U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

26–838 PDF 2006

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 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina, 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado

ALEX FLINT, Staff Director 

JUDITH K. PENSABENE, Chief Counsel 

BOB SIMON, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

(III)

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

(1)

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.] 

2

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. 

3

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 

4

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 

5

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 fuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:28 Apr 06, 2006 Jkt 109346 PO 26838 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\26838.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
6

ture. 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 

7

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 spentfuel 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 highlevel 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 stakeVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:28 Apr 06, 2006 Jkt 109346 PO 26838 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\26838.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
8

holders and the licensing process, and will be open to their goodfaith 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. 

9

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. 

10

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 partVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:28 Apr 06, 2006 Jkt 109346 PO 26838 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\26838.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
11

ners, 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 researchand-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 nuclearfuel 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 

12

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 fastbreeder 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 highlevel-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 coalpowered 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. 

13

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 underVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:28 Apr 06, 2006 Jkt 109346 PO 26838 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\26838.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
14

stand 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.] 

(15)

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? 

16

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 nearterm policies and measures to slow the growth in greenhouse gas emissions, advancVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:28 Apr 06, 2006 Jkt 109346 PO 26838 Frm 00020 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\26838.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
17

ing 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. 

18

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 

19

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 longterm 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.

08