R&D efforts on a smaller number of  advanced reactor technologies to focus research funding on the ultimate  goal of deploying an advanced reactor prototype. Although NE selected the technology to develop under the NGNP Project,  many members of the National Academy of Sciences’ National Research  Council, members of the Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee, and  industry representatives we interviewed agree with NE’s approach to  advanced reactor R&D because the time is not right for NE to move to the  deployment phase. For instance, representatives from industry and the  Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee told us that uncertainties around  current policies for handing nuclear waste and controlling greenhouse  gases do not make a compelling case for choosing an advanced reactor  technology to deploy as a prototype. NE Uses Internal and External Reviews to Set Program and Funding Priorities but Does Not Have a Strategy for Deploying an Advanced Reactor Prototype

NE’s uses internal and external reviews to set program and funding  priorities for advanced reactor R&D and to evaluate progress toward  program goals. Among the different advanced reactor technologies  currently supported by NE R&D, the high-temperature gas-cooled reactor  technology is the most likely to be deployed and commercialized in the  near term, according to an NE planning document. NE officials said that  the likelihood is based on the wide range of potential market applications  to industry of electricity and process heat and is supported by substantial  government investments in the technology’s development, including  testing of materials, fuels, and other components. However,  according to NE officials and representatives from the NGNP Industry  Alliance, they have been unable to come to an agreement on  implementing the cost-share requirement for funding the remainder of  the NGNP Project because of disagreement on the applicable cost- share levels and how and when the cost-share would be applied to  specific activities or project phases. By conducting nuclear  reactor R&D, NE has a critical role to play as it supports existing light  water reactors, as well as a new generation of advanced nuclear reactors. Furthermore, without selecting initial reactor  design parameters and reporting the parameters to Congress, as required  by EPAct 2005 for completing Phase 1 of the project, or establishing a  date to make a selection, it is not clear if or when NE is going to take this  next step and proceed with Phase 2 of the NGNP Project. Recommendations for Executive Action

To better prepare the Department of Energy to meet the requirement of  the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to deploy the NGNP prototype reactor, we  recommend that DOE take the following two actions:
Develop, in consultation with the Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee  and independent nuclear experts, as appropriate, a strategy to  proceed with Phase 2 of the NGNP Project, outlining conditions that  will warrant a change in program direction, remaining research and  development activities, projected project budget and schedule, and  steps necessary to overcome barriers to successful completion of the  NGNP Project. In  written comments, DOE’s Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy,  responding on behalf of DOE, wrote that DOE agreed in principle with our  first recommendation and respectfully disagreed with our second  recommendation.
Why GAO Did This Study

NE conducts R&D on advanced nuclear reactor technologies with multiple aims, including (1) improving the economic competitiveness of nuclear technology to ensure that nuclear power continues to play a role in meeting our nation's energy needs; (2) increasing safety; (3) minimizing the risk of nuclear proliferation and terrorism; and (4) addressing environmental challenges, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions. External groups have been critical of NE for, among other things, how it prioritizes advanced reactor R&D.
GAO was asked to review NE's advanced reactor R&D efforts. This report (1) describes NE's approach to advanced nuclear reactor R&D and (2) examines how NE plans and prioritizes its advanced reactor R&D activities, including deploying an advanced reactor. GAO reviewed laws and reports concerning NE's efforts to develop advanced reactor technologies and interviewed NE officials and a nonprobability sample of companies developing such technology, selected because of their involvement with DOE's R&D efforts.

What GAO Found

The Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Nuclear Energy's (NE) approach to advanced reactor research and development (R&D) focuses on three reactor technologies—high-temperature gas-cooled reactors, sodium-cooled fast reactors, and fluoride-salt-cooled high-temperature reactors—but NE is also funding research into other advanced reactor technologies. NE's approach is to conduct research in support of multiple advanced reactor technologies, while collaborating with industry and academia, with the ultimate goal for industry to take the results of NE's research to the next step of development and commercialization. This approach provides several advantages, including flexibility in responding to changes in future U.S. energy policy. Many representatives that GAO talked to from the nuclear power industry and the National Academy of Sciences agree with NE's approach, saying that current policies on controlling greenhouse gas emissions and disposing of nuclear waste do not make a compelling case for choosing a reactor technology to develop. However, others GAO talked to are critical of some of the reactor technologies NE chooses to research, citing economic and technological challenges. The Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee has criticized NE's approach, recommending that NE focus its efforts on a smaller number of technologies to help ensure that a reactor prototype is deployed. To remain aware of industry's R&D needs and international nuclear energy developments, NE regularly collaborates with industry and international organizations.
NE uses internal and external reviews to set program and funding priorities for advanced reactor R&D activities and to evaluate progress toward program goals. For example, NE conducts internal monthly and quarterly reviews to discuss project status, budgets, and technical highlights. Furthermore, NE's R&D efforts are periodically reviewed by external entities, including the Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee. Among the advanced reactor technologies that NE's R&D currently supports, the high-temperature gas-cooled reactor is the technology that is most likely to be deployed and commercialized in the near term, according to an NE planning document. NE officials said this likelihood is based on the wide range of potential industry market applications and because of substantial government investments in the technology's development. NE has been pursuing this technology under the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) Project, as established by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005). Under EPAct 2005, DOE is to deploy a prototype reactor for NGNP by the end of fiscal year 2021. However, in 2011, DOE decided not to proceed with the deployment phase of this project, citing several barriers. For example, NE and industry have been unable to reach an agreement on a cost-share arrangement to fund the deployment phase because of a disagreement on the applicable cost-share levels and how and when the cost-share would be applied to specific activities or project phases. Although NE continues to conduct R&D for the NGNP Project, it has not developed a strategy to overcome the cost-share issue and other barriers to resuming the deployment phase of the project. Furthermore, DOE has not selected initial reactor design parameters or reported to Congress on an alternative date for making this selection. Without doing so, it is not clear when NE is going to take this next step in deploying the NGNP prototype reactor and it risks the project not being completed by the targeted date in 2021.

What GAO Recommends

To better prepare DOE to meet the requirement of EPAct 2005 to deploy the NGNP prototype reactor, GAO recommends that DOE develop a strategy for resuming the NGNP Project and provide a report to Congress updating the status of the project. DOE agreed in principle with GAO's first recommendation and respectfully disagreed with the second. GAO believes these recommendations remain valid as discussed in the report.