[Senate Hearing 109-346]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-346
JARRETT AND SPROAT NOMINATIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TO
CONSIDER THE NOMINATION OF JEFFREY D. JARRETT, TO BE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR FOSSIL ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, AND EDWARD F. SPROAT
III, TO BE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
__________
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
26-838 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska RON WYDEN, Oregon
RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina, TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
MEL MARTINEZ, Florida MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
CONRAD BURNS, Montana MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey
GORDON SMITH, Oregon KEN SALAZAR, Colorado
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
Alex Flint, Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Chief Counsel
Bob Simon, Democratic Staff Director
Sam Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico............. 1
Jarrett, Jeffrey D. Jarrett, Nominee to be Assistant Secretary
for Fossil Energy, Department of Energy........................ 3
Sproat, Edward F., III, Nominee to be Director, Office of
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Department of Energy.... 6
APPENDIX
Responses to additional questions................................ 15
JARRETT AND SPROAT NOMINATIONS
----------
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:37 a.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V.
Domenici, chairman, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
The Chairman. The hearing will please come to order.
We're here this morning to consider the following
nominations for positions with the Department of Energy:
Jeffrey Jarrett, to be Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy,
and Edward Sproat III, to be the Director of the Office of
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.
I welcome both of you to the committee. If either of you
have members of your family present, if you'd like to introduce
them now, you could begin.
Mr. Jarrett, do you have anybody here?
Mr. Jarrett. Yes, I do. I'd like to introduce my wife,
Janet Goodwin, and my son, Tyler Jarrett. My oldest daughter,
Sarah, was not able to be here, but now would probably be a
good time for me to thank both of them, as well as my daughter,
for all of the support and encouragement and love that they've
shown me not only recently, with this nomination, but ever
since.
The Chairman. Thank you. And thank them.
Mr. Sproat?
Mr. Sproat. I'd like to introduce my family, Senator. My
wife, Heidi Sproat, who likes to refer to herself as a native
Californian transplanted by marriage to the East Coast. She's
been my best friend and companion through 26 years of marriage
and really has done a superb job in holding our family together
while I spent my time in South Africa over the past several
years. Our three children here today: our oldest, Kristen,
who's a third-class midshipman at the U.S. Naval Academy; Eric,
who is a junior at Conestoga High School; and Keith, who is a
freshman at Malvern Prep School. Obviously, Heidi and I are
very proud of all three of them.
The Chairman. Terrific. Terrific. Thanks to all of you.
Midshipman, I have a grandson in your class, Peter Goretz.
No? Okay. You might write that down.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. If you want my version, he's a terrific-
looking guy.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. I'll tell him you are, too.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Okay. I'd also note that Clay Sell is here,
Senator Bingaman. Clay, thank you for coming. And I think it's
nice for us to know that you have enough support in these
candidates that you would take time out of your schedule. I
think it's good for them to know that, too.
Now, the committee rules apply to all nominees, and that
requires that you be sworn in. Would you both rise and raise
your right hands, please?
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to
give to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Jarrett. I do.
Mr. Sproat. I do.
The Chairman. Please be seated.
Before you begin your statements, I would ask three
questions, which we ask of every nominee.
One, would you be available to appear before this committee
and other congressional committees to represent departmental
positions and respond to issues of concern to the Congress?
Mr. Jarrett. I will.
Mr. Sproat. I will.
The Chairman. Are you aware of any personal holdings,
investments, or interests that could constitute a conflict, or
create the appearance of such a conflict, should you be
confirmed and assume the office that you've been nominated to
by the President?
Mr. Jarrett. My investments, personal holdings, and other
interests have been reviewed both by myself and the appropriate
ethics counselors within the Federal Government. I have taken
appropriate action to avoid any conflicts of interest. There
are no conflicts of interest or appearances thereof, to my
knowledge.
Mr. Sproat. I, also, Senator, my investments, personal
holdings, and other interests have been reviewed by both myself
and the appropriate ethics counselors within the Federal
Government, and I have taken appropriate action to avoid any
conflicts of interest. There are no conflicts of interest, or
appearances thereof, to my knowledge.
The Chairman. Are you involved with, or do you have, any
assets that you hold in blind trust?
Mr. Jarrett. I do not.
Mr. Sproat. I do not.
The Chairman. Now, each of you could make a brief
statement. I encourage you to summarize your statements that
you have prepared and they will be filed and made a part of the
record.
We will start with Mr. Jarrett, and then we'll proceed with
you, Mr. Sproat. And, after that, we'll have questions by the
Senators, if any.
Please proceed.
TESTIMONY OF JEFFREY D. JARRETT, NOMINEE TO BE
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FOSSIL ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. Jarrett. Mr. Chairman, Senator Bingaman, and members of
the committee, it's a great honor to appear before you today as
the President's nominee for the position of Assistant Secretary
for Fossil Energy for the Department of Energy.
As you know, I was before this committee in December 2001,
when my nomination to my current position as Director of the
Office of Surface Mining was pending, and it's a pleasure to be
back before you.
President Bush has paid me the highest compliment by
nominating me for this position, and I very much appreciate
Secretary Bodman recommending me to the President.
I've enjoyed a 30-year career of involvement with energy
and related environmental issues as a coal-industry executive
and as a State and Federal public-policy decisionmaker. Four
years ago, I began my service as the Director of the Office of
Surface Mining. These have been some of the most exciting,
challenging, and rewarding years of my career. During the past
few years, OSM has achieved the highest level of stability it
has ever enjoyed, and it has achieved respect with States,
industry, and a large segment of the environmental community. I
have learned what it takes to work within the administration,
the Office of Management and Budget, and Congress to advance
important public-policy issues.
I have been very fortunate to have these opportunities
which became excellent learning experiences. I learned,
firsthand, the need for our government to be effective and
responsive to the legitimate needs of citizens and the business
community. I learned, firsthand, the need of--for our
Government to make wise policy decisions to meet changing world
conditions. I learned that decisions by government agencies
must be not--must not be made in a vacuum without real-world
considerations. I learned the value of early involvement of all
the stakeholders in the decisionmaking process. And I have
learned that our country needs, and expects, public servants
who will work with integrity and in the public interest.
During the past few weeks, I have been able to meet with
several members of this committee and staff and hear some of
your concerns and issues. I've also learned much about the
activities of the Fossil Energy Program within Department of
Energy. From what I've seen so far, it is clear that there is
critically important work being done in the Department by
extremely talented engineers, scientists, and other staff. The
research, development, demonstration, and deployment activities
being carried out are critically important to the Nation's
energy future. And they are not, nor should they be, pursued in
a vacuum. Technology cannot be deployed unless crosscutting
issues are also understood and addressed.
But, of course, DOE is not just research. It is charged
with the responsibility of assuring coordinated and effective
administration of Federal policy and programs. Critical to
advancing energy policy that is reasonable, achievable, and
durable are the budget choices we make today regarding
research, development, and demonstration, because those
decisions will significantly affect our energy choices of the
future. Budget choices are always difficult, because Federal
dollars are a finite resource, and there is certainly not
unanimous agreement among all the stakeholders about how those
dollars should be spent. But decisions must be made, and it's
the responsibility of the Federal Government to make them.
If I am confirmed, you have my promise that I will work
within the administration, with this committee, and with the
appropriations committees so that we can, together, make the
wisest spending choices.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I sat before you
4 years ago and made a promise that, if confirmed as the
Director of the Office of Surface Mining, I would work in a
bipartisan way with both houses of Congress and with all
stakeholders. For 4 years, I have worked hard to live up to
that commitment, and have been rewarded with tremendous
cooperation and great partnerships that have allowed OSM to be
successful. Today, I repeat that promise, if I am confirmed as
the Assistant Secretary of Fossil Energy.
Thank you for the opportunity to make that statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jarrett follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jeffrey D. Jarrett, Nominee to be Assistant
Secretary for Fossil Energy, Department of Energy
Mr. Chairman, Senator Bingaman, and members of the Committee, it is
a great honor to appear before you today as the President's nominee for
the position of Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, for the
Department of Energy. As you know I was before this Committee in
December of 2001 when my nomination to my current position as the
Director of the Office of Surface Mining was pending, and it is a
pleasure to be back before you. President Bush has paid me the highest
compliment by nominating me for this position and I very much
appreciate Secretary Bodman recommending me to the President.
I also want to thank my family. My parents, Leslie and Agatha, were
a formidable team and two of the hardest working, most honest people I
have ever known. They never procrastinated, and they never shirked
responsibility. They set an incredible example for me. Both of my
parents served during World War II: my father as a marine in the South
Pacific, and my mother as a naval officer. I have always tried to make
them as proud of me as I am of them. My children, Sarah, age 19, and
Tyler, age 11, are the pride of my life. Sarah has become an incredible
young adult, and Tyler is the responsible ``man of the house'' when I
am away on business. They are both extremely helpful members of the
family, and that is a tremendous help to me. My hope for the kind of
world I want them to live in motivates me as a public servant. My wife,
Janet Goodwin, is my most trusted friend and adviser. I can always
count on her to be pointedly honest when necessary, but most of all, I
can always count on her. I want to thank all of them for the support,
encouragement and love they have always shown to me.
My career began over thirty years ago in the coal industry. While a
very young man, in my 20's, I was made an environmental manager, and
during my 13 year tenure in industry, became a general manager and then
an executive. I was involved in almost every aspect of the coal mining
business, learning about what it takes to manage a large organization,
make payroll, comply with complicated and sometimes even conflicting
government regulations, plan for the future by securing coal reserves
and contracts, and still make a profit. Throughout these early years of
my career I was substantially involved in state and national industry
associations to keep abreast of emerging issues and to provide
corporate perspective and input into public policy decisions. During
this time I learned how critically important it is for industry to be
able to rely on public policies that are clear, reasonable, and durable
in making strategic business decisions.
It was my in-depth understanding of the industry and the specific
interface of business and government that I brought to my next career
as a public servant. For seven years I was the Deputy Assistant
Director of Program Operations with the Office of Surface Mining, U.S.
Dept. of the Interior. In that capacity I was primarily responsible for
working with and conducting oversight of the eastern states in
implementing the mandates of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
Act. In that position I tried to minimize the ambiguities in government
regulation that I knew were plaguing both industry and state regulatory
agencies.
For the next six years I was a senior public policy decision maker
for the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, first as
the Director of District Mining Operations, then as Deputy Secretary
for Mineral Resources Management. By this time in my career I was ready
for the leadership role in the mineral extraction programs in a state
with a large industry. It was also my first significant exposure to
other industries in addition to the coal industry, including the oil
and gas industry, the insurance industry and the explosives industry.
It was a great opportunity to make a real difference, and I think I
did. For example, during my tenure I was able to implement a new
surface coal mine bonding program that provides the highest level of
assurance that adequate funds will be available to complete reclamation
plans on future forfeited sites, and established the first
comprehensive program in the nation to provide the financial resources
for the perpetual treatment of acid mine drainage on sites where
operators default on their obligations to treat water. A significant
point is that the program was implemented with the complete support of
all stakeholders including industry and the state legislature. That
support was the direct result of our willingness to involve the
stakeholders in the development of the program, and to address their
legitimate concerns.
In 2002 I left the state leadership role and, after being
considered by this Committee and confirmed by the U.S. Senate, I began
my service as the Director of the Office of Surface Mining (OSM),
Department of the Interior. These have been some of the most exciting,
challenging and rewarding years of my career. During the past few years
OSM, a relatively young agency, has achieved the highest level of
stability it has ever enjoyed, and has achieved respect with states,
industry, and a large segment of the environmental community. I have
learned what it takes to work within the Administration, the Office of
Management and Budget and Congress to advance important public policy
issues.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I bring a unique
perspective earned and learned over a career of involvement with energy
and environmental issues because of my years as a coal industry
executive and as a state and Federal public policy decision maker. But
I also bring a more important perspective gained from the length of
time I have been involved in energy and environmental issues: three
decades. As much as I have always tried to bring certainty to the
programs I managed, things do change. The nature of environmental
concerns and the energy industry have changed, the technology has
changed, the science we all rely upon has gotten better, and most
important the concerns of the citizens we have a duty to protect have
changed, and will continue to change. In a world of new information and
shifting viewpoints, the person who is fortunate enough to lead the
Department of Energy's Fossil Energy program must be a good listener--
someone who listens to the concerns and viewpoints of all stakeholders.
I am a good listener, and I understand the challenge of finding common
ground and common interests upon which to build solutions to the
daunting problems we face together regarding this nation's energy
security. Communication--the listening side every bit as much as the
talking side--is the key to understanding the complicated issues this
nation faces.
I have been very fortunate to have opportunities which became
excellent learning experiences. I learned first-hand the need for our
government to be effective and responsive to the legitimate needs of
citizens and the business community. I learned first-hand the need for
our government to make wise policy decisions to meet changing world
conditions. I learned that decisions by government agencies must not be
made in a vacuum without real-world considerations. I learned the value
of early involvement of all stakeholders in the decision making
process. And I have learned that our country needs and expects public
servants who will work with integrity and in the public interest.
During the past few weeks I have been able to meet with several
members of this Committee and staff and hear some of your concerns and
issues. I have also learned much about the activities of the Fossil
Energy Program within the Department of Energy. From what I've seen so
far, it is clear that there is critically important work being done in
the Department by extremely talented engineers, scientists and other
staff. The research, development, demonstration and deployment
activities being carried out are critically important to the nation's
energy future. And they are not, nor should they be pursued in a
vacuum. Technology cannot be deployed unless cross-cutting issues are
understood and also addressed.
But of course DOE is not just research; it is charged with the
responsibility of assuring coordinated and effective administration of
Federal policy and programs. Critical to advancing energy policy that
is reasonable, achievable and durable are the budget choices we make
today regarding research, development and demonstration, because those
decisions will significantly affect our energy choices of the future.
Budget choices are always difficult because Federal dollars are a
finite resource and there is certainly not unanimous agreement among
all stakeholders about how those dollars should be spent. But decisions
must be made and it is the responsibility of the Federal government to
make them. If I am confirmed, you have my promise that I will work
within the Administration, with this Committee and with the
Appropriations Committees so that we can together make the wisest
spending choices.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I sat before you four
years ago and made a promise that if confirmed as Director of the
Office of Surface Mining I would work in a bipartisan way with both
houses of Congress and with all stakeholders. For four years I have
worked hard to live up to that commitment and have been rewarded with
tremendous cooperation and great partnerships that have allowed OSM to
be successful. Today I repeat that promise if I am confirmed as the
Assistant Secretary of Fossil Energy.
Thank you for the opportunity to make this statement.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Sproat.
TESTIMONY OF EDWARD F. SPROAT III, NOMINEE TO BE
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE
MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. Sproat. Mr. Chairman, Senator Bingaman, and members of
the committee, I am sincerely honored to appear before you
today as the President's nominee to serve as Director of the
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management in the
Department of Energy.
I am fully aware of the challenges that face the person who
holds this position regarding the disposition of the Nation's
spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, and I am
deeply appreciative of the President's and Secretary Bodman's
confidence in my abilities to meet those challenges.
A little about my background. I am a registered
professional engineer who has worked in the nuclear energy
industry for most of my career. Early in my career, I was in
charge of the design and licensing of the electrical systems
for the Limerick Nuclear Power Plant. And that gave me the
opportunity to develop the design, the licensing strategy, and
the documents required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to
gain an operating license for that nuclear plant.
In the early 1990's, I led a major quality-focused,
culture-change initiative across Philadelphia Electric Company
as we prepared for deregulation. And that initiative resulted
in significant improvements in company performance and culture.
I also held the positions of director of engineering and
director of maintenance at Limerick, gaining significant
experience in nuclear operations and leading technical
organizations to high levels of performance.
In the late 1990's, as director of engineering for PECO
Nuclear, I was the design authority for our fleet of nuclear
plants and was involved in a number of interactions with the
NRC on multidisciplinary design issues. As director of
strategic programs, one of my responsibilities was the
preparation of the license renewal application for our Peach
Bottom Nuclear Plant. I was also tasked by our chief executive
officer during that time to try and reach a settlement with the
Department of Energy regarding the spent-fuel standard contract
for our Peach Bottom Plant. I was the lead PECO negotiator in
those--in that effort, and it eventually resulted in the first
settlement between the Department of Energy and a nuclear
utility.
In 2000, as the vice president of Exelon Generation, I
represented Exelon on the board of directors for the Pebble Bed
Modular Reactor Corporation in South Africa, or PBMR. This
company is currently developing a modular high-temperature gas
reactor for electricity generation. And, in 2001, Exelon was
asked by the PBMR board to allow me to become the chief
operating officer, or COO, for 1 year. I assumed that position
in January 2002, and held it until December of that year, when
I retired from Exelon.
As the COO of PBMR, I led the organization in finalizing a
preliminary design for the standard PBMR Power Plant, along
with completing credible cost estimates, project schedules, and
a business case for launching the project that has been
accepted by the South African Government. Since that time, I've
been working with the former chief executive officer of Exelon
to lead a consortium to design and build the next-generation
nuclear plant.
Senators, I strongly share the belief of President Bush and
Secretary Bodman that nuclear energy must be a part of the
energy mix for this country in the future. It is the only near-
term source of carbon emission-free, base-load electricity
that's available to us. This country's ability to continue to
use and expand the utilization of this resource in order to
enhance our energy security is directly dependent upon
establishing and safely operating a national spent-fuel
repository, as has been authorized and directed by Congress.
That is why I have expressed interest in this position, and I
hope to have the opportunity to help the Department of Energy
carry out that directive.
If confirmed, I would work with my administration
colleagues, the Congress, and other stakeholders to address the
challenging issues that confront us with respect to spent
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Among them are
the repository design and license application, a transportation
plan, the skills and competencies of the Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management, and the accumulating potential
government liability associated with the unmet contractual
obligations to move spent fuel. Although these issues are
difficult, I believe it is critically important to our Nation's
energy security that we successfully address them.
If confirmed, I would approach the duties of my position
with six values that I believe must be held by any person who
is involved with nuclear power: safety, integrity, quality,
accountability, teamwork, and continuous improvement. If
confirmed, I will enforce those values both within the OCRWM at
DOE and its contractors.
Regarding the upcoming licensing activities for this
project, the Congress has made it very clear that the
stakeholders are to have every opportunity to participate in a
transparent process. The people who are going to be affected by
this project, both within the State of Nevada and along the
transportation routes, have every right to expect that they
will get a chance to participate, learn, understand, and
influence how the spent-fuel transportation and disposal system
is going to work and impact them. My commitment to this
committee and to those stakeholders is that, if confirmed, I
will ensure that the OCRWM at DOE and its contractors fully
embrace the NRC process that allows participation of the
stakeholders and the licensing process, and will be open to
their good-faith participation and feedback.
I'm truly honored to have been nominated by the President
for this position, and I also recognize that success in this
position will only be possible by close collaboration and
cooperation with Congress and the States. If confirmed, I
pledge to this committee that I will keep you apprised of
what's really going on within the Yucca Mountain project, and
will welcome your ideas and feedback.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today,
and I'd be pleased to answer any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sproat follows:]
Prepared Statement of Edward F. Sproat III, Nominee to be Director,
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Department of Energy
Mr. Chairman, Senator Bingaman, and Members of the Committee, I am
sincerely honored to appear before you today as the President's nominee
to serve as the Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management at the Department of Energy. I am fully aware of the
challenges that face the person who holds this position regarding the
disposition of the Nation's spent nuclear fuel and high level
radioactive waste, and I am deeply appreciative of the President's and
Secretary Bodman's confidence in my abilities to meet those challenges.
I would like to introduce my wife Heidi Sproat who likes to
describe herself as a native Californian transplanted by marriage. She
has been a true friend and companion in our 26 years of marriage and
deserves my endless devotion and thanks for running our family while I
was in South Africa. Also with us are our three children: Kristen who
is a third class midshipman at the United States Naval Academy, Eric
who is a junior at Conestoga High School, and Keith who is a freshman
at Malvern Preparatory School. Heidi and I are very proud of all three
of them.
I am a Registered Professional Engineer who has worked in the
nuclear energy industry for most of my career. Early in my career, I
was in charge of the design and licensing of the electrical systems for
the Limerick Generating Station which gave me the opportunity to
develop the design, the licensing strategy and the documents required
by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to gain an Operating License
for that nuclear plant.
In the early 1990's, I led a major quality-focused culture change
initiative across Philadelphia Electric Company as we prepared for
deregulation that resulted in significant improvements in company
performance and culture. I also held the positions of Director of
Engineering and Director of Maintenance at Limerick, gaining
significant experience in nuclear operations and leading technical
organizations to high levels of performance.
In the late 1990's, as the Director of Engineering for PECO
Nuclear, I was the Design Authority for our fleet of nuclear plants and
was involved in a number of interactions with the NRC on multi-
discipline design issues. As Director of Strategic Programs, one of my
responsibilities was managing the preparation of the license renewal
application for our Peach Bottom nuclear plant, which was one of the
first to receive its renewed Operating License from the NRC. I was also
tasked by our Chief Executive Officer to try to reach a settlement with
the Department of Energy regarding the spent fuel standard contract for
our Peach Bottom plant. I was the lead PECO Energy negotiator in that
effort which eventually resulted in the first settlement between the
Department and a nuclear utility.
In 2000, as a Vice President of Exelon Generation, I represented
Exelon on the Board of Directors of Pebble Bed Modular Reactor Pty.
Limited (PBMR). This company, located in the Republic of South Africa,
is currently developing a modular high temperature gas reactor for
electricity generation. In 2001, Exelon was asked by the Board of PBMR
to allow me to become the Chief Operating Officer (COO) for one year. I
assumed that position in January 2002 and held it until December of
that year when I retired from Exelon. As COO, I led the organization in
finalizing a preliminary design for the standard PBMR power plant along
with completing credible cost estimates, project schedules and a
business case for project launch that has been accepted by the South
African government. Since that time, I have been working with the
former Chief Executive Officer of Exelon to lead a consortium to design
and build the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP).
Senators, I strongly share the belief of President Bush and
Secretary Bodman that nuclear energy must be a part of the energy mix
for this country in the future. It is the only near-term source of
carbon emission-free base load electricity that is available to us.
This country's ability to continue to use and expand the utilization of
this resource in order to enhance our energy security is directly
dependent upon establishing and safely operating a national spent fuel
repository as authorized and directed by Congress. That is why I have
expressed interest in this position and I hope to have the opportunity
to help the Department of Energy carry out that directive.
If confirmed, I would work with my Administration colleagues, the
Congress, and other stakeholders to address the challenging issues that
confront us with respect to spent nuclear fuel and high level
radioactive waste. Among them are the repository design and license
application, the transportation plan, the skills and competencies of
the OCRWM organization, and the accumulating potential government
liability associated with the unmet contractual obligations to move
spent fuel. Although these issues are difficult, I believe it is
critically important to our Nation's energy security that we
successfully address them.
If confirmed, I would approach the duties of my position with six
values that I believe must be held by any person involved with nuclear
power: Safety, Integrity, Quality, Accountability, Teamwork, and
Continuous Improvement. If confirmed, I will reinforce these values
both within the OCRWM organization and its contractors.
Regarding the upcoming licensing activities for the project,
Congress has made it clear that the stakeholders are to have every
opportunity to participate in a transparent process. The people who are
going to be affected by this project both within the State of Nevada
and along the transportation routes have every right to expect that
they will get a chance to participate, learn, understand and influence
how the spent fuel transportation and disposal system is going to work
and impact them. My commitment to this Committee and to those
stakeholders is that if confirmed, I will ensure that the OCRWM
organization and its contractors fully embrace the NRC process that
allows participation of the stakeholders in the licensing process and
will be open to their good faith participation and feedback.
I am truly honored to have been nominated by the President for this
position. I also recognize that success in this position will only be
possible by close collaboration and cooperation with Congress and the
States. If confirmed, I pledge to this Committee that I will keep you
appraised of what is going on with this project and will welcome your
ideas and feedback.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and I
would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
The Chairman. Thanks to both of you.
I have a series of questions that I will submit. And we
intend to have an executive session next week for the purpose
of voting on reporting you out to the Senate for confirmation,
so we would appreciate your answering the questions as quickly
as possible. We have to have them before that time, so you
don't have a lot of time, 3 or 4 days.
With that, I'm not going to ask any questions. I'm just
going to make an observation about your job, Mr. Sproat.
First of all, seeing your background, I understand that you
are used to challenges. And I, nonetheless, have reviewed the
challenges, as I see the job description, and this is the
biggest challenge, in my opinion, that you will have decided to
undertake. It is a terribly difficult job involving many, many
things that are going to require not only science and
technology on your part, but also some great skills in working
with people and working with us.
Mr. Sproat. Yes.
The Chairman. I am very pleased that the President
nominated you, because I think you have as good a background
and character as anyone we could find. Frequently, we are not
so fortunate.
Mr. Sproat. Thank you.
The Chairman. And I think we're lucky that you would decide
to do that.
Mr. Sproat. Thank you.
The Chairman. And I say that to your family, also. It will
be a tough job.
Mr. Sproat. Yes, it will.
The Chairman. I hope you don't ignore them in the
difficulty of this job, because it will consume you. And
sometimes you will wonder for what, I assure you.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Mr. Jarrett, you have a great opportunity.
We're right on the cutting edge of getting some big things done
in this area, and we need some real work. The energy bill gives
you some tough things to do, and the Department's committed to
do them, so we hope you'll be a leader in that, in trying to
see what we decided you should be doing. Some of them will
appear onerous, and will have no effect for quite some time,
but you have to do them anyway.
With that, I'm going to yield to Senator Bingaman, and I
hope you both know that when I leave here, it does not mean I
don't have great interest. I just--I have already committed to
start home to New Mexico, and I'm going to let Senator Burr
take my place while Senator Bingaman and he complete the
hearing.
Thank you.
Senator Bingaman.
Senator Bingaman. Well, I thank you both very much, and I
congratulate you both on your nominations.
Mr. Jarrett, your position as head of--Assistant Secretary
for Fossil Energy--the Fossil Energy Program has been an
important source of oil and gas research and development, as
well as other types of research and development. As I
understand it, the request we got earlier this year from the
administration was to zero out the funding. It was to
essentially shut down the oil and gas research and development
work within your office. I would hope that you would be
supportive of continuing to do research and development work
related to oil and gas in that Department. I don't know if
you're in a position to give us any assurance along those lines
now, but I think it would be important, at least to me, to know
that that kind of activity is going to continue.
Mr. Jarrett. Senator, I'm sure we could have a very long
conversation about how this country needs to focus its R&D
efforts for our energy security. You know that I was not
involved in any of the budget discussions within DOE, although
I think a couple of things have happened over the past year
that are noteworthy.
I mean, No. 1, we got a little bit of a wake-up call, or
quite a bit of a wake-up, with a couple of devastating
hurricanes in the gulf region that really should send a signal
to all of us just how precarious the supply-and-demand balance
is for energy, especially oil and gas, in this country. It's
clear to me that one of the first challenges that I will face
at the Department of Energy is to work through some budget
issues, and my preference would be to try to frame the budget
questions. I think it's important that Congress and the
administration and other stakeholders are all on the same page,
because the nature of the work that we do, of research and
development work, is long term. And to be successful and
efficient, we're going to need private-sector partners. And
it's my belief that there is some hesitation on the private
sector to be effective partners, because, before they can make
a financial investment as a partner to us, they need to know
that the decisions we make are long-term commitments, that
they're going to be durable, and that we're not going to change
them from year to year.
So, I think there's--you know, the first challenge is going
to be, I think, to frame how we make budget decisions. I don't
think, on an annual basis, we should be debating what we're
going to do research and development work on. That should be
agreed up front for the long term, and then, on an annual
basis, we can spend time talking about what the budget ought to
be so that we can meet whatever the annual milestones are in
that particular area. And I think there are a lot of
considerations that need to go into that.
I've heard a lot of people opining about the oil and gas
industry, for example, with posted record profits today. But I
don't think we can make budget decisions based on those sort of
broad-brush thoughts. The reality is, if you look at the oil
and gas industry, it's not the super-majors who are getting the
job done for us, it's the independents. And that represents
somewhere in the neighborhood of 75 to 80 percent of our
domestic production. And I'm not at all certain that those
independents, individually, have the kind of resources that are
needed to do the appropriate R&D that we need in this country,
especially when you consider that we do have vast reserves, but
a lot of it is unconventional oil and gas reserves, and it's
going to take some technology to figure out how to get it.
Senator Bingaman. Well, thank you for that response, and I
do look forward to working with you and trying to see if we can
maintain some level of Federal support for these oil-and-gas
research-and-development activities out of the office that
you're taking over.
Mr. Sproat, let me ask you just one question, also. You
concentrated your comments, or much of your comments, on a
major part of what your job is, and that is trying to help with
the disposal of this spent nuclear fuel in Yucca Mountain. I
notice that the Department is now being asked--this is in the
latest appropriation bill--to begin a new program to reprocess
spent fuel.
Mr. Sproat. Yes.
Senator Bingaman. I just wondered how you see the
relationship between those two programs. I mean, are we going
to bury it, or are we going to reprocess it? Or what are we
going to do? Are we going to do both?
Mr. Sproat. Well, in terms of the policy issues associated
with reprocessing, that clearly is outside the responsibility
of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.
However, if the country decides to go and close the fuel cycle,
go to fuel reprocessing, like our original intent was back in
the 1960's and early 1970's, the impact would be a significant
reduction in the amount of high-level radioactive waste that
would have to be disposed of in a deep geological repository.
The numbers I've seen, based on some work done by one of
the national labs, indicates that if we were to go with a full
nuclear-fuel recycle program, including fast breeder reactors,
that the volume of high-level radioactive waste that would have
to be disposed of in a deep geological repository would be
reduced by a factor of a hundred. And that also--a byproduct of
that would also be that our uranium natural resources as--for
using uranium as a natural resource for nuclear energy in this
country, that would be expanded by about a factor of a hundred.
So, if you take a long-term energy perspective on this
question, I, personally, believe it makes a lot of sense that
we, as a Nation, move toward closing the fuel cycle and moving
eventually to a fast-breeder technology that allows us to
maximize the availability of the uranium resources, minimize
the amount of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
waste.
However, having said that, no matter which way we go,
either the once-through fuel-cycle path that we're currently on
or a full recycle path, which I believe eventually we should be
planning to move toward, in either case you will still need at
least one high-level-waste deep geological repository for the
waste to be placed in.
Senator Bingaman. Thank you very much.
I'll stop with that, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burr [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Bingaman.
Let me also welcome both of you, and as the chairman did,
thank you for your commitment to serve. If we didn't have
qualified individuals, we wouldn't have the opportunity to move
forward in the ways that I think we're challenged to these
days.
Let me, if I could, take this opportunity, Mr. Jarrett, to
ask you one question. The energy bill created a new statutory
program entitled Clean Coal Power Initiative that authorizes
$1.6 billion in funds over 8 years. Seventy percent of that is
designated specifically for gasification projects, and 30
percent for conventional coal-powered generation projects. This
provision is not intended, however, to duplicate or to
interfere with the Department's existing Clean Coal Power
Initiative. Can you share with the committee your thoughts on
how and when this new program should be implemented, and how it
should be coordinated with the existing program?
Mr. Jarrett. Senator, I would, if confirmed, be happy to
meet with you to get some of your ideas on that, but I have, at
this point, not had an opportunity to evaluate how those two
programs should be integrated.
Senator Burr. I would appreciate it if, once you have an
opportunity to look through that, you would share it with me,
and hopefully with the entire committee.
Mr. Sproat, included in the 2006 Energy and Water
Conference Report is specific language requiring the Department
of Energy to start a nuclear fuel recycling program and to set
up a competition to determine if any communities or States will
volunteer to host a recycling or reprocessing facility. The
bill provides $50 million for the program, of which $20 million
would be given to four individual sites, at $5 million each, to
demonstrate that they can get through the regulatory, legal,
legislative hurdles to host reprocessing. If confirmed, do you
promise to fulfill this obligation in the coming fiscal year?
Mr. Sproat. Senator, I believe that that responsibility
would probably not fall under the auspices of the Office of
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. I believe--I'm not
absolutely sure of this, and I can check for you afterwards,
but I believe that the responsibility would fall under the
Nuclear Energy Organization within the Department of Energy.
Senator Burr. Let me ask you to comment on the initiative
that Congress has put. If it were under your jurisdiction, is
it something that you would support?
Mr. Sproat. In terms of trying to assist communities to
understand and assess the potential impacts of recycling
facilities in their area, I believe it's very appropriate.
Senator Burr. If confirmed, what are your plans, as it
relates to the implementation of the transportation
infrastructure system, so that DOE meets its deadlines?
Mr. Sproat. I think--as you know, Senator, I'm coming into
this project from the outside, so what I know about the project
is what I have read in publicly available documents. And there
are a number of areas in this program where I clearly need a
lot more information to lay out my gameplan of how to move
forward with the program, transportation being one of the key
ones.
My first activities, if confirmed, are, we're going to do a
very broad and deep assessment of both the program, the
organization, and the license application--and transportation,
by my definition, falls under the programmatic assessment--to
find out where it really stands, what the gaps are between
what's going to be needed for that transportation system to be
fully functional in a reasonable period of time, and lay out a
very specific game plan with goals and deadlines to go make
that happen.
And that's what I commit to you at this stage of the game,
is to do that assessment so I fully understand what the
shortcomings are today, what the situation is today, and then
move forward with fixing those problems that we find in that
assessment.
Senator Burr. Given your background, I think you have an
understanding of where companies that are affected in the
nuclear issue are, their concerns that exist right now, as they
relate to the multipurpose canisters.
Mr. Sproat. Yes.
Senator Burr. How would you envision approaching engaging
the private sector on overcoming those concerns and those
challenges?
Mr. Sproat. I would say that, first of all, having not been
involved on the DOE side of the program, as of yet, I don't
understand what exactly the Department's position is regarding
those canisters, nor what the concerns are about them. Now,
having said that, though, from just a nuclear-waste
transportation and disposal system standpoint--I believe in
systems engineering, and this is truly a very complex system--
it makes a lot of sense to simplify the transportation aspect
of this on the front end as simple as possible and minimize the
amount of handling of fuel as much as we can. So, if we can
design the system to accommodate those multipurpose canisters,
we should be doing that.
Senator Burr. Do you see your job, if confirmed, to try to
share with the Department where you think they may be misguided
on their policies?
Mr. Sproat. I would certainly see my role, if confirmed as
Director of OCRWM, as an advocate for the policies that I
believe are needed to expedite the resolution of the high-
level-waste, spent-nuclear fuel problem. I certainly see myself
as working with my team, with the Congress, with the
stakeholders to try to really understand what we think the
best, most productive policy should be to resolve these issues,
and then be a strong advocate for those polices to the
administration.
Senator Burr. I appreciate that very candid answer. And I'm
sorry to ask it in the way that I did, because it might suggest
that the administration does not always make the wisest policy
decision, and I'm not necessarily implying that. But I think
that it's absolutely vital, when we get talented people, that
we allow those talents to be used, not just in the execution of
a policy, but in the thought of what that policy should be. I
think I can speak for many in this Congress that we believe we
need to move forward with nuclear generation in this country.
We believe we need to move quickly. And I think that's
reflective in the energy bill. However, until we resolve the
spent-fuel issue, it is very difficult to suggest to the
industry that the future is predictable enough for any
individual company, or the groupings of companies, to make $3
billion commitments on behalf of their shareholders or their
capital commitments.
I believe that this is absolutely an essential piece for us
to sort out, and I think that it will be this Department of
Energy, during your time there, that makes decisions as it
relates to that one issue that will determine what the future
will look like. So, I would strongly encourage you to be a good
soldier of the administration and to convey your experiences
and your talents as aggressively as you're permitted to do.
Mr. Sproat. Well, Senator, I fully agree, and we are 100
percent aligned with your judgments regarding the necessity of
the resolution of this issue, of spent nuclear fuel and its
importance to the future of nuclear energy in this country, and
that's exactly the reason why I asked to be considered for this
position.
Senator Burr. Once again, I would tell you, on behalf of
the Congress, we thank both of you very talented individuals
for your willingness to commit to public service and to bring
the expertise that both of you do.
At this time, I notice no other members. I ask that any
additional questions be filed with the committee staff by the
close of business today.
Thank you for enlightening us on your thoughts, your
backgrounds. I know that it's the chairman's intention to move
very quickly, and we certainly have enjoyed the opportunity to
have your families with us today.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Jeffery Jarrett to Questions From Senator Domenici
Question 1. Mr. Jarrett, we recently passed an energy bill that has
a number of provisions that will need to be implemented by DOE's Fossil
Energy division that you will manage if you are confirmed.
Could you please identify two of these initiatives that you feel
should be the top agency priorities for the Fossil Energy division with
respect to implementation of the Energy Bill?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Office of Fossil Energy has
nearly 100 actionable items included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005
related to coal, oil, natural gas, the strategic petroleum reserves and
loan guarantees. These cover a broad range of topics from research,
regulatory issues, and specific analyses and studies. Since there are
so many items all important in their own right, it is impossible at
this time to just pick two items of greatest importance. If confirmed,
I will review all of these items and assure that they are completed in
a timely manner.
Question 2. Some have suggested that we should create a strategic
natural gas reserve and other product reserves similar to the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve.
Please comment on the pros and cons of this idea and give us your
opinion on whether this would be a wise thing to do.
Answer. If I am confirmed, I will look closely at this suggestion,
including both the technical challenges and the impact on the market.
Without, a detailed understanding of this issue, it is not possible to
adequately respond to your question except to state that I am aware
that this is an issue the Administration has been reviewing.
Question 3. I think the Administration is to be commended for the
release of crude from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in the aftermath
of the hurricanes. It certainly seemed to relieve pressures and get
product to the market. Some argue that this resource should be used
more frequently, not only to make up for temporary shortfalls in
supply, but to moderate prices as well.
Please share with us your views on the appropriate use of the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
Answer. I believe the recent use of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita is the type of situation for which it
was created, and that it should not be used as a tool to supplant free
markets in determining oil prices.
The recent exchanges and sale from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
were proper policy. There were several considerations that support the
decision to use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, all of which are
grounded in the principles stated in the Energy Policy and Conservation
Act. In this instance we suffered a shortage of petroleum products
caused by an unexpected event, Hurricane Katrina, that disrupted
supplies. The devastation in the Gulf of Mexico was so complete that
the disruption was expected to last for a prolonged period, and could
have caused harm to our economy. In addition, the scope of the
disruption brought the issue to the attention of the International
Energy Agency. That body deemed the disruption so serious that a
resolution was passed to respond with a coordinated drawdown by all
member countries, which created an obligation for the United States.
Question 4. When the SPR fill is completed, the DOE will have the
opportunity to select a site to hold additional crude oil. In the
Energy Bill we provided a process for the Department to select sites to
meet this new capacity requirement, but we also left the Secretary with
certain amount of discretion in selecting the sites. This has the
potential of producing jobs and construction dollars to areas selected.
Presumably, the Secretary will be seeking your counsel on this issue.
Could you please share with us your thoughts about how this
selection process might work and what factors will affect this
decision?
Answer. Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), an
expansion of the SPR would be a major Federal action, requiring the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. The NEPA process
assures the assessment of the potential environmental consequences of a
proposed action (and the candidate sites) before making a decision on a
proposed action.
In addition to the environmental impacts, the Department will
consider three other major factors in the site selection process--how
the site enhances the Reserve's distribution plan (i.e. mission value),
the development risks and the project costs.
If confirmed, I look forward to working with the Committee as the
Department moved forward in the site selection process.
Question 5 The Secretary has initiated an aggressive campaign to
encourage conservation of energy resources in the wake of hurricanes
Katrina and Rita.
Do you have any other ideas about steps the Department, and
particularly the Fossil Energy division, could take to help consumers
deal with the higher prices at the pump and in heating their homes this
winter?
Answer. Conservation is the best short term opportunity to reduce
demand and therefore energy prices. To this end DOE has undertaken an
aggressive campaign to educate the public and industrial sectors on
energy saving conservation methods. On the supply side, getting natural
gas facilities in the Gulf of Mexico region that were damaged by
hurricanes Katrina and Rita back on-line as quickly as possible is the
best short term way to increase the delivery of natural gas to
consumers and to moderate the high prices we are seeing today. The
Department is working with industry and other Federal agencies to
facilitate this recovery.
New supply options take time, typically 2 to 10 years depending on
the resource and location. However, it is also important that we
continue to focus on supply to meet demand in the mid to long term.
Question 6. A significant amount of interest has arisen over the
past couple of years in using coal as a feedstock to produce liquid
fuels, especially clean diesel fuel.
What is your view of expanding the use of coal for this purpose,
and do you think the Department of Energy should be creating more
opportunities to assist industry in promoting technologies to
accomplish this?
Answer. With respect to producing liquid fuels from coal, my
understanding is that we have the technology to do that. The current
technology can produce liquid fuels from coal at around 35 dollars per
equivalent barrel of oil. The challenge that industry faces in
investing in the technology has more to do with the uncertainties of
the market place due to the volatility of oil prices, notwithstanding
the current prices we're seeing now. Given that the investment required
is on the order of several billion dollars, it is a difficult challenge
for industry to make the investment and secure the financing for such a
long term project in light of the uncertainties in future oil prices. I
am supportive of assisting industry in developing a domestic coal
liquids industry.
Question 7. The Energy Bill also created a new statutory program
entitled ``Clean Coal Power Initiative'' that authorizes $1.6 billion
in funds over eight years--70 percent for gasification projects and 30
percent for conventional coal power generation projects. This provision
is not intended to duplicate or interfere with the Department's
existing ``Clean Coal Power Initiative.''
Can you please tell the Committee your thoughts on how and when
this new program should be implemented and how it should be coordinated
with the existing program?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review both the current program and
the provisions of the Energy Bill. Given the intent that the provisions
not duplicate or interfere, it would seem to make sense to coordinate
and integrate the objectives, strategies and implementation of the two
CCPI programs to achieve the overall goals of the clean coal program
and to demonstrate the readiness of the latest advances in clean coal
technologies for entering the commercial realm.
Responses of Jeffrey Jarrett to Questions From Senator Bingaman
Question 1. Climate change is a serious problem. We know that
emissions from fossil fuels are contributing to it and will continue to
contribute even more in future years. Do you consider climate change to
be problem that we need to address?
Answer. It would be prudent for the Nation to develop technology
options to use energy more efficiently and with reduced or no
CO2 emissions. The President has established a robust and
flexible climate change policy that harnesses the power of markets and
technological innovation, maintains economic growth, and encourages
global participation. Major elements of this approach include
implementing near-term policies and measures to slow the growth in
greenhouse gas emissions, advancing climate change science,
accelerating technology development, and promoting international
collaboration. In the case of coal technology, CO2 capture
and storage technology is especially important to develop. If
confirmed, I look forward to working on this issue with you and the
Committee.
Question 2. What role do you believe that advanced coal
technologies should play? In particular, the role of carbon capture and
storage as a key technology for the future of coal.
Answer. Advanced technologies will play a crucial role in
addressing carbon emissions reductions of coal-based energy production.
More efficient advanced technologies will help to reduce the amount of
greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere, whether from electricity
generation and end use, from transportation, or from heavy industry.
However, given the rise in human population and the economic growth
expected in many nations, coal use is expected to increase dramatically
worldwide. Carbon capture and storage can therefore play a critical
role in the future of coal, and that is why the Department is committed
to developing advanced carbon capture and storage technologies.
Question 3. How do you plan to encourage its deployment on a scale
and timeline that will allow coal to contribute to the solution as
opposed to the problem?
Answer. Development of advanced technologies is the key to
deployment of carbon capture and storage on a scale and timeline that
will allow coal to contribute to the solution. In order for carbon
sequestration to be deployed, it must first be proven technically
achievable and economically feasible. The Office of Clean Coal's
ongoing FutureGen project, sequestration research and development, and
regional carbon sequestration partnerships are working towards making
this a reality. I plan to encourage deployment of sequestration
technologies by working to make the required technologies available as
soon as it would be economically practical to do so.
Responses of Jeffrey Jarrett to Questions From Senator Bunning
Question 1. The DOE clean coal programs are essential to
maintaining the viability of coal as a future energy source. How do you
plan to ensure that the Fossil Energy Office stays on target in
completing timely clean coal research?
Answer. My understanding is that the Office of Clean Coal has a
very thorough roadmap for technology development. It is also my
understanding that this roadmap has been in existence for many years,
and is aligned with other roadmaps for coal technology development from
the U.S. coal industry and from the international coal community. If
confirmed, I would work to ensure that the Office of Clean Coal
continues to base programmatic decisions on how to best achieve the
goals stated in its technology roadmaps.
Question 2. The President has committed to making FutureGen a
reality. The FutureGen program is supposed to cost $1 billion, with
funding coming from both the private sector and the DOE. Congress has
appropriated only $36 million through Fiscal Year 2005 for FutureGen.
Will you work to make sure that the Administration will request enough
funding so that this program begins in a timely manner? Will you ensure
also that the DOE will not take funding from other coal programs for
FutureGen so that the viability of FutureGen does not come at the
expense of other coal programs?
Answer. The investment that we as a Nation have made in clean coal
technology has now positioned us to be able to technically reach for
zero emission coal technology, which, as I understand it, is the focus
of the FutureGen project and the overall R&D program. While I am aware
that the FutureGen program is a priority for the Department, I have not
been a party to DOE's budgetary discussions, and I am not in a position
to comment on potential funding requests. I appreciate your interest in
the program and if confirmed, I will be happy to discuss this important
issue with you and the Committee.
Question 3. The President has pledged to support the Clean Coal
Power Initiative, which is a $2 billion program over 10 years. Over the
past couple of fiscal years, the President's budget only asked for $50
million, which is what Congress appropriated. Are you willing to work
to ensure that the Clean Coal Power Initiative is fully funded to meet
the President's commitment and to meet the next 2007 timeframe for a
new solicitation?
Answer. The Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) is an integral part
of our clean coal research program and strategy. We will continue to
work towards a meaningful and sensible program in CCPI within the
budget constraints and competing priorities that will allow us to
proceed with the next round of solicitations at the earliest feasible
date to demonstrate the readiness of those advanced technologies for
commercial demonstration.
Response of Jeffrey Jarrett to Question From Senator Salazar
Question 1. I am very interested in pursuing coal gasification and
sequestering the resulting carbon dioxide. Can you comment on the
research into carbon sequestration and its potential? I know you have
had a distinguished career working with coal, and I would appreciate
your insight.
Answer. The potential benefits of gasification based systems
coupled with low-cost CO2 capture and storage are great and
offer the potential of being essentially zero emission systems.
Realistically, fossil fuels will continue to supply a large percentage
of our energy needs worldwide into the foreseeable future. Therefore,
deployable carbon sequestration technologies will be required to
mitigate climate change concerns as we move forward. Developing these
advanced carbon sequestration technologies is the key to deploying
carbon sequestration and realizing the benefits.
______
Responses of Edward F. Sproat III to Questions From Senator Domenici
Question 1. This Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management
(OCRWM) needs what I will call a business plan. A business plan
outlines where you are, your goals, expectations, and so on. This
committee needs to know what goals the Yucca Mountain program has--what
you are going to do, how you are going to do it, what your plans are if
you don't meet your own deadlines. I realize that you are not yet
working in this office, but you have been associated with its
activities over many years from your work in the private sector.
What is your vision for getting this program on track and keeping
it there, and how do you think your views differ from the current
management of the OCRWM?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to conduct a thorough review of the
current program to ensure that the plans, processes and resources are
in place to ensure that the repository can be developed successfully.
The results of that review will be used to generate plans that will
have specific, measurable goals and objectives for all parts of the
OCRWM organization, including contractors. At this time, I have had
only limited discussion with the current OCRWM management, and I am not
in a position to express an opinion on their views, however, I look
forward to working with them and forging a successful team.
Question 2a. The Department signed contracts with the nation's
utilities to begin acceptance of their spent fuel in 1998. It's now
2005 and it appears that the Department will not begin taking waste
from the utilities until perhaps 2015.
How do you propose to aggressively move forward on the Yucca
Mountain project so that the government can meet its contractual
obligation?
Answer. It is my intention to aggressively pursue the submittal of
the license application for Yucca Mountain, prepare the transportation
system for readiness, and ensure that the OCRWM organization has the
skills, competencies and culture needed to successfully license,
construct and operate the repository.
Question 2b. Do you have any other ideas about how the government
might meet its obligation if Yucca Mountain continues to be delayed?
Answer. It is my understanding that settlement negotiations are
underway with several utilities. If it is possible to reach settlements
with those and other utilities, those settlements should help establish
and stabilize the government's financial responsibility relating to the
standard contracts while the program works to begin waste acceptance at
Yucca Mountain.
Question 2c. Do you think we should be looking for alternatives?
Answer. Under the current law, Yucca Mountain is the course that
Congress has prescribed for the program. As is the stated position of
the Administration, I am fully committed to the development of a
geologic repository at Yucca Mountain.
Question 3. In recent memory, the Department was going to submit a
license application to the NRC in December 2003, and then it slipped to
2004, and now I don't know if anyone knows the date for the license
application for Yucca Mountain. There is a perception that the program
has been ``treading water'' over the last several years. The dates
reported for license application submittal from the DOE to the NRC
seemed to change weekly in press stories this past summer. As you know,
the License Support Network must be submitted to the NRC and docketed
six months in advance of a license application.
Will you make a commitment to me and this committee that you will
report back to us one month from today on the status of the submittal
of the License Support Network (LSN) to the NRC?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will report back to the committee
within one month on the status of the submittal of the License Support
Network (LSN) to the NRC.
Question 4. Earlier this week, the energy and water conferees
approved a spending bill that allocates $50 million for the department
to begin the development of an Integrated Spent Fuel Recycling Plan.
There is no secret that I am a fan of reprocessing.
While there are future reprocessing technologies that could
potentially expand the capacity of Yucca Mountain to dispose of
radioactive materials, is there any technology that you are aware of
that would eliminate the need for a geological repository at Yucca
Mountain?
Answer. No. While there are a number of promising technologies that
could minimize the amount of waste requiring disposal in a geologic
repository such as Yucca Mountain, I am not aware of any technology
that would eliminate the need for Yucca Mountain.
Responses of Edward F. Sproat III to Questions From Senator Bunning
Question 1. There has been talk that the Federal government needs
to take possession of spent fuel rods and store them at DOE facilities,
such as the Paducah plant, instead of at Yucca Mountain. What are your
thoughts on this?
Answer. It is my understanding that DOE is not currently authorized
to provide interim storage of spent nuclear fuel at DOE sites except
under very limited restrictions and for a very limited amount of fuel.
Large scale interim storage of spent nuclear fuel at DOE sites would
require additional legislation. While I understand there may have been
discussions by some Members of Congress to take possession of spent
fuel rods for storage at existing DOE facilities, the OCRWM is
currently working on a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain pursuant
to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
Question 2. What are your plans to ensure that Yucca Mountain opens
up for waste storage?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to conduct a thorough review of the
current program to ensure that the plans, processes and resources are
in place to ensure that the repository can be developed successfully.
After I have completed that review, I will be in a better position to
discuss those plans with you and the Committee.
Question 3. Yucca Mountain has received limited appropriation
funding over the past few fiscal years and a significant reduction is
being considered for FY 2006. In your opinion, how does limited funding
affect the Yucca Mountain project?
Answer. At this time, I can not speak specifically as to how the
limited appropriations over the last few years have affected the Yucca
Mountain project. I can say, based upon my years of experience in the
nuclear industry, that a steady, secure source of funding is crucial to
the successful completion of any complex, long-term project. In this
regard, I am sure that the Yucca Mountain project is no different, and
that the program's future success will depend upon a reliable, stable
source of adequate funding.
Response of Edward F. Sproat III to Question From Senator Salazar
Question 1. My understanding is that Yucca Mountain, even if
implemented, is not a long term solution. How much nuclear waste is
Yucca Mountain supposed to hold, and how much is awaiting transport
across the country right now? Is there a long term solution?
Answer. The capacity of Yucca Mountain is limited by law to 70,000
metric tons of uranium, although I understand that the mountain has the
capability of holding significantly more waste. I believe that there
are currently over 52,000 metric tons of spent fuel stored at
commercial reactor sites around the country, as well as over 10,000
metric tons of spent fuel and high-level waste stored at DOE sites
which is also destined for disposal in a geologic repository.
I believe it is important for the Nation to address this situation
and for a long-term solution to be provided. Over the long-term, and if
nuclear power is to remain a viable source of electric energy, it seems
that the Nation will need to expand the capacity of Yucca Mountain,
develop an additional repository, pursue methods of closing the nuclear
fuel cycle (such as through reprocessing), or pursue a combination of
these three actions. I do however believe that Yucca Mountain is a
critical part of the long term solution to our nuclear waste situation.