ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2009 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 

PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana, Chairman 

CHET EDWARDS, Texas 

ED PASTOR, Arizona 

MARION BERRY, Arkansas 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

STEVE ISRAEL, New York 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts 

DAVID HOBSON, Ohio 

ZACH WAMP, Tennessee 

JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho 

DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking 

Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. 

DIXON BUTLER, TERRY TYBOROWSKI, TAUNJA BERQUAM, 

ROBERT SHERMAN, and LORI MAES, Staff Assistants 

PART 6 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Page 

Secretary of the Department of Energy ............................

Environmental Management and Legacy Management. 

Science Research .....................................................................

Energy Supply and Conservation, Fossil Energy, 

Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability .................

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with APPRO

PART 6—ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2009 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with APPRO

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2009 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 

PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana, Chairman 

CHET EDWARDS, Texas 

ED PASTOR, Arizona 

MARION BERRY, Arkansas 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

STEVE ISRAEL, New York 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts 

DAVID HOBSON, Ohio 

ZACH WAMP, Tennessee 

JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho 

DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking 

Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. 

DIXON BUTLER, TERRY TYBOROWSKI, TAUNJA BERQUAM, 

ROBERT SHERMAN, and LORI MAES, Staff Assistants 

PART 6 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Page 

Secretary of the Department of Energy ............................

Environmental Management and Legacy Management. 

Science Research .....................................................................

Energy Supply and Conservation, Fossil Energy, 

Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability .................

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

43–355 WASHINGTON : 2008 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with APPRO

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin, Chairman 

JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania 

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington 

ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut 

JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia 

JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts 

ED PASTOR, Arizona 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina 

CHET EDWARDS, Texas 

ROBERT E. ‘‘BUD’’ CRAMER, JR., Alabama 

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

SAM FARR, California 

JESSE L. JACKSON, JR., Illinois 

CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan 

ALLEN BOYD, Florida 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

MARION BERRY, Arkansas 

BARBARA LEE, California 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

ADAM SCHIFF, California 

MICHAEL HONDA, California 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

STEVE ISRAEL, New York 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

JERRY LEWIS, California 

C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida 

RALPH REGULA, Ohio 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky 

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia 

JAMES T. WALSH, New York 

DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio 

JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan 

JACK KINGSTON, Georgia 

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey 

TODD TIAHRT, Kansas 

ZACH WAMP, Tennessee 

TOM LATHAM, Iowa 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri 

KAY GRANGER, Texas 

JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania 

VIRGIL H. GOODE, JR., Virginia 

RAY LAHOOD, Illinois 

DAVE WELDON, Florida 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

ROB NABORS, Clerk and Staff Director 

(II)

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with APPRO

(1) 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT, AND 

RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

2009 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2008. 

SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

WITNESS 

HON. SAMUEL BODMAN, SECRETARY OF ENERGY 

CHAIRMAN VISCLOSKY’S OPENING STATEMENT

Mr. VISCLOSKY [presiding]. I would like to bring the subcommittee to order. 

Mr. Secretary, I thank you very much for being here. I understand that you have not been in the best of health, but we do appreciate the trouble you have gone to be here. 

This is our third hearing of the year of the subcommittee, but the 

first dealing specifically with the Department of Energy that encompasses the majority of our jurisdiction. Given the interest in the 

hearing, I did want to take this opportunity, as I did yesterday, to 

welcome back Mr. Rehberg to the subcommittee. He is trying to introduce better health habits and dietary habits to us. [Laughter.] 

I appreciate that, as well as Mr. Calvert, who has extensive experience and knowledge as far as water issues in particular, and is 

going to make a great contribution to the Committee. I again appreciate their being on the subcommittee. 

But also, as everybody appreciates, the work of the subcommittee 

is certainly been driven by the staff. Unfortunately, our Clerk from 

last year, Dixon Butler, had a very serious illness and continues to 

recuperate, and Scott Burnison has also gone on to his next stepping stone in life, and we have some additional personnel changes. 

I just wanted to take a moment to highlight that, and then we can 

begin the hearing. 

First of all, we have a detailee from the Department of Energy, 

Uday Varadarajan. Uday, if you would identify yourself? Uday is 

a detailee from DOE, originally from Berkeley, went to Princeton, 

got his Ph.D. from U.C. Berkeley. The title of his dissertation, 

which Mr. Simpson is also going to elaborate on a bit later, was 

Geometry Topology in String Theory. 

So I just want to make sure we are clear on that. 

The other detailee, and I almost hate those titles because they 

really are full-fledged members of our group and staff, is Lauren 

Minto, who grew up and is from the great state of Montana. As I 

like to kid Lauren, she majored in Latin because all of her degrees 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
2 

are followed by summa and magna and cum laude and all of those 

types of words. She had the good sense to get two of her advanced 

degrees from the University of Indiana in Bloomington, Indiana. I 

don’t know how she got this job. 

Rob Blair is continuing his work with the Committee, but in an 

enhanced capacity. Rob served with the Committee last year, but 

also had a lot of duties on Foreign Operations, and essentially is 

here fulltime picking up the slack from Kevin Cook. Rob, it appears 

that if you work on the right end of this panel, you have to graduate from Cornell, and is a Cornell grad, and also have advanced 

degrees from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, and spent 

some time in the Peace Corps. 

Also new to our staff is Bob Sherman. If Bob would identify himself? He is a graduate of Oberlin College, as well as UCONN, and 

has a great deal of congressional experience, with most of it on the 

authorizing side. Bob has seen the light and is new on the appropriations side. But very importantly for his work on weapons programs, he spent 8 years with the Arms Control and Disarmament 

Agency at the State Department. 

Returning is Lori Maes, who is our administrative aide, from 

New Mexico, went to Texas Women’s University, and has been with 

the full committee for 25 years, most of which she spent on the 

Foreign Operations Subcommittee. 

Also returning is one of our leaders, Terry Tyborowski. She returns continuing to do an exceptional job as far as environmental 

management accounts and many of the other energy accounts. To 

show you how smart Terry is, she went to school at ‘‘the U,’’ as 

some people would call it, the University of Miami, where it is 

much warmer than Cornell. 

Also, before I introduce our leaders, we have a lot of associate 

staff here, and at one point that was my occupation in life, so I appreciate the contribution of all of the associate staff, two in particular. Colonel Kenny Kraft, who is the associate staff for Mr. 

Hobson, and Shari Davenport, who is my associate staff. 

We also do have, if you would, our leadership and that is Kevin 

Cook, a Cornell grad, as I mentioned, formerly with the Corps, and 

previously served, as many of you know, as Clerk of the subcommittee. As I like to tell Kevin, he married really well in life. 

And finally, the Clerk is Taunja Berguarn, who has multiple degrees from Portland State University, and has served on the subcommittee and also is, if you would, experienced as far as her career, with the Army Corps of Engineers, also having served our 

country in Iraq during 2004. 

And very importantly, we don’t know for sure, but it is our working assumption, is that in the old days, as I like to say, you had 

to be a former Marine to clerk an appropriations subcommittee, not 

that there is anything wrong with that, but it would appear that 

Taunja is the first woman to clerk the Energy and Water Subcommittee. You might want to give her a round of applause for 

that. 

With that, I do have an opening statement, and then Mr. Secretary, we will proceed. 

Secretary, thank you very much for appearing before the subcommittee today. Funding and oversight of the Department of EnVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:21 Jul 24, 2008 Jkt 043355 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A355P2.XXX A355P2

yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
3 

ergy constitutes roughly 80 percent of the responsibility of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee. The scope of DOE activity is diverse and of critical importance. 

Last year as the Chairman of this subcommittee, I outlined five 

themes that I view as high priority: Effective project management 

of the agency’s programs, a smart investment in energy research 

development and technology, advancing national efforts on nuclear 

nonproliferation, transforming and reducing the nuclear weapons 

complex, and finally, addressing our national environmental cleanup responsibilities. 

These issues have not lessened in importance in the intervening 

year. On the contrary, they have become more critical. 

I would now add nuclear waste disposal to the list. 

The department is ultimately an implementing organization, and 

not responsible for the promulgation of policy. However, this issue 

impacts the Department’s budget and operations. More importantly, the issue has significant impacts to the national budget 

through judgment fund payments estimated as much as $35 billion. 

An additional energy concern is gas prices, an issue impacting 

every American. Earlier this month, the subcommittee had an oversight hearing on the best options for reducing oil consumption and 

decreasing CO2 emissions from the vehicle sector. In that hearing, 

we learned of several promising research opportunities that could 

lead to reduced reliance on oil. 

Today’s hearing is the first of seven this subcommittee will conduct this year on the Department of Energy’s fiscal year 2009 

budget request and current management challenges and approaches. I would like to establish at the outset that I am extremely troubled by the Department’s administration of the fiscal 

year 2008 appropriations. The Department has repeatedly and 

cavalierly disregarded congressional direction on significant issues 

under its jurisdiction. The language contained in the Omnibus Appropriation Bill was clear, yet the department has repeatedly 

thwarted specific directions and the intent of Congress. 

Mr. Secretary, when you came to the Department, you committed 

to reforming project management. Yet time and again, the Department comes to Congress with reports of significant cost increases 

and schedule slips. You now appear before us with what is presumably your last budget request, and there has been no significant 

change in the Department’s approach to cost and schedule issues. 

I also question the choices that the administration has made in 

the budget request. For example, the budget proposes the elimination of the Weatherization Program during a period of rising energy costs for those who are less fortunate. Yet NP–2010 is substantially above its baseline estimate. Nuclear Nonproliferation is 

reduced, while funding for nuclear weapons is increased. 

Last year, you testified that meeting the Department’s commitment for public health was among your highest priorities, yet this 

budget proposes to fund the Environmental Management account 

at a level that would not meet those commitments. President Bush 

proudly requests a huge increase for the Office of Science, and in 

the same document savages funding for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy programs by $467 million. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
4 

Now, I must tell you, Mr. Secretary, I am abjectly disappointed. 

I will be interested today in hearing your defense of the choices 

made in the Department’s fiscal year 2009 budget request, fiscal 

year 2008 execution, and overall department management. 

At this point, I would like to yield to Mr. Hobson for his opening 

statement. 

Mr. HOBSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

MR. HOBSON’S OPENING STATEMENT

Mr. Secretary, this is the third year where you are testifying before this subcommittee. As I have said before—is it four? 

Secretary BODMAN. It seems like three. 

Mr. HOBSON. It has gone by fast. [Laughter.] 

I believe that Secretary Bodman is probably one of the best 

qualified secretaries that we have ever seen at the Department of 

Energy in a long time. However, I have to say that I am very disappointed that his technical expertise and management background have not led to the tangible improvements in the department that I had hoped for, and I think this committee hoped for. 

The nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain is still on life 

support, and the department is ignoring the political realities in 

the Senate and the state of Nevada that can and will block any 

progress on the repository. The department refuses to look seriously at alternatives for dealing with spent fuel. 

Meanwhile, spent fuel continues to accumulate at reactor sites 

around the country and a multi-billion dollar liability against the 

federal government grows larger every day. The department has 

fumbled attempts at recycling spent fuel under the global nuclear 

energy partnership, and have alienated even the strongest supporters for recycling spent fuel, and have done nothing to convert 

any of the skeptics. 

In part because of the failure to provide real solutions for spent 

fuel, the department has also failed to move forward decisively on 

nuclear power. We absolutely will need more nuclear power plants 

to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and reduce our greenhouse 

gas emissions. The department has not put the U.S. nuclear industry on a secure footing, in my opinion, for the future. 

The massive waste treatment plant at Hanford continues to be 

behind schedule and the cost estimates are reliable only until the 

next management team takes over. I have seen that time and time 

again. But the department still believes that the waste treatment 

plant deserves $690 million every year, regardless of whether we 

have any project performance to show to the taxpayers. In total, the department is requesting $25 billion for fiscal year 2009. Most people do not realize that we will spend $2 billion of 

that amount at the Hanford site. We will spend another $2 billion 

at Los Alamos—not one of my favorite places, because we can’t get 

any performance judgments. I guess success is measured by how 

much we spend every year on certain projects in certain states, 

rather than what results are achieved. 

Another place where the department made a bad deal for the 

taxpayers is the Savannah River site in South Carolina. The department wants to spend nearly $2.2 billion at Savannah River in 

2009, with the centerpiece for waste spending being the MOX 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
5 

plant. I recognize the political compromise that led the chairman 

to allow that project to move forward into construction, but that 

doesn’t mean I have to like it or trust anything the department 

tells us about it, and I have a very pointed question later on that 

I am going to ask about what is happening down there and why 

you are continuing to do certain things in the design-build of that, 

when there is a very serious technical problem with that construction. 

There are some bright spots at the department, and I am thinking especially of the success that Ray Orbach is achieving on the 

science front. I give Dr. Orbach credit for doing the best he can 

within the funding made available to him, for taking the longrange view of his programs, and for taking congressional guidance 

seriously. Unfortunately, the Office of Science is an exception, rather than the rule at DOE. If anything the DOE’s motto seems to be 

ignore Congress’s direction to the maximum extent. 

It is an interesting strategy when DOE is before this sub- committee asking for over $25 billion in 2009. If we face fiscal constraints similar to what happened in 2008, where we had to work 

within the president’s proposed spending levels for our bill, I personally would recommend we do the same thing we did last year, 

which is transfer at least $1 billion from DOE to the Corps of Engineers. 

I would much rather give the taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars to 

an agency that is beginning to understand and respond to project 

management, following congressional direction, and recognizes that 

its contractors work for the federal government, instead of the 

other way around. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Okay, Mr. Hobson. 

Mr. Secretary. 

SECRETARY BODMAN’S OPENING STATEMENT

Secretary BODMAN. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Hobson, members of the subcommittee, thank you for giving me the opportunity 

of appearing before you for what is now the fourth time to discuss 

our department’s budget request. 

I think it is safe to say that the budget of 2009, that the goals 

of the budget of 2009 are largely unchanged from our budget goals 

in previous years. This budget request provides us, in my judgment, the resources that are needed to continue to move forward 

on our five central missions, which we count as promoting and enhancing energy security, nuclear security, scientific discovery, environmental responsibility, and management excellence. 

Since 2001, this administration and Congress have invested more than $180 billion in the Department of Energy and its programs. 

These investments have been used to address the growing demand 

for affordable, clean and reliable energy; have helped safeguard our 

national security; and have enabled scientific research leading to 

significant improvements in the quality of life and the health of the 

American people. The department’s fiscal year 2009 request in the amount of $25 

billion, as has been mentioned, was developed with the need to continue these activities in mind, and to address the energy challenges 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
6 

that confront us daily. An investment of this size allows us to fulfill 

our central missions, as well as advance the goals of the president’s 

American competitiveness initiative, to ensure U.S. technological 

competitiveness and economic security. It also allows us to continue 

our progress toward the goals of the president’s advanced energy 

initiative, accelerating the research, development and deployment 

of clean alternative energy technology. 

The Department of Energy is responsible for promoting America’s energy security. We encourage the development of reliable, 

clean and affordable energy supplies, and we strengthen United 

States competitiveness by leading in innovation and scientific discovery. At the same time, we continue to ensure the security of the 

nuclear stockpile and we reclaim and restore the sites that are the 

nation’s environmental legacy. 

All of this is done under a rubric of sound management, consistent with the president’s management agenda to improve performance and accountability. But this budget request also reflects 

our concerns about America’s energy future. The projected growth 

in global energy demand is a major challenge for us all. It is a challenge that must be met with responsible action. Global demand will 

continue to grow. We cannot depend solely on hydrocarbons to meet 

it. 

This is a problem for all nations, for energy producers and consumers alike. I believe, therefore, that it is vital that the United 

States pursue policies that enhance global energy security, not just 

our own. We need new energy options, cleaner and more efficient 

technologies, and alternative fuel. And we must support fully the 

research and innovation necessary for their development. We must 

diversify our energy supplies, diversify our energy suppliers, and 

establish and secure additional energy supply routes. 

This budget document should also be viewed as a roadmap showing the future course of America’s energy security. This course will 

not, in my judgment, be an easy one, but I believe it is a necessary 

one. These efforts will require a sustained commitment on the part 

of government, strong private sector investment, and strategic collaborations between government, the private sector, and the research community, including academia. Our goal is to foster continued economic growth and promote a sustainable energy future. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe the committee has a copy of my written 

statement, which I now ask be included in the record, so that in 

the interests of time, we might move to any questions that you or 

other members of the committee may have about the department’s 

budget request. 

Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Samuel W. Bodman, Secretary, U.S. 

Department of Energy, follows:] 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
7 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 16 here 43355A.001
8 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 17 here 43355A.002
9 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 18 here 43355A.003
10 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 19 here 43355A.004
11 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 20 here 43355A.005
12 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 21 here 43355A.006
13 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 22 here 43355A.007
14 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 23 here 43355A.008
15 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 24 here 43355A.009
16 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 25 here 43355A.010
17 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 26 here 43355A.011
18 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 27 here 43355A.012
19 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 28 here 43355A.013
20 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 29 here 43355A.014
21 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 30 here 43355A.015
22 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 31 here 43355A.016
23 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 32 here 43355A.017
24 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 33 here 43355A.018
25 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 34 here 43355A.019
26 

MANAGEMENT OF MOX PROGRAM

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much. 

The first question I would have is I would like to discuss what 

we have talked about many times, and Mr. Hobson has alluded to 

it, and that is the MOX plant in South Carolina. We ended up providing enough new budget authority to bring MOX funding to $300 

million, and $94 million for the current fiscal year. However, since 

this had changed from a nonproliferation project to an energy 

project, we decided the program should be managed by Nuclear Energy. In the bill signed into law by the President of the United 

States of America, we shifted the funding out of NNSA. 

Mr. Secretary, it appears as if NNSA continues to manage the 

program. We were very clear in the direction, and how much longer 

will it take the Department to follow congressional directive in a 

law signed by the President of the United States? 

Secretary BODMAN. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, and I have 

reviewed this matter as recently as yesterday, the general counsel 

of the Department of Energy takes the view that I am not permitted under the NNSA Act, the creation of the NNSA, to move 

any activities out of the NNSA to other parts of this department. 

Therefore, we have taken and tried to respond in every possible 

way that we could. It is still being managed by the NNSA, but it 

is being managed with the overall supervision of the Nuclear Energy Office, as you have instructed. We are continuing to do work 

in the legal department, in our General Counsel’s office, in order 

to determine the final answer, but at least on a preliminary basis, 

that is what I am told. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. We have a law that the President signed into 

law. We gave you the money. 

Secretary BODMAN. I understand that, sir. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. We gave you the money, but made a clear distinction because it was eating nonproliferation alive, and we have 

problems in places like Pakistan, that this is an energy program 

which is fine. I mean, Mr. Hobson, we obviously have a long track 

record opposed to MOX. 

Secretary BODMAN. Right. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. We gave the Department the money, but clearly 

said where it ought to be managed, and we have a law to that effect, and your lawyer is telling you not to do it. 

Secretary BODMAN. My lawyer is telling me that I am not capable of doing it. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Despite the fact that we passed a law? 

Secretary BODMAN. Despite the fact that you passed the law. 

Yes, sir. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Congress passed the law. 

Secretary BODMAN. That Congress passed the law and the president signed it. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. And the administration doesn’t want to do it. 

Secretary BODMAN. It is not a matter of not wanting to do it, sir. 

It is looking at the creation of the NNSA and what the authorities 

are that have been granted to the Secretary of Energy. I am not 

permitted, according to what I am told, to move the project as instructed by Congress. Therefore, we have taken and done everyVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:21 Jul 24, 2008 Jkt 043355 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A355P2.XXX A355P2

yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
27 

thing we know how to do, that is to say have it managed by the 

Nuclear Energy Office as they are overseeing this activity. But the 

day-to-day management is continuing to be in the NNSA. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Has your legal department provided you with 

any e-mails or memorandums or paper documents to that effect? 

Secretary BODMAN. The legal department has provided me with 

verbal information of the sort that I have just described, and they 

are in the process of preparing a written document to that effect. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Do you know if your legal department has prepared a memorandum that is the basis of their oral conversations 

with you to that effect? 

Secretary BODMAN. No, sir, I do not know. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Could you answer for the record whether they 

have, and if they have, if you would submit those as part of your 

testimony to the committee? 

Secretary BODMAN. I would be happy to do that. 

MOX TRANSFER

Materials related to the DOE General Counsel legal decision on the MOX transfer 

from the National Nuclear Security Administration to the Nuclear Energy Office 

were supplied directly to the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate that. 

CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION

Second, the conference report clearly directed that 50 percent of 

fiscal year 2008 Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiatives, GNEP research 

and development funds, roughly $75 million, are to be made available in an agency-wide solicitation for universities, national laboratories, and commercial entities. Once again, it is certainly our belief that the direction was clear and definite. 

However, it took the Department 2 months to figure out, apparently, what was in the conference report, and some additional period of time to finally come up to the Hill and speak to us about 

it. It is unfortunate that the Department of Energy has gone ahead 

and allocated funds under the CR in a way that apparently makes 

following the congressional directive difficult. 

Perhaps if the Department had consulted with the Committee 

months ago, we wouldn’t be in the current position we are. Could 

you tell us where you are in implementing the direction contained 

in the conference report? 

Secretary BODMAN. We are all for competition. That is an important matter, and apparently we had developed the idea that there 

would be independent areas of the academic community, the national laboratories, and private industry. The staff apparently 

wanted a competition run for all, and so we have had to start over 

again, having started down the path that I just indicated. So that 

is what took a couple of months. 

We are continuing to develop a plan for that. We expect to have 

that done shortly, that is to say within the next month or so. And 

we will proceed to move forward. I think that it is likely, as I think 

is indicated in the Committee’s judgment, that there will be I think 

it is 50 percent of the GNEP activity is supposed to be done by 

competition. I think we are probably going to fall short of that, but 

we are doing our absolute level best to do it, and there is no relucVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:21 Jul 24, 2008 Jkt 043355 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A355P2.XXX A355P2

yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
28 

tance on the part of the department to follow the intent of Congress. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Why would you fall short on the 50 percent? 

Secretary BODMAN. Because I am not halfway through the year. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. You are halfway through the year now, but the 

bill was passed in December. 

Secretary BODMAN. I understand that. The bill was passed at the 

time right before Christmas. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Right. 

Secretary BODMAN. In effect, the first quarter of the year was 

gone. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Right. 

Secretary BODMAN. I have been developing the responses of the 

sort that I have already described, and we are continuing to do 

work. We will have a competition, but we have also been following 

under the Continuing Resolution. We have been following the direction, what we felt was the direction of Congress, with respect to 

funding individual laboratories, individual universities, and individual private companies. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Secretary, you mention in your answer that 

staff at DOE wanted to do something. 

Secretary BODMAN. It is not a matter of wanting. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Congress—Congress said it should be 50 percent. 

Secretary BODMAN. I understand that. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. So to be honest with you, I don’t care what the 

staff thinks. Congress said 50 percent. 

Secretary BODMAN. I understand. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. And not just people on this subcommittee. 

Secretary BODMAN. I understand. 

IDAHO NATIONAL LAB

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Next question. The fiscal year 2008 omnibus include $14.8 million in funding and directed the NNSA to refurbish 

building 561 and complex building 691 at Idaho National Lab for 

material consolidation and other purposes. Are you aware that 

NNSA has informed the committee that it does not intend to comply with this congressional direction and is going to use the funding for other purposes? 

Secretary BODMAN. I am aware of it. I am aware that we are 

going to request to use the funding for other purposes. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. What is so hard about following direction in a 

law signed by the President of the United States, that is agreed to 

by 535 elected legislators of a coequal branch of the government 

under the Constitution of the United States? 

Secretary BODMAN. We think that—— 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. And there is no signing letter. 

Secretary BODMAN. I am sorry. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. And don’t get me started on that. 

Secretary BODMAN. I didn’t hear. 

Mr. HOBSON. Well, I was just asking, if you would—and there is 

no signing letter. 

Secretary BODMAN. I don’t know what a signing letter is, Mr. 

Hobson. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
29 

Mr. HOBSON. Unfortunately, we have learned too much about 

them in this administration. I think most of the people in the past 

were limited in doing it. It is when the president signs a letter that 

says ‘‘we don’t like this part of a bill, so we are not going to enforce 

it.’’ I think they are outrageous. 

There isn’t one on this, as far as I know, on this bill. So that is 

part of our problem. We find it difficult to understand if a law is 

passed and it is the law of the land, why it is not being followed, 

especially if there is this tactic that has been used recently. A lot 

of presidents used it in the past, but never to the degree it is being 

done now. 

So we find that particularly unusual, I guess, the fact that there 

isn’t a signing letter, that somebody along the way has just said 

‘‘we are not going to follow what the president has signed,’’ and we 

don’t have anything justifying it. 

I am sorry. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. And Mr. Secretary, NNSA obviously is going to 

come in, too, but I would suggest that you have a conversation with 

them that we passed a law. 

Secretary BODMAN. I understand. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. They may have preferences, but we passed a law. 

Secretary BODMAN. I understand. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Okay. 

Mr. Hobson. 

FIVE-YEAR BUDGET PLANNING

Mr. HOBSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have three or four issues I would like to get to. Normally, I 

would defer to the members of the committee, but these are things 

that I feel compelled to follow up on, with the chairman’s understanding here. 

Mr. Secretary, you know well that 5-year budget planning was 

one of my top business priorities when I was here, to try to get 

some control not from our standpoint, but control of how we spend 

money, have a plan, that we know where we are going. You know 

where we are going, we know where we are going. It is a joint priority between the chairman and myself that we still share. We 

didn’t come up with this independently. We fostered this together. 

The House report for 2008 contained clear direction requiring the 

department to submit updated 5-year budget plans, concurrent 

with the submission of the 2009 budget request. The explanatory 

statement accompanying the consolidated Appropriation Act for 

2008 specifically states that guidance contained in the separate 

House and Senate reports remains effective unless modified by the 

explanatory statement. 

Despite this clear direction, the department did not submit any 

5-year budget plans for this year. Further, committee staff has 

been informed the department has no intention of submitting these 

5-year plans for anytime later this year. I confess to being surprised at this decision, given that the department has submitted 

these 5-year budget plans for key DOE programs in the past several years, and has done so with the support and participation of 

the Office of Management and Budget. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
30 

Was the decision to ignore the congressional direction for 2009 

made within the department or at OMB? 

Secondly, has the department considered what the funding consequences may be for blatantly ignoring this and other directions 

from the Appropriations Committees? 

Thirdly, given that the department is so dismissive of the direction and priorities of this committee, please explain why we should 

not be similarly dismissive of the priorities that you all come forward with in the budget request. Because this was a management 

tool. You are a management guy. 

Secretary BODMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HOBSON. This was designed so that people knew where you 

were going to be in the future, so that we could help you and work 

with you. But it is like, you know, forget it, we are not here. It is 

a good tool. The Corps, for example, has found that it is a good tool. 

And frankly, OMB has come around in my meetings with the people at OMB that it is a good thing for the Corps to have this. 

This is one of the ways we can control spending and we can control earmarks, and we know where people are going. Why your 

agency would so blatantly disregard this after following it for a 

number of years, I don’t understand it. 

Secretary BODMAN. First of all, just for the record, we did complete the 5-year plan for the NNSA, which is some $9 billion of the 

budget. So 40 percent of the budget of the Energy Department has 

a 5-year plan that has been submitted. On the balance of it, I plead 

guilty. It is between the department and OMB. It was a joint decision that has been made. I have no response to you other than 

that. 

Mr. HOBSON. Well, we haven’t see it, if there is one for NNSA. 

Secretary BODMAN. Yes. 

Mr. HOBSON. It isn’t here, because I have asked my staff, and we 

have just asked here, they don’t have it. 

Secretary BODMAN. There is one. 

Mr. HOBSON. Well, it would be nice—I mean, we only provide the 

money. It would be nice if it was shared at some point before we 

do something. 

Secretary BODMAN. I understand. 

Mr. HOBSON. I mean, this is just—you know how I feel about 

this, and we feel about this. This is a management tool to help everybody, and they have just blatantly disregarded it. 

Secretary BODMAN. I can just tell you that the financial staff, 

and I am very proud of them—— 

Mr. HOBSON. I am glad you are. 

Secretary BODMAN. Well, I am. They did a very good job of working on the budget and trying to get the 2009 budget right. I believe 

that we produced a very good document as a result of that, and it 

took maximum effort up until the very last minute to accomplish 

that. 

Mr. HOBSON. But you are a businessman by background. 

Secretary BODMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HOBSON. I can’t believe that you ever ran anything without 

having a business plan. 

Secretary BODMAN. That is correct. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
31 

Mr. HOBSON. Without having long-range plans, and that you put 

those down on paper so your management team knew where you 

were going and what you were doing. 

Secretary BODMAN. I agree with that. 

Mr. HOBSON. And you went to your finance people. 

Secretary BODMAN. I agree with that. 

Mr. HOBSON. You are now running an agency that can’t do that. 

That is why the public has great distrust of government, is because 

we don’t know what we are doing, and we don’t put it out. 

Anyway, let me go on to another question here. 

RED OIL AT MOX

You know how I feel about MOX. There are reports that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission surfaced some concerns about the 

risk of red oil explosion at the MOX project as it is presently designed. What can you tell me about this problem and how DOE is 

addressing it in the design of the MOX facility. One of those things 

that I don’t like is where you design on the fly, which got you in 

trouble out west, and you are doing it again. 

Does the Nuclear Regulatory Commission consider this issue resolved? I think the answer is no. The NRC is allowing the department to proceed with construction of the MOX plant with certain 

technical issues still unresolved. It is possible that the NRC may 

not be able to issue an operating license after we spend these billions of dollars for the MOX plant if this red oil problem is not resolved to NRC’s satisfaction. 

What type of design work will need to happen to accommodate 

the red oil explosion concern, which I assume is going to cost us 

all more money. Please provide for the record a copy of all correspondence between the department and the NRC regarding the 

red oil issue. Also provide a copy of all internal DOE memoranda 

of communications, including e-mails on this issue. 

I think this is a very—and this is a dumb thing to say—but a 

very explosive issue. We found out about this. Are you aware of 

this? 

Secretary BODMAN. No, sir. 

Mr. HOBSON. Well, frankly, sir, somebody should tell you about 

it, because it is a serious problem. 

Secretary BODMAN. I know nothing about it, and I will be happy 

to try to provide a response for the record. 

RED OIL ISSUE

Materials related to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission technical issue with the 

MOX design and the possibility of a red oil explosion were supplied directly to the 

Energy and Water Development Subcommittee. 

Mr. HOBSON. This is an explosive issue. It is a cost-explosive 

issue and it may be a dangerous issue. We are continuing to build 

a plant and fund hundreds of millions of dollars into something 

that may have a serious design flaw in it right now. This is what 

is wrong with these—I can’t think of the term right now. I don’t 

like the way we build things in the government. 

Let me switch to another subject since you can’t answer that one. 

This is my last one. You will be happy with that, for the moment. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
32 

PDCF MANAGEMENT TRANSFER

You are saying that the NNSA Act prevents you from transferring projects such as MOX out of NNSA. We also transferred the 

pit disassembly and conversation facility, PDCF, from nonproliferation to weapons activities. This is all within NNSA. Has the management for PDCF been transferred to weapons activities yet? And 

if not, why not? 

Secretary BODMAN. I believe that this activity, which falls within 

the nonproliferation area, is being managed in the nonproliferation 

area of the NNSA. 

Mr. HOBSON. But we asked it to be shifted within NNSA. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. It is in the law to shift it. It is a defense program. It is not a nonproliferation program, and there was clear direction and it was in the conference report. It was in the omnibus 

bill and the President signed it into law. And we spent a year— 

a year—working on this issue to make sure that defense programs 

are in defense programs, and nonproliferation is nonproliferation, 

and energy is in energy. We wasted a year because energy has a 

legal department and they don’t care. 

Secretary BODMAN. They do care, sir. I would tell you that they 

care deeply about this. They are currently evaluating what is required in order to accomplish the change. The mere fact that the 

Congress decides to do something does not necessarily mean that 

I can do it. That is what we are examining. 

For example, I have been instructed to move the MOX program 

out of the NNSA to the Nuclear Energy Office. It turns out that 

I cannot do that, at least according to our reading of the law. 

Mr. HOBSON. I understand that one. I understand you could have 

a question on it. I still don’t agree, and lawyers can disagree. 

Secretary BODMAN. Right. 

Mr. HOBSON. And we will get into that one. But this one doesn’t 

have that same thing. This is inside NNSA. This isn’t the same 

question, sir. This is a different question. This is somebody just 

saying, ‘‘we aren’t going to do it.’’ 

Secretary BODMAN. Sir, it is not a matter of saying that we are 

not going to do it, but I want to make sure that as we do it, we 

are accomplishing it in a legal fashion. That is what is going on 

here. 

Mr. HOBSON. Well, what I am trying to say to you is there is not 

the same legal question. 

Secretary BODMAN. I understand that. 

Mr. HOBSON. One is, you are saying is in NNSA and out of 

NNSA. This one is all inside NNSA. There cannot be the same 

legal question there on that. It may be a different legal question, 

but it is not that legal question, and I don’t think it is a legal question. I think it is an attitude in the agency. 

Secretary BODMAN. It is not a matter of attitude, sir. I would tell 

you that. You may interpret it as such, but that is not the intention. I understand that, but I am just telling you that that is not 

the intention. The intention is to try to do this properly, and that 

is this activity reports to both the nonproliferation and to the defense programs, part of the NNSA. And therefore, is that now acceptable or is it not acceptable? It is that kind of a question. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
33 

Mr. HOBSON. I think there is a way to resolve this. Get a paper. 

We don’t have any dialogue on this. We just get inactivity. If somebody would give us a paper, then we could begin a dialogue and 

try to work it out to where it gets acceptable. 

Secretary BODMAN. To both sides. 

Mr. HOBSON. Yes. And if we need to put something in another 

bill—I probably won’t be here when that passes and neither will 

you—but we can get it done, because this is what the Congress, 

both the House and the Senate, said to do. This isn’t something 

that we are doing unilaterally. This is a bill. 

Secretary BODMAN. I understand. 

Mr. HOBSON. So anyway, I hope you sense the frustration of the 

chairman and myself. 

Secretary BODMAN. I do. I do. 

Mr. HOBSON. I think, frankly, I am not going to speak for the 

chairman, but I think we feel a little had, especially this problem 

down at MOX. I acceded, and I stopped screwing around with MOX 

because a deal was made and I lived up to that deal. 

Secretary BODMAN. Right. 

Mr. HOBSON. But when I see this sort of thing happening, and 

I told you at the time, I think the expenses are going to go crazy 

down there. This is an ill-conceived project, in my opinion, but now 

that is coming true, I am afraid. Once we make a deal, I want 

it—— 

Secretary BODMAN. I agree with that. All I can tell you, sir, is 

that I will take a look at it personally and I will respond. 

Mr. HOBSON. All right, sir. Thank you. 

PDCF MANAGEMENT TRANSFER

Materials related to the issues facing DOE in transferring management responsibilities of the pit disassembly and conversion facility from nonproliferation to 

weapons activities within the National Nuclear Security Administration were supplied directly to the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. And for the record, I just want to make a note 

that the committee provided monies for these programs. It was not 

as though we eliminated funding. What we were trying to do is 

make sure there is segregation of programs by function. 

On MOX, I would express my support for the position that Mr. 

Hobson has taken. It is no secret I have had great reservations 

about the MOX facility as well. In the end, my Ranking Member, 

a good friend, was a gentleman about the deal and the agreement 

we had to proceed with MOX. We gave them the money, but we 

gave them the money and said, ‘‘and you come back and you report 

regularly and you hit every milestone, and don’t you mess up.’’ And 

if people are going to mess up, then they still have a serious problem. 

Mr. Israel. 

WEATHERIZATION

Mr. ISRAEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, you can obviously detect a great deal of frustration and maybe even some distrust by the subcommittee. I think 

that the frustration and distrust isn’t limited to some members of 

this subcommittee. I think it is felt by the American public at 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
34 

large. I will give you one example of where I think those anxieties 

occur. 

If you log onto the Department of Energy’s Web site, you will 

learn from the Web site that weatherization reduces heating bills 

on an average of 31 percent, while reducing our reliance on imported oil. If you continue into the Web site, you will read that a 

2002 DOE study documents, ‘‘weatherization benefits to utility 

ratepayers, the economy and the environment that are in addition 

to the energy benefits that reduce the energy bills of low-income 

families.’’ 

And so on the one hand, the Department of Energy touts the 

benefits of weatherization, but in the Department of Energy budget 

there is a grand total of zero dollars for weatherization. The American public is paying three times for home heating oil what they 

were paying in 2001. Home heating oil costs have tripled since 

2001 and the department is terminating the weatherization program. 

The department notes that the reason for this is that the department wishes EERE, energy efficiency and renewable energy, to 

focus on its core mission of advanced energy efficiency and renewable energy R&D. The department is terminating the weatherization assistance program to focus EERE on its core mission of advanced energy efficiency and renewable energy R&D. 

But then when you actually study the EERE budget, you learn 

that hydrogen is being cut 30 percent; solar is being cut 7.3 percent; water is being cut 69 percent; industrial technologies are 

being cut 3.6 percent. So we are not focusing EERE on its core mission of renewable R&D. We are in fact cutting the budget for specific renewable technologies, while we are saying that we are actually increasing them. 

My question is, if in fact the department believes, as it must believe because it states on its Web site that weatherization reduces 

heating bills an average of 31 percent and that weatherization reduces our reliance on imported oil, and that weatherization provides benefits to utility ratepayers, the economy and the environment, and as the department knows, if home heating oil costs have 

tripled since 2001, and if we are actually cutting specific renewable 

programs in the EERE, what is the rationale for terminating the 

weatherization program? 

Secretary BODMAN. The rationale simply is the rate of return 

that we get. We get 20 for 1—$20 for every $1 we invest in the research programs. We get I think it is $1.50 return on the weatherization program. That is the rationale for the termination of the 

program. 

Mr. ISRAEL. But then why are cutting hydrogen, solar, water and 

industrial technologies? 

Secretary BODMAN. We are not cutting it. We are cutting it relative to the very generous budget that EERE got from Congress a 

year ago, but not from the request that we made a year ago. And 

so if you compare the request that we made a year ago to the request that we made this year, there is a significant increase. I don’t 

happen to recall what it is, but we would be happy to get you the 

numbers. But that is the rationale, that there was a run-up in the 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
35 

size—I think it was $100 million increase in the budget for EERE 

that they got because of congressional interest in this matter. 

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Secretary, you made the statement that we leverage far more in our research of renewable energy technologies. 

Secretary BODMAN. That is correct. 

Mr. ISRAEL. Congress agrees with you, which is why we plussedup those numbers. And now you are saying that we ought to actually reduce the congressional levels. 

Secretary BODMAN. It is not a matter of reducing them. This is 

a question of increases that are being put in place versus what we 

asked for a year ago. You know, that is all I can do. I have just 

been handed a note, we have increases in biomass, in wind, in geothermal, in building technology, and industrial technologies. 

Mr. ISRAEL. Yes, you do. Well, no, you have decreases in industrial technologies, I believe. 

Secretary BODMAN. Relative to what we asked for a year ago, sir. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. If the gentleman would yield? 

Mr. ISRAEL. I yield to the chairman. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Are gas prices lower than last year or relative to 

last year? Or are they higher? Are energy prices higher or lower? 

Secretary BODMAN. I don’t carry that number around, but I am 

sure they are higher. 

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, do I have additional time? Mr. Chairman? 

What I hear you saying, and what I have heard you say for the 

past 45 minutes, is that Congress can tell me how they want to 

spend the money, but I will spend it the way I see it. 

Secretary BODMAN. That is not what I am saying. 

Mr. ISRAEL. The mere fact—in fact you said, really because Congress tells me what to do doesn’t mean I can do it. 

Secretary BODMAN. Well, in some cases, that is correct, witness 

the MOX program. 

Mr. ISRAEL. I don’t know if you want to go back there right now. 

Secretary BODMAN. I have a law that I have to deal with. The 

law created the NNSA and the law limited, which was also passed 

by Congress and signed by the then-president that created the 

NNSA, prevents me from moving an activity from NNSA to any 

other part of the Energy Department. 

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Secretary, do you know what the total amount 

for weatherization was last year? 

Secretary BODMAN. It was about $250 million, I believe. 

Mr. ISRAEL. Okay. Actually, it was slightly higher, but in the absence of that, what will the effects be? 

Secretary BODMAN. A pretty good guess. 

Mr. ISRAEL. Yes, not bad. 

Secretary BODMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. ISRAEL. What would the effects be, in your view, of terminating weatherization at a time when home heating oil costs have 

tripled? 

Secretary BODMAN. The effects would be that a very small fraction of the houses that need to be dealt with won’t be dealt with. 

Mr. ISRAEL. So you can terminate the program in its entirety, 

and a small fraction of homes—— 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
36 

Secretary BODMAN. Yes, only a small fraction of the homes that are eligible get dealt with every year, even with $250 million. 

Mr. ISRAEL. How many American homes are under-insulated? Do 

you know? Do you have any idea? 

Secretary BODMAN. I don’t. 

Mr. ISRAEL. Is 40 million inappropriate? 

Secretary BODMAN. I would be happy to get you the numbers, but 

I don’t happen to know that, sir. 

Mr. ISRAEL. Do you know what the loss of residential electricity 

is as a result of under-insulation? I have heard about 17 percent. 

Is that accurate? 

Secretary BODMAN. I have no idea. 

Mr. ISRAEL. Okay. Would you have your department get you 

those numbers? I got those numbers. 

Secretary BODMAN. I would be happy to give you our numbers 

and provide them for you and get them myself. 

RESIDENTIAL WEATHERIZATION

Approximately 19 percent or 20.3 million U.S. homes are reported to be poorly insulated, according to the Energy Information Administration. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory estimates that, on average, about 12 percent electricity savings 

per home is possible from adding insulation, although these savings vary widely by 

region. Each year, the Department’s Weatherization Assistance Program only insulates a small fraction of the homes that need insulation. 

Mr. ISRAEL. I am surprised, Mr. Secretary, that you would terminate funding for an entire program without knowing how many 

homes are under-insulated, what the residential electric loss is. 

Secretary BODMAN. I can tell you that the number of homes that 

are eligible for this is far greater than the number of homes that 

are accommodated, even with the $250 million that we spend every 

year. 

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I will close just on this note. I understand your opinions, Mr. Secretary. I do find an inconsistency when 

you have a Web site that publicly touts the benefits of weatherization, and yet in testimony to this committee you say it is not that 

big a deal. Or when you have department information that says we 

are going to terminate weatherization in order to focus EERE on 

its core mission of advanced energy efficiency and renewable energy R&D, and then when you take down specific renewable accounts in the budget itself. 

To me, it is a matter of inconsistency, and quite frankly, it fuels 

the frustration that you feel in this subcommittee. 

I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman. 

DOE MISSIONS

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary BODMAN. Mr. Wamp, how are you, sir? 

Mr. WAMP. I am fine. Thank you, sir. Thank you for your service. The very fact that oil is $100 a barrel and the subsequent price 

of gasoline is where it is and climbing, makes your job all by itself, 

let alone these other conflicts, maybe the least-enviable job in any 

administration. So thank you for serving during a very difficult 

time. 

Obviously, there is a rub, too, between the executive branch and 

the legislative branch, and I see that getting worse, unfortunately. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
37 

OMB doesn’t help that situation. Many of these decisions are somewhat out of your control. I am not defending you or the chairman 

and the ranking member. I am just telling you that I have been 

on this subcommittee for 11 years, and it seems to be getting 

worse, this division between the executive branch and the legislative branch. That is unfortunate. 

The interesting part about my parochial interest representing 

Oak Ridge is that we carry out a multitude of primary missions for 

the Department of Energy at my site, from national security under 

the NNSA to major science programs and environmental management and others. But those three major missions on any given 

year, there is always one that is in need of extra attention. 

So I want to focus on that particularly now. I want to say that 

the weapons and NNSA missions for the most part are funded in 

the budget request. Some changes could be made, but it is satisfactory. The science missions are also supported, and I am grateful for 

Orbach’s leadership and for your commitment to science because, 

as you said a minute ago, the return on these investments is enormous for our country. Our competitiveness in the world is very important, and the administration has made a big issue out of that. 

I do want you to answer whether you expect the fusion-ITER 

mission to be funded in a supplemental request from the administration, because that is a question mark in the science world, which 

is are we going to honor our commitments or not, and will that be 

a supplemental request on science. 

But my major thrust, and I am just going to make this statement 

and let you answer, and I will be done, is with environmental management. This administration said we are going to have a program 

called accelerated cleanup. We are going to clean this up quicker 

to save money because everyone knows if you will go ahead and do 

it, you save this long-term $5.5 billion annual obligation of the nuclear legacy in this country, and it is a mess. 

And there are conflicts between the states and the federal government. We have them in Washington state. We have them in 

Tennessee. We have the governors breaking bad on us once again 

for not meeting our milestone on agreements that the federal government has with the states about cleanups that will be made. I 

am sure Mr. Simpson is going to talk about this in Idaho. 

But the fact is, this is the lowest budget request for environmental management in 15 years. At my site, the gross amount is 

$100 million. The net amount is $50 million reduction from last 

year. And I am hopeful that the subcommittee will see fit to restore 

the money. But I just want to ask you to explain the challenges you 

face at trying to prioritize environmental management in your 

budget against these other issues, and if you think sometimes OMB 

just undercuts these requests, hoping that the Congress will put 

the necessary money in. 

I will yield the floor to you, Mr. Secretary. 

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

Secretary BODMAN. Well, as we looked at the budget, we have a 

reduction in the overall money that we can spend in environmental 

management, as we have negotiated this out with our friends at 

OMB. It is a reduction, and therefore we have to make reductions. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
38 

What we do is to try to look at areas that are not harmful to the 

American public, that are intended to have money spent on them, 

or at least the plan is. 

One of them is the so-called D&D accounts, the decontamination 

and decommissioning—the D&D account. Generally, those are 

buildings that are very old, that are 50 years old or more, a number of which are at Oak Ridge. We have deferred those because 

they are not harmful to the environment. 

In Idaho, just to anticipate Mr. Simpson’s questions later that I 

expect will be there, in Idaho it is the same kind of thing where 

we are looking at the salt-bearing waste material that is there, and 

it is stored and not harmful to the public as best we can tell. So 

we have deferred that for a couple of years, at least that is the plan 

in the budget. 

And so, it is strictly that. It is strictly trying to prioritize. We 

have increased funding for Oak Ridge in a number of areas in 

science and in other aspects. It is in that area that we have concluded that we don’t need, or have an absolute need at this time 

to spend that money. 

Mr. WAMP. A quick followup just to say that this administration 

excited everyone across the DOE complex with a proposal called accelerated cleanup, literally saying we are going to throw the ball 

deep; we are going to cut these long-term costs; we are going to 

spend more in the shortrun to save money in the longrun, and we 

are going to get our arms around this problem because this problem has been mounting and we are just stirring the pot and we are 

not really cleaning up the sites. 

And they set these goals. And it is called accelerated cleanup. I 

have to report, as the administration closes out, that I am concerned that my administration is going to end up with decelerated 

cleanup instead of accelerated cleanup because you just admitted 

you are deferring. 

Secretary BODMAN. I fear that you are right. 

Mr. WAMP. Yes, well, that is unfortunate. 

Secretary BODMAN. I was not the beneficiary of the acceleration. 

Mr. WAMP. I understand. 

Secretary BODMAN. I was the beneficiary of the deceleration. So 

that we have been living with the commitments that were made by 

OMB to reduce budgets. That is what the commitment is and so 

we are living with it. 

Mr. WAMP. And I appreciate your candor, because it is brutal 

honesty, but I hope the subcommittee realizes the wisdom in going 

ahead and making these investments so we don’t end up in legal 

conflicts with the states, so that we can honor these obligations, 

and in my site, so we can move on with what is called IFDP, the 

integrated facilities disposition plan, to take these World War IIera legacy buildings and get them out of the way and move on with 

cleaning up and meeting the water issues and the land issues with 

our states across this nuclear complex. You can’t keep deferring 

this, but I do thank you very much for trying to get your arms 

around these difficult issues and for your appearance today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
39 

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Secretary BODMAN. If I may say, in contrast to the suggestions 

that were made by both the chairman and the ranking member, I 

do believe that the project management activities within the department are very substantially improved over that which I found 

when I got here. I think that even the GAO would even believe 

that, based on results that they have been discussing with my colleagues. 

Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Hobson. 

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Secretary, one of the things that OMB is doing 

with the thing that you just talked about with Zach is increasing 

costs long-term, because those projects will go up in cost. 

Secretary BODMAN. I agree with that, sir. 

Mr. HOBSON. I want to get this in the record. I asked your people 

out there if they had a copy of the committee print and they don’t 

apparently have it with them. It is surprising to me that nobody 

brought a copy of this important document, at least we so deem it. 

On page 478, and I am not going to ask you to do too much of 

this now because you don’t have it in front of you, it clearly in law, 

not in just report language, says that $238,840,000 is authorized— 

authorized—to be appropriated for project 99–D–143 mixed oxide 

fuel facility, under the nuclear energy side, for the facility at Savannah River. And then it tells you to follow the law, the executive 

order 413.3(a). What I am trying to point out is that in law, you 

have an old law that is technically amended here, and the new law 

is what should be followed, not the old law. 

We don’t have to debate this now, but I want your lawyers to 

read that and look at it, and then you come back. 

Secretary BODMAN. We will be happy to do that, Mr. Hobson. 

Mr. HOBSON. And we can talk about this, because this is in law, 

sir. This is not report language, which you all say, well, we don’t 

have to follow report language. But I am going to tell you frankly, 

if this administration continues to do what they are saying and not 

follow what is in report language whenever they don’t want to, 

then you are going to lose a lot of flexibility that you have now, 

because Congress is going to frustrated and they are going to put 

everything in law, and then you lose. You lose. 

Anyway, this is in the record, and I want this in the record, to 

understand that this is a serious matter. We moved it. It is authorized. The money is there. This is not in report language, and so 

there can’t be this—it is a later law. 

Secretary BODMAN. I understand that it is later. Our position is 

that that moves the money, but it does not move the management 

responsibility for the project. The management responsibility resides in the NNSA, and I am unable to move it. 

Mr. HOBSON. [OFF MIKE] 

Secretary BODMAN. No, I understand that. 

Mr. HOBSON. [OFF MIKE] 

Secretary BODMAN. Well, it is not a matter of the attitude, sir. 

It is just a matter of what is acceptable under the law. That is all. 

Mr. HOBSON. Well, as interpreted by your lawyers. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
40 

Secretary BODMAN. But I want you to understand, Mr. Hobson, 

that the intention—— 

Mr. HOBSON. You guys didn’t want to do this. We understand 

that. We know you didn’t want to do this. 

Secretary BODMAN. No, it is not a matter of that. It really isn’t. 

We will do it. I mean, if that is something that is important to this 

Congress, then we will do it. That is not the issue. 

Mr. PASTOR. [OFF MIKE] 

Secretary BODMAN. Apparently, it is. 

Mr. HOBSON. It was everybody’s intention to do this, sir, and we 

feel that there has been every intention—because we know there 

was push-back not to do this. But we did it and the Senate agreed 

to it and you guys agreed to it, and then after the fact, somebody 

goes around—I mis-spoke. I don’t want to say you agreed to it, but 

you got it. And then they set about in our opinion to find a way 

not to do it because they really didn’t want to do it. We thought 

it was best that that money be somewhere else. 

Secretary BODMAN. I understand that. I would just say to you, 

sir, that is not the way it has been presented to me. It may be that 

that is the intention, that there is some deep sinister plot of which 

I am unaware. I am telling you that I am not aware of it. 

Mr. HOBSON. Well, I am not sure it is a deep sinister plot, but 

we think it is a plot. 

But anyway—— 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Simpson. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Welcome to the committee, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary BODMAN. I am happy to be here, sir. 

Mr. SIMPSON. It is a good day, isn’t it? 

It is a happy time. I know it is. 

It is kind of interesting listening to the discussion. You know, if 

the department doesn’t want to do something—and I am not saying 

this is the case—an attorney can make the case, we can find a way 

that we won’t be allowed to do it, or if an attorney wants it, we 

can find a way that the department will do it. They can find a way 

to make it happen, seems like all the time. But I don’t want to get 

into that. 

OMB BUDGET DISCUSSIONS

I want to raise a couple of other questions. First of all, can you 

give us a copy of the original budget submission that the department made to OMB? 

Secretary BODMAN. No, sir. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Is there a reason for that? Is this classified as top 

secret? 

Secretary BODMAN. Sure. Well, it is not a matter of that. It is a 

question of a discussion that is made, that goes on between OMB 

and the department. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I have asked—in fact, I have—— 

Secretary BODMAN. And out of that comes a single budget. 

Mr. SIMPSON. You see, Some secretaries have given it to me, and 

some said they couldn’t. Some say that I have to get it from OMB. 

Secretary BODMAN. I see. 

Mr. SIMPSON. The reason I ask that is not because I am trying 

to put any pressure on the department or on the administration or 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
41 

anybody else. It is because if this committee decides to have an allocation in Energy and Water of more money, I would like to know 

what the professionals within your department thought would be 

the place to spend it. That comes from looking at the original request and what you thought was important and where it was cut 

back because of your negotiations with OMB. 

I know that goes on. It has to. 

Secretary BODMAN. Sure. 

Mr. SIMPSON. They have a responsibility to try to balance the 

budget. I am not trying to jump on their case or on the department’s case. I just want to know what the department felt was the 

appropriate funding when they originally made the request. 

Secretary BODMAN. We would be happy to work with you, sir, on 

that as a general matter. But I am not going to give you the specifics of whatever budget proposal we made to OMB. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Interesting. You don’t want Congress to know too 

much. It might be dangerous. 

Secretary BODMAN. Well, it is not a matter of that. There is one 

budget that comes out of the administration. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I know that and I know you have a responsibility 

to defend it. I am not saying that if you give us the other stuff, you 

are not defending the president’s administration, because part of 

the total budget process is determining what the bottom line is 

going to be. You don’t do that. OMB does that. We understand 

that. 

Secretary BODMAN. That is correct. 

Mr. SIMPSON. But we don’t have to follow OMB. 

Secretary BODMAN. I understand that. 

Mr. SIMPSON. We have other responsibilities also. 

Secretary BODMAN. I understand that, but I do. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I know that, but all I am saying is we have other 

things. If you want us to act in an intelligent way and make intelligent decisions, we need to have access to what the professional 

people within your department think. 

Secretary BODMAN. And I would be happy to provide that to your 

staff if you would like that. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes, I would like that. 

Secretary BODMAN. All right, let’s do it. 

AFCI FUNDS

Mr. SIMPSON. Let’s go back to another question that has come 

up. I am curious about the language that was in the omnibus appropriation bill that says the department is directed to make 50 

percent of the AFCI funds for research and development in an 

agency-wide solicitation for universities, national laboratories and 

commercial entities, and we were supposed to have a national competition for that. 

There is $180 million, $30 million of which was earmarked for 

hot cells. Of the remaining $150 million, the language directed $75 

million of it to be competed. 

Secretary BODMAN. Right. 

Mr. SIMPSON. If I have this correct, one-third of the year was 

over by the time the language was passed by Congress, so if you 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
42 

spent on a steady line, you have spent about $37.5 million of that 

by the time the language comes out. 

Secretary BODMAN. Right. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Leaving $112.5 million, and now $75 million of 

that has to be competed. How long does it take to complete a process of deciding how you are going to go about the competition, get 

the competition done, and so forth, so that you could actually compete it? Because what I am wondering is—— 

Secretary BODMAN. It takes 6 months. 

Mr. SIMPSON. So if you started the day that the appropriations 

passed, we are into three-quarters of the money being spent if the 

programs that are already being funded are done. 

Secretary BODMAN. That is correct. 

Mr. SIMPSON. So there is not $75 million left. So essentially, you 

are going to have to start de-funding some of the programs that are 

going on currently right now, or stop those programs, in order to 

save the $75 million to be competed in the last quarter of the 

month. 

Secretary BODMAN. That is correct. 

Mr. SIMPSON. And that is the problem the department has with 

being able to do it? 

Secretary BODMAN. That is correct. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I understand the differences between the committee wanting to get something done and just saying ‘‘do it,’’ and 

the department having the difficulties of doing it. 

Secretary BODMAN. It just takes a while. It is not that there is 

an opposition to competition. There was a genuine sense that the 

universities, the national laboratories and private industry would 

each be competing among themselves because they were doing different work. The staff of this committee held and said, that the 

committee explained to our staff that the committee felt otherwise; 

that the committee felt that it ought to be an across-the-board competition, so we had to start over. So starting over adds more time, 

but we have attempted to do that, sir. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Have you started? 

Secretary BODMAN. There is not an intention to subvert the wishes of this committee. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Have you started to put out proposals, or are you 

in a process like that for the competition or anything? 

Secretary BODMAN. We are going to be several months away before we put out proposals and ask for—that is what takes a while. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Have you notified those programs that currently 

are spending money under the AFCI that they are going to be defunded or funding is not going to be available because you are 

going to have to reserve $75 million of that for competition? 

Secretary BODMAN. No. The answer is no. 

Mr. SIMPSON. But that will be coming, won’t it? 

Secretary BODMAN. It presumably will be. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Do you know what that means in terms of layoffs 

at those facilities that are currently operating? 

Secretary BODMAN. It is going to be substantial. I don’t happen 

to know off-hand. We are trying to avoid doing something dumb 

like stopping funding for something that is going well. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
43 

Mr. SIMPSON. I understand that. And I understand there is a difference between what the committee and we have put in the report 

language, and what is able to actually get done. 

Well, I want to work with you and see if we can resolve those 

differences so that we don’t disrupt work that is continuing, and 

still try and meet the intention of the committee that we have 

some competition out there for that. It may be that some of that 

competition has to move into next year and into the next year’s 

budget. 

Secretary BODMAN. I think that is where it is going to be, but 

we will do our level best to try to accomplish that which is the intention of this committee. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I appreciate that. 

ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

The EM budget—as you know, some of us have some real concerns with it and the amount of money for cleanup, particularly at 

sites that have been successful like Idaho and Oak Ridge, is down. 

And with last year’s budget and again this year, it almost seems 

like the more successful you are, the more you are going to get cut 

the next year. 

Secretary BODMAN. That is not the intention. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I know, but it is the result. 

Secretary BODMAN. Well, I think that where we have been successful, that means we have accomplished something and that 

means that there is less threat to the environment and to the people who live in and around there, as opposed to things like Hanford, which is the issue that I think Ranking Member Hobson mentioned before. At Hanford, there is the risk of getting chromium 

and other very serious matters into the Columbia River that flows 

right by there. I mean, that is the issue. How do we stop that? And 

so we have turned our attention more to that than to the so-called 

accounts. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Certainly, though, it creates uncertainty within the 

various cleanup projects around the country, and you are looking 

at employment and trying to maintain a steady workforce to do the 

cleanup responsibilities that they have. What does the reduction in 

the EM budget do to meeting the milestones of the state agreements that the DOE has? Are you going to have to renegotiate any 

of those agreements? 

Secretary BODMAN. I am sure we will. Furthermore, there is a 

reduction in some 200 jobs that will be in Idaho. Had we just applied that $70 million across the board, I think it would have been 

something like, I am told, 400 or 500 jobs. So this would save some 

300 jobs—500 minus 200—of highly qualified people that will continue the work in this endeavor. But we will defer the construction 

project, the salt waste-bearing project, by a couple of years. 

MILESTONE AGREEMENTS

Mr. SIMPSON. What does it do to the milestone agreements between DOE and the state? Because it has always been—for those 

people that are opposed to the Idaho Lab or opposed to anything 

nuclear always use that as their banner—that DOE doesn’t meet 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
44 

its milestones. Quite frankly, they have done a pretty good job. 

What is it going to do to the milestones in the future? 

Secretary BODMAN. I don’t have that answer off-hand, but I 

would be happy to get it for you. I can give it to you in total. We 

are going to miss in 2009 about 32 milestones. About two-thirds or 

three-quarters of those, I think 23, are due to the budget numbers 

that you see there. But we are going to have 10 or 11 that would 

be there anyway. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Is that the issue? 

Secretary BODMAN. Yes, sir. And in 2008, it is some 16 milestones that we will miss. Again, it is about two-thirds or threequarters—I think it is 12 of those that are budget-related in the 

2008 budget. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Is the DOE paying fines and penalties for missing 

any of the milestones? Are any of the agreements imposing those? 

Secretary BODMAN. Yes. 

Mr. SIMPSON. How much are we paying in fines? 

Secretary BODMAN. I don’t have that answer, but I would be 

happy to get it for you. 

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT MILESTONES

Fines and penalties are typically addressed in our agreements with state and federal regulators. Where fines and penalties were allowed, the governing statute or 

regulatory agreement usually establishes the maximum fine or penalty that can be 

imposed. From the beginning of fiscal year 2006 to the present, there have been four 

instances in which fines have been imposed for missed milestones. Three of those 

have been at Los Alamos, one for $345,000 that was paid by the contractor, one for 

$405,000 that DOE paid, and one that is still accruing for a milestone due in November 2007 that has not been completed yet. The fourth instance was at Hanford, 

where DOE paid a $75,000 fine in January of this year for missing two milestones 

related to the K Basins, but is seeking reimbursement from the contractor. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Because it seems like we would be better to plusup the EM budget to the extent we could to try to meet those milestones, rather than paying penalties along the way. 

Secretary BODMAN. I agree with that. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I guess that is one of the things that bothers me 

about not being able to see what the DOE originally wanted in 

terms of budget. OMB comes in and sometimes they don’t know 

what they are doing, more frequently than not. 

Secretary BODMAN. If I may say, the question that ought to get 

asked is how much money does it take to avoid missing these milestones in 2009. 

Mr. SIMPSON. And that is an excellent question. 

Secretary BODMAN. That is the operative question. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Can you give us that information, of what your estimate would be? 

Secretary BODMAN. We are working on that number. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Do you have a flow chart where you take all of the 

waste within the DOE complex and where it is to be disposed of? 

Do we have the capacity to dispose of it at those locations? What 

is the timeframe for doing that? What is the cost of doing that? Do 

you have a flow chart that outlines all that kind of stuff? 

Secretary BODMAN. We have reports. I don’t know that we have 

a flow chart that summarizes that in that fashion. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I am a picture guy. I would like to see that so I 

can wrap my mind around what some of these things are in the 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
45 

future and how long we are looking at, and frankly whether we 

have the capacity for all the storage that we are going to need. 

MILESTONES SUMMARY

We have complex-wide management plans and process flow diagrams for the various waste types resulting from our cleanup programs. The data are derived from 

our project baselines, provide life-cycle estimates, and are updated annually. The 

Waste Information Management System (WIMS), which generates waste life-cycle 

disposition maps for the Department’s low-level and mixed low-level radioactive 

waste, is available on the Internet (http://wims.arc.fiu.edu/WIMS/).Later this year 

we will add transuranic waste data to this system. Currently, the disposition maps 

cover a timeframe through 2050. EM’s validated baselines include summary-level 

costs for the out-years, which includes costs for disposal of waste. These cost estimates vary but in recent years have been approximately 15 percent of EM’s total 

annual budget. 

We currently have adequate capacity to dispose of the majority of our low-level, 

mixed low-level, and transuranic waste at the Department’s disposal locations. We 

also utilize commercial disposal facilities for some low-level and mixed low-level 

wastes. Those waste streams that are without a disposal path today are well known 

and we are actively working to identify disposal options. My staff can work directly 

with the Committee staff to determine the best way to demonstrate WIMS and provide additional complex-wide process information. 

Secretary BODMAN. The ultimate issue is that we are going to 

need Yucca Mountain. That is really what this comes down to. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Sure. 

Secretary BODMAN. Mr. Hobson just said, we are not going to 

have Yucca Mountain. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Then we are in big trouble. 

Secretary BODMAN. Well, what we can do is to, on Yucca Mountain, our commitment is even with the $100 million reduction in 

funding that we got from Congress, we are committed to filing an 

application for a license with the NRC this year. We will hope to 

do that. 

The other issue I would raise is that it is not just important to 

file. It is also important to get it docketed, that is to say to have 

the NRC say that the application is sufficiently complete that it 

can be evaluated by the NRC. That is a process called docketing, 

meaning that they will put it in their queue and manage it as such. 

So that takes a matter of months afterward. We would like to get 

all of that done on our watch if that is possible. But we are committed to file the license application this year. 

DOD LIABILITIES

Mr. SIMPSON. Trying to put everything in its proper place, like 

EM stuff within EM, and NE stuff within NE, there is a proposal 

to transfer liabilities for DOD responsibilities that are currently 

under NE to EM. Are we moving along with that process? Is that 

going to get done? I know just transferring the liabilities doesn’t 

mean anything if you don’t transfer the money to actually do the 

cleanup. 

Secretary BODMAN. I don’t have an answer. I don’t know that. I 

would be happy to get you that. 

LIABILITY TRANSFERS

The Department began the process last year of determining the appropriate transfer of environmental liabilities between DOE program offices by requesting nominations from the Office of Science, Nuclear Energy and the National Nuclear Security 

Agency. These program offices have nominated materials for transfer, including 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
46 

spent nuclear fuel and some radioactive materials, in conjunction with excess contaminated facilities. This is a complex issue involving many of the Department’s offices in addressing the requirements to handle these materials. The Department 

plans on taking a corporate approach to address these liabilities during the FY 2010 

budget formulation process. 

Mr. SIMPSON. One last question. 

Secretary BODMAN. Yes, sir. 

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Mr. SIMPSON. Project management. 

Secretary BODMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Every year we complain about DOE being on the 

GAO list of inability to complete on-budget, on-time any major 

projects. I understand some of the issues are relative to the fact 

that you have projects that are sometimes big and complex and unknown, like the waste treatment plant in—— 

Secretary BODMAN. It is also that they are one of a kind. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes, one of a kind. 

Secretary BODMAN. That is the problem. 

Mr. SIMPSON. And that makes them very difficult. But what are 

you doing within the department to try to get off the GAO list of 

worst-performers? What are we doing to try to make sure that we 

do a better job? 

Secretary BODMAN. We are working with the General Accountability Office, with GAO. They have given us five criteria that they 

view as important. One is leadership. That is to say that the leadership of the department understands the importance of project 

management. Two, that there is an effort related to continuous improvement. Third, that there is a root-cause analysis of what the 

problem has been. Fourthly, that we have a program for staffing, 

increasing the staffing capacity. And fifth is results—that it works. 

Those are the five things. Of those, as I understand it, they have 

given us good marks on the first two, that we have strong commitment of the leadership of the department and that we have seen 

a continuous improvement in our project management skills. 

We have a root-cause analysis, a report which is due out next 

month. That will lead to the fourth, namely increases in staffing. 

You will notice that there is an increasing in staffing required, or 

that is proposed to the Congress in the 2009 budget. We believe 

that this will lead to improved results, so that over time we can 

see our way clear to getting improvements. 

I think we are on a path, notwithstanding the doubts that were 

expressed by the chairman and the ranking member as we began. 

I believe that we are on a path of, if not getting off the list, and 

frankly, our folks met with OMB and concluded we are never going 

to get off the list, but that is sort of a fixation in their mind that 

we are there forever. But I do believe that we will see very significant improvement in the results that we have. I believe that we are 

on the right path. 

When I got here, most of the people who were running these very 

large one-of-a-kind projects weren’t even certified as project managers. They hadn’t been trained. It wasn’t their fault. We do have 

standards now and they are trained. We have programs now and 

we are getting these people trained and focused and on top of it. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
47 

So I feel much better personally about this than was expressed by 

the ranking member and by the chairman in their opening remarks. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I am going to recognize Mr. Rehberg. 

I just want to follow up for 1 second. I regret, and I think Mr. 

Hobson does, that you don’t have enough money this year for 

Yucca. Obviously, the House position was different. We had a conference and it is what it is, because for all of the disagreements 

that were expressed. That is not your burden. It is all of our burden. 

Secretary BODMAN. Yes, it is. 

WATCH LIST

Mr. VISCLOSKY. There were not enough monies expended, and I 

certainly regret that. It is what it is. 

Because I want to get to Mr. Rehberg and other members who 

haven’t asked, but on the issue of the watch list, and I would also 

acknowledge that as far as the certification process, the Department has made progress, and GAO suggests that is the case. But 

I would point out the department has been on the watch list since 

1990. If there is a watch list, there must be some way not to either 

ever be on it or to get off of it, and I am assuming there are other 

departments that are now off, and if there are criteria that the department is following through on to improve management. 

I would acknowledge that have been improvements, that there 

ought to be additional efforts to continue to improve because somehow yourselves and I assume other agencies have made it onto that 

list—in this case back in 1990—because of all these criteria that 

are formulated for that list, at some point there is a way to get off. 

Secretary BODMAN. I hope so. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. And sooner rather than later after 18 years. 

Secretary BODMAN. Thank you. I remain ever hopeful that that 

will be the case, and we are working as hard as I know how to 

work in order to try to bring about improvements of the sort that 

you alluded to. These were the five criteria—leadership and continuous improvement. 

Root-cause analysis, that report will be due out. That is to say, 

we are looking hard at how did we get here and what were the real 

causes of the box we find ourselves in. Then it is really staffing and 

training, so the capacity of the staff to function. And we have 

money in the budget to increase that focus. 

And then lastly, results. Are the projects coming in? We have, for 

example, in the last 2 or 3 years, we have brought 70 percent of 

our projects into completion within 10 percent of the cost. That is 

the goal that use. CD–2 is the time that we make the decision and 

we lay the baseline for what the cost is. That is at the beginning, 

and in 70 percent of the cases we are bringing in our projects to 

completion—this is over the last 3 years—within 10 percent of 

budget. 

That is pretty good. I mean, at least it is much better than it has 

been in the past. It is not 90 percent and it is not 95 percent, but 

it is 70 percent. It is a lot better than 20 percent or some number 

that is significantly lower. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
48 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Rehberg. 

Mr. REHBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

helping me in my endeavors to make the committee healthier, and 

for pointing out the level of intelligence of people moving from 

Montana to Washington to work. 

I might point out that I made the top half of the class possible 

in Montana. If it hadn’t been for me, she would not have been 

‘‘summa’’ anything. 

And congratulations to you. I have never served on a committee 

where we have 100 percent attendance, so you must be doing something fairly controversial. 

Secretary BODMAN. It has to be controversial. 

FUTUREGEN

Mr. REHBERG. It seems to be a lack of support, I think, but it 

is noticeable. Obviously, my concern—and we don’t need to talk 

today about the things that are going right within the department. 

I am sure there are one or two, but we need to talk about the areas 

where we have differences. 

Obviously, my biggest difference is what has happened within 

the FutureGen program within the Department of Energy. As I 

look at the decision that was made, it kind of reminds me of why 

I am glad this Department of Energy didn’t have anything to do 

with NASA because the department would have divided NASA up 

into five or six different little missile programs within individual 

states and said, ‘‘go forth, young guys, and see if you can compete 

with the Russians and good luck.’’ 

We have a program that is in place. The FutureGen Alliance is 

working. We have quite a number of private entities who have invested a lot of capital. We have dealt with India and China. We 

have had a lot of excitement about FutureGen. We finally went 

through the selection process. We found a site in Mattoon, Illinois. 

Everybody is kind of focused on the ability to share technologies 

with foreign countries. I have never seen a level of cooperation 

quite like this, and I am a businessman by trade. Obviously, I have 

not been in government all my life. It was a pretty exciting privatepublic partnership. 

And you guys really threw some cold water on the project. What 

business model or what brainiac sitting within the department has 

made the determination that it is better to divide it up and to lose 

all this cooperation and go contrary to what some of the best 

minds, who happen to be in the utility industries throughout the 

country, are saying is really a stupid thing, in backing off and delaying. 

Before I have you answer that question, I just want to read 

something that was actually in my local newspaper today. This is 

in Great Falls, Montana: USDA pulls plug on Highwood financing. 

You don’t know anything about Highwood, but it is a coal-fired generating plant that does not have sequestration. 

Secretary BODMAN. This is USDA? 

Mr. REHBERG. USDA. We would like to have sequestration of 

some components. You see, what they are doing is they are looking 

for RUS, which is Rural Utility Service funding for the project, and 

the Bush administration made it clear that none of the money that 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
49 

has been appropriated through the Department of Agriculture for 

the RUS, which is $7.1 billion, none of the money can be spent on 

new coal-fired generating plants nor nuclear plants. 

I could make that argument with the Department of Agriculture 

and the Bush administration, aside from you, but let me just read 

what it said in the paper just today: ‘‘The financing development 

for the Highwood project comes amid increasing scrutiny nationwide of public and private financing for coal-fired power plants. 

Earlier this week, a Cambridge, Massachusetts-based company 

called Synapse Energy Economics, which provides regulatory advice to private and government institutions, released a report blaming skyrocketing construction costs’’—which will now even be exacerbated by your department’s decision to change directions—‘‘skyrocketing, regulatory uncertainties’’—which is further exacerbated 

by your lack of ability to get the record of decision out on NEPA 

since December, which we are still waiting for that—‘‘and environmental concerns making investment in coal-fired power plants less 

attractive.’’ The report said 20 coal-fired power plants were cancelled in 2007, and three dozen more were delayed. 

So again, I ask you then, under what business model, who has 

come up with the concept that we have been trucking along, everybody is cooperating, everything is going just fine—there are some 

delays, but frankly some of them are created by your department— 

why the change? 

Secretary BODMAN. The change, sir, was done initially because of 

the increase in cost of the FutureGen project, which went from 

$950 million, and that was the number that was there when I arrived, it increased to $1.8 billion and was going, in my judgment, 

up from there for the reasons that your newspaper just alluded to. 

We also had changes in the marketplace. A number of states— 

Florida, Kansas, the State of Washington—have declined permission for utilities to build coal-fired power plants without carbon sequestration. We looked at all of that and looked at the fact that 

there seemed to be more interest in IGCC—integrated gasification 

and combined cycle—projects than there had been before. 

And therefore, we were on the hook for three-quarters of that 

money, of the $1.8 billion—about $1.3 billion or so. I didn’t have 

$1.3 billion. The idea is to try to work with the utility industry in 

order to develop two or three separate carbon sequestration 

projects where that is where the money would go. So they would 

put the money up to build an integrated gasification combined cycle 

plant, and we would—— 

Mr. REHBERG. The difficulty when you talk about the utilities—— 

Secretary BODMAN [continuing]. And we would spend the money 

on the CCS. 

Mr. REHBERG. But you have the utility companies—the big guys 

in the program—telling you that is not the direction to go. So yes, 

maybe the State of Florida and its government is saying they don’t 

want it built, but the utilities are saying you are killing us out 

there because we finally get to the point where Texas and Illinois 

were willing to work with their legislatures to get their laws 

changed, to work with their environmental community, to work 

with all the entities that would be involved to have it located at 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
50 

their site—they finally get it done, and you take the legs out from 

under them, and then tell them to go out and stand on their own 

two feet. And they just can’t do that. 

FUTUREGEN

Secretary BODMAN. That particular project, sir, involved not just 

CCS, but involved an advanced system of first adding steam to the 

gasified coal, separating out the hydrogen using a metal filter, if 

you will, that would allow the hydrogen to move out and to maintain the carbon behind, and then to sequester the carbon dioxide 

following that. It involved a lot more than just CCS. 

Mr. REHBERG. The difficulty is when you finally come to a point 

where you are able to monitor the emissions from whatever plant, 

it would make a determination as to whether it is environmentally 

acceptable, wherever you are doing it—whether it is in a stream or 

whether it is internally. Don’t kid yourself. Now that we have gone 

down this path and we have identified a near-zero emissions opportunity using the technologies within FutureGen, if you can come up 

with any technologies and support any technologies, short of what 

we know, you have just created another opportunity for a court 

case. 

Secretary BODMAN. I guess I would respectfully differ with you. 

I think that where we are focusing strictly on CCS and sequestering the carbon dioxide, and that we do it in two or three different geologies, rather than just doing it in the state of Illinois, 

but the state of Texas or wherever, that we are better off. We learn 

more and we get it done faster. 

Mr. REHBERG. Why would any business trust the Department of 

Energy and want to go into any kind of a public-private partnership if 5 years down the road, they are moving along, they have 

worked with the legislature, you have this huge effort, and then 

you change directions and say, ‘‘oops, you know, we just don’t like 

the cost.’’ 

Again, let me ask you, where is the record of the decision? We 

are waiting. It is sitting over in your department. It was due midDecember. 

Secretary BODMAN. We do not plan to issue the record of decision. 

Mr. REHBERG. This goes back to Representative Simpson’s point. 

Once an agency decides they don’t want to do something, they just 

don’t do it, thereby stopping it in a different way. So even if we 

were to try and overcome the president’s objections, there will be 

impediments in the way because you are not going to release any 

record of decision, which is integral to the continuation of the 

FutureGen program. 

Secretary BODMAN. As far as I am concerned, sir, we have altered the direction of FutureGen along the lines that I have already alluded to. 

Mr. REHBERG. That is distressing. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Rehberg, I come from Gary, Indiana. We 

don’t have coal in my congressional district. We have a lot of it in 

the state. We use a lot of it, between five integrated steel mills and 

an oil refinery. We use carbon. And so I am a strong advocate of 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
51 

research as far as how do we unlock the BTUs in coal and how do 

you capture and sequester. 

I would make the observation, and it was during a hearing last 

year when you were not on the subcommittee. We had a member 

of the department come up, and I do remember, all kidding aside, 

we had to pull Mr. Simpson back off of the podium when the gentleman persisted in suggesting that the cost of this program had 

not gone up past $950 million—and he said it about three or four 

times, and of course, he is no longer with the Department of Energy—in constant dollars. 

There was a subsequent communication to the subcommittee that the actual cost was now about $1.7 billion going north. And 

that this could not go on forever. Even without getting into particulars, it is also my sense—and I am not saying everybody has clean 

or dirty hands here—that it takes two parties here, and whether 

or not the alliance itself was willing to be flexible and to look at 

the realities of the situation that they faced. 

So I am not in disagreement with the decision that the Department made. How the Department proceeds obviously is something 

that we will have to continue to pass judgment on and monitor. 

Mr. HOBSON. You were not always negative. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. No, and I do feel compelled because when we disagree, I certainly make it known, but in this case I do think the 

department acted appropriately because the costs of this project 

had gone out of control, and to get results on the coal side. 

Mr. REHBERG. And I entered into this knowing of your position. 

I followed the media coverage during the process. The difficulty is, 

it is the same parties that we are going to ask to cooperate in the 

future. And frankly, I wouldn’t want to do business with this department for these reasons. It is a level of credibility, and once you 

destroy your credibility, you never get it back. This is just one of 

those examples. 

I just happened to be in the real estate development business. 

The costs are killing us out there for construction costs. So I have 

some sympathies for the companies as well. They are looking at decisions that the federal government is making on things like asphalt, which is directly tied to crude oil, which is something that 

they have to pay for. 

So in looking at the complexity of it, it cannot be made from a 

regulatory, bureaucratic position because these are companies that 

are out there having to try and produce something for their customers at a reasonable price. In my particular case, the Highwood 

plant is 60,000 of my Montana households. It is five rural utilities 

in Great Falls, which is the third-largest city in my state. Are they 

going to be without power as a result of a decision at the Bonneville Power Administration in 2012? 

So any delay is going to create a crisis. So yes, maybe $1.8 billion 

sounds like a lot and going north, but that is just life right now, 

based upon what we are paying for natural gas and for crude oil 

and all the other things that go into construction costs. So I am not 

sure we can necessarily blame the companies or pass that cost on 

to the companies because ultimately it is a bigger decision being 

made by the federal government to be so dependent on foreign 

sources for our energy and such. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
52 

So any delay, whether it is 1 year or 5 years is going to have a 

substantial impact on people in homes, and I am going to be sitting 

before you and asking for more money for LIHEAP, or going over 

to Labor-H and asking for more money, because they just will not 

be able to afford their home heating costs. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate that. 

Mr. REHBERG. Thank you. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Ryan. 

DUF6 PROJECTS

Mr. RYAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have a couple of questions, and I am going to be brief because 

I have to get to another hearing, but I am a rookie here so the 

chairman saved me for last. 

One of the issues is one of these DUF6 projects in Portsmouth, 

Ohio. There is one in Paducah and there is one in Portsmouth. 

Secretary BODMAN. Right. 

Mr. RYAN. If you could give us an update on it. There have been 

a lot of notices with cure notices, baselines changed, and we are not 

obviously getting the kind of production down there that we want. 

Secretary BODMAN. Yes, sir. We have two due dates. One I think 

is May or June of this year. The other, the new date is now December of this year for the two plants. I think the first is in Portsmouth and the second is in Paducah, or vice versa. We have had 

enormous difficulty bringing the contractor to heel, if you will, to 

get them to commit to it. All I can tell you is that those are the 

dates that are now given to me. If you asked me how much do you 

believe them, I would tell you I think we are probably going to slip 

it even beyond that by 3 or 4 months. 

CONTRACTORS

Mr. RYAN. Let me ask you this question. What do you do with 

these contractors? Is there anything that you are doing as far as 

having them on some kind of list? Because what the problem is, 

they keep backing us up on a project like this, and then they end 

up getting other contracts to do other things. It seems to me 

that—— 

Secretary BODMAN. All can do is to try to prevent them from, for 

example, if they were committed to operating this facility after constructing it, then you could raise the question of should that happen. I will tell you that that issue has been raised and is under 

negotiation. 

Mr. RYAN. How about constructing another facility at some other 

time? 

Secretary BODMAN. Same idea—— 

Mr. RYAN. But is there a formal process that you have in place? 

Secretary BODMAN. I don’t know. I would be happy to look at 

that and sit down with you. 

Mr. RYAN. I yield to my friend. 

Mr. HOBSON. It is how you write contracts, too. One of the things 

that is a problem in contracts generally from agencies is that their 

penalty clauses are not good. I am not blaming you for this personally. 

Secretary BODMAN. I understand. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
53 

Mr. HOBSON. This is a problem with how we draw up government contracts. There is no real penalty people for exceeding the 

contracts, and there is no penalty in the future to them for exceeding contracts. That is what I hope someday that you will get at before you leave is how you draw contracts. It is not good. It is bad 

in the Department of Defense. I mean, it is terrible in the Department of Defense. It is outrageous. Yours is easier to fix, I think, 

but nobody reads them until there is a problem and the taxpayer 

loses. 

Secretary BODMAN. I will look at it. 

Mr. RYAN. I appreciate that. 

Secretary BODMAN. Yes, sir. And we will respond to you in terms 

of the questions you asked. 

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Mr. RYAN. I know Senator Brown has been very involved in this, 

too. I mean, this is a major issue for southern Ohio, so we want 

to make sure this doesn’t happen anywhere else. 

We have a couple in northeast Ohio, a few General Electric 

plants, that are closing down, moving, due to the whole China incandescent light bulb situation. My question is, because I look at 

your zeroing out of the renewable energy production incentive, 

have you ever met with the CEO of General Electric or anybody 

from General Electric to just sit down and say, hey, what can we 

do to help you stay here in the United States, to be competitive 

here? 

I mean, the whole debate going on now in the presidential election, you know, we are talking about NAFTA from 1993. But those 

of us who represent these areas, we need to plug these areas back 

in. And a lot of people say, well, that is globalization. Half of the 

country is missing out on the boat here. I just want to know if you 

have done anything, or your office has met with a major—— 

Secretary BODMAN. I met with the head of nuclear power at General Electric and talked to him on exactly what can we do to be 

helpful. He has given me his views. 

Mr. RYAN. Is this constructive—the zeroing out of the renewable 

energy incentives? Wouldn’t that be a part of any kind of longterm—— 

Secretary BODMAN. When you say ‘‘zeroing out’’ of the—— 

Mr. RYAN. Renewable energy production incentive—100 percent cut from $5 million in 2008. 

Secretary BODMAN. I don’t know what that number is. 

Mr. RYAN. I mean, this is kind of a philosophical thing. Are we 

going to do everything we can to help keep these companies here, 

especially if they are going to stimulate new production and new 

ideas here in the United States. It seems to me to cut that, it 

seems counterproductive. 

Secretary BODMAN. I don’t have an answer to that. I would be 

happy to get it for you. 

RENEWABLE ENERGY PRODUCTION INCENTIVE

The Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI) provides financial payments 

for electricity generated and sold by new qualifying renewable energy generation facilities. Since FY 2005, the average annual appropriation for REPI has been about 

$4.9 million. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
54 

The incentive value of REPI has diminished over time as renewable energy technologies have reduced in cost and become more competitive. Other factors, such as 

state initiatives and policies like Renewable Portfolio Standards, have further reduced the value of this program. The growing pool of eligible applicants has resulted 

in increasingly smaller amounts which can be paid out, given the limited availability of funds to distribute. 

In addition, REPI participants are eligible for Clean Renewable Energy Bonds 

(CREBs) which stimulate new renewable electric capacity by reducing finance costs 

and therefore make projects more cost-effective. In 2006, the Internal Revenue Service reported that borrowers submitted applications for about $2 billion to finance 

701 projects with an average project size of $2.9 million. Such projects can have a 

significant local economic impact. 

Mr. RYAN. Is there a plan that you have long term? I mean, obviously you are in your final year here, but is there some kind of 

strategy from the executive side to say, hey, what can we do? I 

mean, we do this in the local community all the time. If a company 

talks about leaving, you get the county commissioners, you get the 

state delegation, you get the state incentives, and you say what can 

we do to keep you here. It seems like we are not getting that same 

kind of initiative at the federal level. 

Secretary BODMAN. Our focus, frankly, is on the science, on the 

environmental management. As I have described this department, 

we are the nerds of the federal government and I am the chief 

nerd. We develop processes. We develop equipment. We don’t do it 

perfectly. We are well behind where we should be in project management, as you have heard. But that is what we do. That is what 

we are good at. 

It is the Commerce Department, it is the Labor Department, it 

is others who work on specifically that area that you just alluded 

to. It is not something that the Energy Department does. Maybe 

we should, but we don’t. 

Mr. RYAN. If you are working with GE, and you see the commercial all the time—desalination. They are doing this, they are doing 

that. I mean, it seems like you should be involved in this to help 

steer this company back to where they have been for 100 years. I 

am not a dinosaur. I understand what the global economy looks 

like, but they are going to do this somewhere, and if they feel like 

they have a partner with the Department of Energy, I think it 

would be a little more productive. 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

I have one final question, Mr. Chairman. With schools, we had 

the Secretary of Labor on our other subcommittee a few days ago, 

and we were talking about making these schools energy efficient, 

almost using the schools as a laboratory for these kids to understand long-term, and even work on some projects with the schools. 

She mentioned a program in the Department of Energy. I haven’t 

had a chance to do any research on it. 

Secretary BODMAN. We do have such a program. 

Mr. RYAN. What is that program like? Do you know what the 

funding is and what is the basic mission? 

Secretary BODMAN. The funding is of modest size—that is to say 

it is a few million dollars, I believe. For example, I was down in 

the city of New Orleans. We have announced our availability to 

help with the design and construction of any new building or any 

addition to current buildings, so that they can be more energy effiVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:21 Jul 24, 2008 Jkt 043355 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A355P2.XXX A355P2

yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
55 

cient. The Secretary of Education and I visited a facility over here 

in Virginia. 

This is an important matter that we pay a lot of attention to, 

namely energy efficiency. We do have a buildings program within 

the EERE. 

Mr. RYAN. There is not a whole lot of money in that, though. 

Secretary BODMAN. No, but there is some. The idea is to develop 

building designs that are more accepted on a broader basis. I was 

in Orlando the week before last, where we announced a charge to 

the homebuilders of America. It was the National Association of 

Home Builders. There again, they are undertaking—I think we 

now have a commitment to build 200,000 homes over the next 4 

or 5 years to standards that are much more energy efficient than 

they have been in the past. 

So we are doing everything we know how to do within the constraints of finances. We have even had a marketing effort, believe 

it or not, within the department and have spent $1 million, for 

which we have been criticized by some members of this committee. 

But we have focused our attention on buying television time. Disney had the movie Ratatouille, and I think ‘‘Louie’’ was the rat that 

wanted to be a chef. For those of you who are young enough to 

have children—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. [OFF MIKE] 

Secretary BODMAN. Well, I have never seen it, but I can tell you 

that, anyway, the rat is in the cartoon and he is trying to convince 

the kids of America to get their parents to buy compact fluorescent 

lights; the idea being that if you install compact fluorescent lights, 

they are efficient and they work. They help save energy and they 

are more efficient. So we even have a modest marketing effort. We 

are doing everything we know how to do. 

WEATHERIZATION

Mr. RYAN. I don’t know if I agree with that, because I have heard 

some of the comments here today and read through the budget a 

little bit. I think the weatherization stuff—that is critical stuff. 

That is not to be taken lightly. 

Secretary BODMAN. I understand. 

Mr. RYAN. I understand. You say that is $1.50 for every $1 you 

spend? 

Secretary BODMAN. It is $1.50 for every $1 we spend, and it is 

$20 for every dollar we spend on our research programs, we think. 

Mr. RYAN. What does that mean? I don’t understand that—$1.50 

for what? 

Secretary BODMAN. It is the rate of return that we get, that the 

country gets, from both the research effort and—— 

Mr. RYAN. What is your process? What is your formula for determining that? 

Secretary BODMAN. The study of the research programs is done 

as a result of work of the National Research Council, who evaluated the research programs. 

Mr. RYAN. I would like to see that, because that is mind-boggling 

to me because there were 80-some thousand families who will qualify this year for the weatherization from last year’s budget, or 

something like that, and to cut their energy costs by one-third, that 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
56 

is a significant amount of money. If you take 80,000 households 

and cut their energy bill by one-third and it is only a few million 

bucks that we are spending. 

Secretary BODMAN. I would be happy to get you the numbers. 

Mr. RYAN. I would be happy to look at that. All right. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Thank you, Congressman. 

Mr. RYAN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

WEATHERIZATION INVESTMENT RETURN

The 2005 Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) metaevaluation on the Weatherization Assistance Program (‘‘Estimating the National Effects of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Weatherization Assistance Program With State-Level Data: A 

Metaevaluation Using Studies From 1993 to 2005,’’ ORNL–CON–493, September 

2005) found first-year per-household energy savings for gas heated homes averaged 

30.5 million Btu. Using natural gas price projections from EIA resulted in an energy 

savings benefit/cost ratio of 1.34. Based on updated price and cost data for 2006 and 

2007, ORNL calculated the current benefit/cost ratio of 1.53 for the Weatherization 

Assistance Program. The metric of a 20 to 1 return on R&D investment was derived 

from a National Research Council study (‘‘Energy Research at DOE: Was It Worth 

It?’’ National Academy Press, 2001). 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I am going to proceed. Mr. Simpson, if you at any 

point have questions yourself or want to jump in, please do. Mr. 

Hobson and I both have a defense hearing he is going to go to now. 

WHISTLEBLOWERS

Mr. Secretary, I have a couple of questions on whistleblowers. 

Last year, we had a series of questions and you did answer for the 

record very specifically, and I appreciate that. But I will read from 

last year’s record, and this regards whistleblower litigation: The 

Department of Energy has reimbursed contractors $7,983,956 for 

the cost of defending litigation by whistleblowers in the last 5 

years, from October 1, 2001 through September 30, 2006. During 

fiscal years 2002 through 2006, DOE made three reimbursements 

for whistleblower cases in which the judgment was in favor of the 

plaintiff. In those instances, DOE reimbursed contractors $350,489. 

During fiscal year 2002 through 2006, DOE contractors reached 

settlements with plaintiffs in 19 whistleblower cases before a final 

ruling. In those instances, DOE reimbursed contractors $4,523,073. 

There was reference made to Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 931.205–47(h) which at (2)(iii) requires a contracting officer to determine allowability of defense settlements and award 

costs on a case-by-case basis, after considering the terms of the 

contract, relevant cost regulations, and relevant facts and circumstances, including federal law and policy prohibiting reprisals 

against whistleblowers. And then it continues. 

I have a question for the record asking for an update as far as 

the costs of reimbursement to contractors. The policy issue I have, 

and particularly given the code of federal regulations that talk 

about this being case by case, whether the Department of Energy 

or any other department or institution, public or private, at times 

there are things that are untoward that occur, particularly in some 

of the programs that DOE is involved in where you have huge safety issues, health issues, public policy issues. 

Secretary BODMAN. Cyber-security issues. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
57 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Cyber-security issues. I alluded to it with Mr. 

D’Agostino last year in an NNSA hearing, where one of the managers said, ‘‘If I was doing it, there would be blood on the floor.’’ 

Of course, in the end, there was a jury award of over $4 million 

for the employee, but the attitude was ‘‘you told on us, you told on 

us.’’ 

I have a concern about where the loyalties lie, in that if something has gone wrong and it is brought to light, I would hope that 

the first impulse of people is that, well, one, if it is in fact true, 

we should investigate whether it is, or potentially you have a disgruntled employee. If it is, we ought to correct the problem, as opposed to ‘‘you are gone.’’ 

The concern I have, and I appreciated the answer last year, is 

if the government is reimbursing the contractors, where the contractors are settling with plaintiffs because of employment actions 

or jury awards, what is the incentive for the contractors at DOE 

to behave themselves, if we as a government and taxpayer are 

going to reimburse them to pay plaintiffs to settle cases? 

From a policy standpoint, I find that a very troubling policy. I 

can see even—and I am not saying I would support it—but reimbursement for litigation if in fact there was no substance to the 

claim. But where you have had settlements, where you have had 

jury awards, and then the government reimburses as a business 

expense the contractors, I am troubled by the policy. And it is not 

just at DOE, but it is obviously within your jurisdiction. 

Secretary BODMAN. I am, too. I don’t have an answer for you, sir, 

other than saying that I, too, share your concerns. I think it is important to try to protect whistleblowers. I do know that I get inquiries made of me by disgruntled employees, and I as a rule make 

it a program to investigate in so far as discussing the nature of the 

issue and of the complaint with the under secretary involved who 

oversee whatever laboratory—and it is typically a laboratory-type 

person. 

So I share your concern. I don’t have anything further to say 

other than that. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Do you think we should change that policy? 

Secretary BODMAN. I don’t know. That is a fair comment. I don’t 

know. I simply don’t know about the nature of what is in the contracts. We have so-called M&O contracts that govern the relationship between the laboratory and the contractor that is responsible. 

CONTRACT REIMBURSEMENT

Mr. VISCLOSKY. There was an interchange between myself and 

Mr. D’Agostino relative to a former employee, Sean Carpenter at 

Sandia. At about this time last year, there was a jury award for 

$4.6 million in Mr. Carpenter’s favor. At the time, D’Agostino when 

I asked if that was going to be reimbursed to the contractor—$5.6 

million—and accordingly whether the punitive damages, which 

were $4 million, are allowable will depend on whether Mr. Carpenter’s termination resulted from compliance with specific terms 

and conditions of the contract. 

We are currently analyzing this issue. Again, my concern is 

where you had a jury and a court impose punitive damages, not 

just somebody made a mistake, and that somebody in the DepartVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:21 Jul 24, 2008 Jkt 043355 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A355P2.XXX A355P2

yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
58 

ment, well, we are looking to see about the specific terms and conditions of the contract with the contractor. It raises a serious question about what the hell these contracts look like as far as the allowable reimbursement. 

Secretary BODMAN. I agree with the thrust of your question, your 

inquiry, but I simply don’t know, nor do I have an update in terms 

of the numbers. I should have that and I will happily provide that 

to you. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. It is a question for the record as far as the last 

24 months, and then specifically relative to Mr. Carpenter, because 

subsequently there has been an additional change. On September 

26 on the Carpenter case, of 2007, a settlement agreement was executed by the parties. The question is, and again for the record I 

would appreciate it, did DOE reimburse Sandia Corporation for the 

amount paid to Mr. Carpenter pursuant to that settlement. 

Secretary BODMAN. I don’t know. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Just so you have a sense, we have a series of 

three votes in a number of minutes. I would like at some point 

then we would recess and come back, simply because we do have 

some additional questions. We have about $25 billion on the table. 

Secretary BODMAN. I understand that. 

STOCKPILE STEWARDSHIP

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Last year in doing our work on Stockpile Stewardship, there was a proposal last year to build a replacement warhead. The Committee went to great pains to suggest that the administration, and in this case the Secretary of Energy, the Administrator of NNSA, the Secretary of Defense, Joint Chiefs of Staff 

and the Intelligence Community, join together to develop and submit a comprehensive Nuclear Weapons Strategy for the 21st Century. 

During testimony on the issue on March 29, General Cartwright 

did indicate that strategy did not exist at that point in time. You 

did have the AAAS indicate that as far as what that strategy 

should look like, the panel believes that the plan for nuclear weapons enterprises must have a clear rationale on a bipartisan basis 

if it is to be sustained over 25 years, through a number of administrations and dozens of Congresses, recognizing that circumstances 

change, not, if you would, the policy of a particular administration, 

but of the country. 

There was House report language that was referred to in the 

conference. I am wondering where are you and the Department, as 

well as defense and the intelligence community, in developing that 

strategy? Because obviously, we have an issue as far as the Stockpile Stewardship program and the size of the complex. My thought 

is, until you know where you are going—— 

Secretary BODMAN. No, I understand, and they are in the process 

of doing that—‘‘they’’ meaning the NNSA working with the Defense 

Department, working with the State Department. There is a socalled ‘‘white paper’’ that is being developed. 

I also think there is going to be a meeting on a number of these 

issues with the laboratory heads meeting with you this afternoon, 

as I understand it. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
59 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Secretary, there was going to be a meeting. 

That is now cancelled simply because we will be done voting shortly for the week, and most members will be unable to attend, but 

I would want to be clear for the record that the direction is for the 

national government, on behalf of the country—not a particular administration—have a strategy in place, although we appreciate the 

fact that—— 

Secretary BODMAN. I understand. The idea was to do a classified 

briefing for you and other members of the committee. There is a 

white paper that is being developed that is due out I believe later 

on this summer, I guess. 

GNEP

Mr. VISCLOSKY. On the GNEP facilities, in the 2008 appropriations conference report, there is language saying that funding 

under this in the amended bill provides $181 million for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative. Of this amount, $151 million is for 

continued research and development on spent fuel recycling and 

advanced reactor design, and no funds are provided for facility construction—and I would emphasize those words—for technology 

demonstration or commercialization. 

In the 2009 budget request, there are funds requested of $33.4 

million for transmutation research and development which would 

fund site evaluation infrastructure design to support a nuclear fuel 

recycling center and advanced recycling reactor which, if brought 

to fruition, would be two construction projects. 

Secretary BODMAN. That is correct, but it is only design. It is the 

development of, and it is not monies for construction, which I believe was the intent of Congress. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. There is no construction money. 

Secretary BODMAN. That is right. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. The budget request $53 million for advanced 

fuels research development testing, which includes funding to continue to do all cost, scope and schedule information for transient 

test capability. Would that be ultimately a physical facility that 

would be constructed? I am not suggesting you are going to build 

it in 2008. 

Secretary BODMAN. I don’t know. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Okay. 

Secretary BODMAN. I would be happy to respond to that. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Okay. The budget also cites the need for improvements in existing DOE laboratory facilities, and certainly for 

the record, I would ask which laboratories, for what purposes, and 

how much. By inference, at least, that would also be—and I am not 

saying you want to do construction in 2008—but construction. 

Secretary BODMAN. This is not intended to be construction in 

2008. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I understand that. 

Secretary BODMAN. It is the 2009 budget. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Right. And you have a 2009 budget request for 

$10.3 million for a first-of-a-kind world-class nuclear fuel cycle research development and demonstration facility, which would be another construction project in 2009. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
60 

Secretary BODMAN. In theory, that is correct. I don’t think that 

is counter to the intention of Congress. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. It is not counter to the intent, but there is some 

intent involved when we are suggesting you have monies for research and investigations, but also you are getting all set to build 

five facilities, and not in 2008, but setting the stage, when Congress over the last 2 years, if I am correct, has reduced the administration’s request for their funding. Again, it is kind of sending a 

signal here, but it would appear that people are going ahead and 

getting ready to build four or five projects. 

Secretary BODMAN. We are trying to spend the money in as intelligent a way as we can. In part, that would be designing facilities. 

But if you wish us not to design facilities, then we ought to know 

that. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I guess I am suggesting that Congress said no 

construction and you are not constructing, but you are—— 

Secretary BODMAN. Sometimes Congress changes its mind, sir. I 

would observe. It doesn’t happen often, but sometimes. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Sometimes we do. 

Secretary BODMAN. And therefore we want to try to be ready. 

That is all. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Okay. Good answer. It is my understanding that 

the department’s environmental impact statement for greater than 

class C waste includes waste volumes generated that are prone to 

a nuclear fuel cycle research, development and demonstration facility. Is that correct? 

Secretary BODMAN. I don’t know the answer to that. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. If you could answer for the record. 

Secretary BODMAN. I would be happy to. 

NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE RESEARCH

As a specific action being considered in DOE’s Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) program, 

construction and operation of the AFCF may be reasonably foreseeable. Under the 

National Environmental Policy Act, agencies must consider the reasonably foreseeable actions that could contribute to cumulative impacts. The waste volume estimates developed by DOE for the GNEP research facility are based on conceptual 

engineering design and past operating experience. We believe these estimates are 

reliable for the purposes of analysis in the greater-than-class C (GTCC) EIS. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. And if it is affirmative, wouldn’t it seem to be 

optimistic, considering where you are, that you are already planning on the waste stream from these facilities? 

Secretary BODMAN. This is on GNEP? 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Yes, sir. 

Secretary BODMAN. GNEP is intended to reprocess spent fuel. So 

that is what is referred to, I believe. The idea of GNEP is two-fold. 

One is to do the necessary technical work that is required to clean 

up and to prepare the fuel for use in a fast reactor, and then to 

design the fast reactor, et cetera, et cetera. So that is one piece of 

it. 

The other piece is to try to organize internationally, and we have 

been very successful in doing that. I think we have 21 or 22 countries signed up now. That is very encouraging. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
61 

GNEP TRAVEL

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Secretary, if we are talking about, then, the 

travel relative to GNEP, the department has apparently indicated 

that given the level of congressional funding, there may be layoffs 

relative to this program. 

Secretary BODMAN. Relative to GNEP? 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Yes, sir. 

Secretary BODMAN. I am unaware of that. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I stand corrected. 

Secretary BODMAN. No, I am not saying you are wrong. I am just 

saying I am unaware of that. My colleague just reported to me, sir, 

that if we were to cancel the research work that is ongoing related 

to GNEP, in order to compete it, and it was done ahead of time— 

along the lines that were mentioned to the congressman—that 

there would be some layoffs by definition. If that is the case, and 

if people would stop doing the work. I don’t have the numbers offhand of what they would be. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. If I can get back to the travel. Last week, the 

committee requested a detailed listing of foreign travel conducted 

in relationship to GNEP. 

Secretary BODMAN. Right. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. And asked if we could have it 2 days before the 

hearing. We got that last night. We would want to know, and 

would be happy to have it supplied for the record, what is the total 

number of foreign trips taken in which GNEP was one of the principal trip purposes?; what are the list of destinations for the 

GNEP-related trips? We have at least one here where someone 

spent a month apparently in France—must have been an extensive 

conference. 

How many DOE federal employees and contractors engaged in 

such foreign travel? What were the total costs of such GNEP-related foreign travel? And how were those costs distributed among 

the nuclear energy, nuclear defense and nonproliferation, departmental administration, and other relevant appropriation accounts? 

If you could for the record, what is your specific statutory authorization to engage with any foreign countries or enlist foreign partners for GNEP? 

Secretary BODMAN. What is my—— 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Your statutory authority. 

Secretary BODMAN. Okay. I don’t know. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. And what specific appropriations, if any, were 

made available for any foreign activities under advanced fuel cycle 

or GNEP? 

Secretary BODMAN. We would be happy to provide all that for 

you. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Okay. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
62 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 021 here 43355A.020
63 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 022 here 43355A.021
64 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 023 here 43355A.022
65 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 024 here 43355A.023
66 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 025 here 43355A.024
67 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 026 here 43355A.025
68 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 027 here 43355A.026
69 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 028 here 43355A.027
70 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 029 here 43355A.028
71 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 130 here 43355A.029
72 

Secretary BODMAN. I have what you have at least—I think a list 

of numbers of trips done by nuclear energy, by NNSA, and by the 

management office. It is about $1 million for the nuclear energy; 

$34,000 for NNSA; and $13,000 for the management office. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Secretary, I have not a lot, but some additional questions to ask. We will have a series of three votes here 

and be back as quickly as possible. We will be back. 

Secretary BODMAN. Do you have any estimate of what your timing would be? 

Mr. SIMPSON. About 45 minutes. 

[Recess.] 

SPENT FUEL STORAGE

Mr. SIMPSON. How much are we spending to pay utilites to store 

fuel that we were supposed to take over? Because of the agreement. 

Do you know how much were the payments in penalties to pay 

those utilities? 

Secretary BODMAN. I do not. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Are they paid by the judgment fund? 

Secretary BODMAN. That comes out of the judgment fund in the 

Justice Department. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I would be interested in knowing what we are paying in total penalties and what it is costing those utilities to maintain those storage facilities and keep that, if part of it is penalty, 

if part of it paying for it, or whatever. At some point in time, it 

is better for us to take it over, and cheaper probably to take it over, 

which gets to Yucca Mountain. 

Secretary BODMAN. With respect to Yucca Mountain, that which 

I haven’t said, sir, before, but I would say it now, we need access 

to the waste fund that is in the Treasury. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Right. 

Secretary BODMAN. That has been an ongoing discussion that we 

have had with our friends at OMB. 

Mr. SIMPSON. We had a hearing in the Budget Committee last 

year on all of these funds, these dedicated funds, not only within 

the nuclear waste fund, but others. Unfortunately, they are being 

used to offset the size of the deficit and we are not spending those 

monies—harbor maintenance funds—you go through them all; 

transportation fund. And I think you are going to see us maybe 

hold some hearings on that within some of these committees. If we 

are not going to spend it on what it is appropriated for, then we 

ought to not collect it. 

Secretary BODMAN. As a citizen, sir, I agree with you. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes. So we are going to be looking at that, and I 

know you need access to that. We directed you in our report language last year to start looking at interim storage. What are we 

doing with that? Are we going to have a report on interim storage? 

Secretary BODMAN. We have a report coming out. When is the report on interim storage? We do have a report coming and we are 

working on it, as directed by the Congress. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Okay. 

Secretary BODMAN. We are not opposed to it. We are not trying 

to stiff the committee. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
73 

YUCCA MOUNTAIN

Mr. SIMPSON. All we are looking at, frankly, is if Yucca doesn’t 

open—and as you know, it has problems. We are at a stage where 

we were at one time with the WIPP plant. Nobody thought WIPP 

would open and all that kind of stuff, and we are kind of at the 

same stage right now with Yucca Mountain, although it probably 

poses more challenges. 

I am one that firmly believes we have to have Yucca Mountain 

open and we need to do everything we can to make sure it is open, 

and we need to put the resources there to do it and make sure that 

is open on time, even though I know Nevada has the ability to 

block it in some respects, but I think we can get around those. 

Since the space available will only be for half of the DOD waste, 

what are we doing looking for the next available Yucca Mountain? 

Secretary BODMAN. We will have a report on the next available 

Yucca Mountain that we are committed to getting done on our 

watch—that is to say during the course of this year we will have 

a report. It is going to be later on this year that we would have 

a report on a list of states where—and I take it there is an understanding that it would be on the other side of the Mississippi River, 

I guess. At least as I understand it, that was the understanding 

with Congress some time ago. 

So I repeat, the hope of GNEP, the goal of GNEP is to deliver 

a process technology that would substantially reduce the toxicity 

and the quantity—mostly the toxicity—of the waste that comes out. 

In other words, we would burn the actinides. 

Mr. SIMPSON. And the next Yucca Mountain would be years down 

the road. 

Secretary BODMAN. Well, in fact, if we were to move ahead in a 

smart fashion, Yucca Mountain would serve for the balance of this 

century, or close to it. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Right, which is why I think the reprocessing is vitally important. 

Secretary BODMAN. It is very important. 

Mr. SIMPSON. It is one of the reasons, besides the fact that most 

of the energy is left in the fuel rods. 

Secretary BODMAN. It is just in a different chemical form. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Exactly. Thank you. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Secretary, I don’t have any further questions 

of you. I understand you have an appointment at 12:15 p.m. 

Secretary BODMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I just would make a couple of observations. I am 

58 years old. I have been at this a long time. I used to be on a congressional staff and I can remember when my mentor, Mr. Benjamin, who chaired the Legislative Branch Subcommittee, would 

have witnesses stay until 4:30 in the afternoon on relatively small 

accounts because his budget was well under $1 billion. 

I don’t want to hold you up from your meeting, but I would just 

make a couple of observations. We have some very significant other 

issues to cover, and you do have a budget of $25.014 billion. 

Secretary BODMAN. Right. I understand that. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. That is a lot of money for 3 hours worth of hearings. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
74 

Secretary BODMAN. Yes, it is. 

STOCKPILE STEWARDSHIP

Mr. VISCLOSKY. And I would simply point out that the depth of 

my concern here is severe. I have made my position known on 

issues such as Stockpile Stewardship, which I support. 

Secretary BODMAN. Right. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. But my upset that about the time when four 

major complexes are about to be finished, all after their time, all 

over budget. They were taking a hard turn in the road, at least 

proposed by the administration—well, let’s just build a new warhead. And then to find out from a briefing paper that was handed 

me this morning that one of those four facilities that is not even 

done yet, that was pursuant to stockpile stewardship, is now slated 

to be closed in 2025. 

I mean, why are we spending money? 

Secretary BODMAN. I have no idea. What facility is it? 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. It is the Dual Access Radiographic Hydro-Test 

Facility that is now apparently slated to be closed. It is not even 

done being built and we are going to close. And we are building 

these four facilities for Stockpile Stewardship, and then the administration makes a hard turn and says, well no, let’s go build a warhead. 

I also would point out that we had testimony before the Committee—and this is a serious fundamental issue with billions of dollars at stake—as far as the size and the configuration and the location of the weapons complex. It was indicated to us, without a 

great deal of I thought urgency, that it was going to be downsized 

and reconfigured by the year 2030, and this brochure was handed 

to us in the year 2006. 

I do know that given the controversies between this subcommittee and the administration over the last year, that that 

complex has been changed. Now, now there is no deadline at all. 

It is simply complex transformation. We would like to have a whole 

series of questions about those, but they can wait as well. 

So we have a vote, and you have a meeting, so we will adjourn 

the hearing. 

Secretary BODMAN. Thank you, sir. 

[Questions and answers for the record follow:] 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
75 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 139 here 43355A.030
76 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 140 here 43355A.031
77 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 141 here 43355A.032
78 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 142 here 43355A.033
79 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 143 here 43355A.034
80 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 144 here 43355A.035
81 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 145 here 43355A.036
82 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 146 here 43355A.037
83 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 147 here 43355A.038
84 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 148 here 43355A.039
85 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 149 here 43355A.040
86 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 150 here 43355A.041
87 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 151 here 43355A.042
88 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 152 here 43355A.043
89 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 153 here 43355A.044
90 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 154 here 43355A.045
91 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 155 here 43355A.046
92 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 156 here 43355A.047
93 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 157 here 43355A.048
94 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 158 here 43355A.049
95 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 159 here 43355A.050
96 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 160 here 43355A.051
97 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 161 here 43355A.052
98 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 162 here 43355A.053
99 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 163 here 43355A.054
100 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 164 here 43355A.055
101 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 165 here 43355A.056
102 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 166 here 43355A.057
103 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 167 here 43355A.058
104 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 168 here 43355A.059
105 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 169 here 43355A.060
106 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 170 here 43355A.061
107 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 171 here 43355A.062
108 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 172 here 43355A.063
109 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 173 here 43355A.064
110 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 174 here 43355A.065
111 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 175 here 43355A.066
112 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 176 here 43355A.067
113 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 177 here 43355A.068
114 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 178 here 43355A.069
115 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 179 here 43355A.070
116 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 180 here 43355A.071
117 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 181 here 43355A.072
118 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 182 here 43355A.073
119 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 183 here 43355A.074
120 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 184 here 43355A.075
121 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 185 here 43355A.076
122 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 186 here 43355A.077
123 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 187 here 43355A.078
124 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 188 here 43355A.079
125 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 189 here 43355A.080
126 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 190 here 43355A.081
127 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 191 here 43355A.082
128 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 192 here 43355A.083
129 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 193 here 43355A.084
130 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 194 here 43355A.085
131 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 195 here 43355A.086
132 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 196 here 43355A.087
133 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 197 here 43355A.088
134 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 198 here 43355A.089
135 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 199 here 43355A.090
136 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 200 here 43355A.091
137 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 201 here 43355A.092
138 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 202 here 43355A.093
139 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 203 here 43355A.094
140 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 204 here 43355A.095
141 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 205 here 43355A.096
142 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 206 here 43355A.097
143 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 207 here 43355A.098
144 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 208 here 43355A.099
145 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 209 here 43355A.100
146 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 210 here 43355A.101
147 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 211 here 43355A.102
148 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 212 here 43355A.103
149 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 213 here 43355A.104
150 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 214 here 43355A.105
151 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 215 here 43355A.106
152 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 216 here 43355A.107
153 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 217 here 43355A.108
154 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 218 here 43355A.109
155 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 219 here 43355A.110
156 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 220 here 43355A.111
157 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 221 here 43355A.112
158 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 222 here 43355A.113
159 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 223 here 43355A.114
160 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 224 here 43355A.115
161 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 225 here 43355A.116
162 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 226 here 43355A.117
163 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 227 here 43355A.118
164 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 228 here 43355A.119
165 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 229 here 43355A.120
166 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 230 here 43355A.121
167 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 231 here 43355A.122

yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
(169) 

THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2008. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—ENVIRONMENTAL 

MANAGEMENT, LEGACY MANAGEMENT 

WITNESSES 

JIM RISPOLI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF ENERGY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 

MICHAEL OWEN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF LEGACY MANAGEMENT 

CHAIRMAN VISCLOSKY’S OPENING STATEMENT

Mr. VISCLOSKY [presiding]. I would like to call the committee to 

order. This afternoon, we are honored to have Assistant Secretary 

for Environmental Management James A. Rispoli. He is accompanied by Mr. Michael Owen, Director of the Office of Legacy Management. 

Before we go any further, I do want to thank you because typically we do not start hearings at 3 o’clock in the afternoon, but I 

hope you appreciate, given the schedule we have, that we are compelled to do so. 

I also do want to thank my colleagues very much, because we are 

done voting for the week, but nevertheless you are in attendance, 

and I really appreciate that very much. 

Mr. Rispoli, the total Environmental Management budget for fis- cal year 2009 is $5.5 billion, a reduction of $167 million from the 

budget the president recently signed for 2008. Most disturbingly, 

the fiscal year 2009 level of funding will, and this is quoting Secretary Bodman, not meet some of the milestones and obligations 

contained in all of the environmental agreements that have been 

negotiated over many years with regulators. Again, the Secretary 

said that last week during his hearing, as well as according to your 

testimony. 

Unfortunately, the budget request does not indicate what milestones will be missed or the consequences of missing them, so we 

will spend some time today going over that. I know that during 

your 10 years as Assistant Secretary, you have been working very 

hard to rectify a very chaotic project management system. Understandably, it will take several years for your initiatives to be fully 

embraced and implemented. 

In the meantime, we continually hear from our valued partners 

at the Government Accountability Office that project management 

standards are still not being applied, such as the case of the balkanized project at Hanford. Increasingly, policy decisions are overtaxing existing projects such as the decision to run H Canyon another decade at Savannah River and its impact on the operations 

of the finely balanced liquid waste management system. 

Sometimes the lack of decision exacerbates management of 

projects, such as an unclear path for low activity waste at Hanford, 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
170 

which has significant impacts on the schedule and costs of getting 

the work done. 

These are some of the items I would like to cover with you here 

today. 

Mr. Owen, you manage the sites when the cleanup has been complete, including the management of the pensions of former workers. 

We are interested in hearing from you today about your organization and the challenges you are facing in the future as more sites 

cross the finish line. 

Mr. Rispoli and Mr. Owens, I ask that you ensure that the hearing record of the questions for the record and any supporting information requested by the subcommittee are cleared through the department and the Office of Management and Budget and delivered 

in final form to the subcommittee no later than 4 weeks from 

today. 

All members of the Committee who have additional questions for 

the record should submit them to the subcommittee offices by noon 

tomorrow. 

With those comments, Mr. Hobson, if you would have any opening statement you would care to make, I would recognize you. 

MR. HOBSON’S OPENING STATEMENT

Mr. HOBSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to welcome Assistant Secretary Rispoli and Director Owen 

for what will probably be their last appearance before this subcommittee, and this is probably my last appearance here in this 

chair with you at this time. Both of you bring a Department of Defense-style of project management and business practices to the organizations in DOE, and while everything is not as rosy as we 

would like in those programs, they are certainly better managed 

than they were before your involvement. 

I want to thank both of you for your dedicated public service and 

your efforts that you are doing now. It is better, but we still have 

some concerns and I think you understand and share our concerns 

on some things. I just again want to say thanks for what you do. 

With that Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Rispoli. 

MR. RISPOLI’S OPENING STATEMENT

Mr. RISPOLI. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Visclosky, 

Congressman Hobson, members of the subcommittee. I am pleased 

to be here today and would like to note that this year marks 20 

years since the environmental management program was first established. Imagine that. Clearly, a lot has been accomplished, but 

a lot more needs to be done. 

I would also note, Mr. Chairman, that today marks, as Congressman Hobson said, the last time that I have a scheduled opportunity 

to testify before you on this subcommittee regarding our program’s 

budget request. When I first appeared before this subcommittee 2 

years ago, I pledged that safety would remain our first priority. No 

milestone to me is ever worth an injury to our workforce. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
171 

Today, I am pleased to report that worker injuries have been reduced by 50 percent during the past 3 years, and our injury rate 

is less than 10 percent of comparable commercial waste disposal 

and construction industries. 

The second priority that I discussed with you is my goal of making EM a high-performing organization. I thank this subcommittee 

because you made it possible for us to collaborate with the National 

Academy of Public Administration to help us in improving our program. We are very proud that in addition to the constructive sessions and dialogue opportunities with them, they concluded in their 

report that EM is on a solid path to becoming a high-performing 

organization. 

Third, when I was sworn-in to this position, I set about to refine 

all of EM’s cost and schedule baselines which guide every project. 

During the past 18 months, all EM projects, both line item and operating, have undergone independent audits to verify our costs and 

schedules as valid and reasonable. Today, our project estimates and 

assumptions can be viewed by us and by you and the Congress 

with greater confidence than ever before as a result of this very, 

very rigorous process over 18 months. 

At that time, I also stated that our goal was for the cost and 

schedule performance of at least 90 percent of our projects to be on 

target or better than on target. In July of 2005, per a report that 

is put out by our Office of Engineering and Construction Management, 17 of our projects were not on cost and on schedule. Today, 

our portfolio of projects consistently meets or beats the 90 percent 

goal. In fact, today we have one project, the DUF6, that is listed 

as not on cost/on schedule. 

Turning now to our fiscal year 2009 budget request for $5.528 

billion, it is based on the principle of prioritizing risk reduction 

across the DOE complex. Let me address an issue that I know has 

caused you concern that this request has broken with past understandings related to the department’s cleanup budget strategy. 

I would like to recall and state the testimony my predecessor 

gave to this subcommittee in both 2003 and 2004. Then-Assistant 

Secretary Jessie Roberson testified, ‘‘After a period of accelerated 

funding peaking in fiscal year 2005, we anticipate funding will 

then decline significantly to about $5 billion in 2008.’’ Viewed from 

this perspective, our 2009 budget request is actually about $500 

million more than what she projected on two occasions 5 years ago. 

The independently audited cost and schedules that I referred to 

were developed using our 5-year funding profile, and you have a 5- 

year funding profile, a bar chart, I believe, in front of you. It shows 

that the year that we are in now is the low point of where we are, 

but it is important to note that the estimates we worked up for the 

multi-year funding and the audits we went through match this 

funding profile that was given to the Congress last spring after the 

budget came in last year. 

This gave us a predictable funding profile because all your 

project costs and schedules have to be planned out to predictable 

funding, and this is the funding targets profile that we used as delivered last year to you. As you can see, our 2007–2008 appropriations, as well as our 2009 request, track with that 5-year profile. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
172 

The administration recognizes that with the budget before you 

today, some of the milestones contained, as the chairman stated, in 

our agreements are in jeopardy of being missed. Please note that 

other milestones are in jeopardy due to technical reasons. There 

are not only budgetary reasons, but technical reasons as well. 

As a result, we have had to make difficult decisions regarding 

our priorities. The milestones that guide our work, the regulatory 

milestones that guide our work, have been and remain important 

measures of progress. The Department’s strategy is to continue to 

focus on cleanup that will produce the greatest environmental benefit and the largest amount of risk reduction across the nation. 

Before I close, I would like to note two accomplishments that 

demonstrate the progress we are making regarding risk reduction. 

You have a photo in front of you that demonstrates that 50,000 

tons of equipment at Building K–31 at Oak Ridge—this is the 

weight of a World War II destroyer—50,000 tons of equipment have 

been removed from that building. This is about a 40 football fieldsize building. Now that this high-risk material has been removed, 

the building is available for industrial reuse. 

The second photograph that you have shows our contractors at 

Idaho removing transuranic waste, contaminated with organic 

chemicals that were disposed of in drums years ago. These drums 

are now decaying and their contents do pose a threat to the underlying Snake River plain aquifer. The photo you see and the enclosure that you see in the photo allows the workers to continue to 

reduce risk in all weather conditions, but more importantly, prevent contamination from spreading. 

Mr. Chairman, I am proud of the progress our 34,000 contractor 

and federal workers have made in recent years and the wise and 

secure foundation we have built for the future. This subcommittee 

has provided critical guidance that has enabled us to accomplish 

the successes we have had to date. I look forward to working with 

you in my remaining time at the department, and I thank you for 

your consistent support over the years to reduce the risk to our citizens, our communities and our nation. 

I will be happy to answer your questions. Thank you, sir. 

The written statement follows:] 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
173 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 241 here 43355A.123
174 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 242 here 43355A.124
175 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 243 here 43355A.125
176 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 244 here 43355A.126
177 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 245 here 43355A.127
178 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 246 here 43355A.128
179 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 247 here 43355A.129
180 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 248 here 43355A.130
181 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 249 here 43355A.131
182 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 250 here 43355A.132
183 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 251 here 43355A.133
184 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Owen. 

MR. OWEN’S OPENING STATEMENT

Mr. OWEN. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and other members of 

the committee. 

My name is Michael Owen, and I am the Director of the Office 

of Legacy Management at the Department of Energy. The Office of 

Legacy Management is responsible for ensuring that DOE’s closure 

responsibilities are met by providing long-term surveillance and 

maintenance, records management, workforce restructuring and 

benefits continuity, property management and land-use planning. 

By managing post-closure responsibilities, LM has better positioned the department to continue focusing DOE programs and personnel on achieving the diverse missions of the Department. 

For fiscal year 2009, the President’s request for LM activities is 

just under $186 million, a reduction of approximately $8 million 

from the fiscal year 2008 request. In the past, LM was funded by 

Other Defense Activities, ODA appropriations, and through fiscal 

year 2007, by the Energy Supply and Conservation, ES&C appropriation. 

However, in fiscal year 2008, a new appropriation account for 

Legacy Management was created and placed a portion that had 

previously been within ES&C into the Legacy Management, labeled 

as Legacy Management. In fiscal year 2009, funding is being requested only under ODA appropriation. 

I would now like to take this opportunity to explain briefly our 

fiscal year 2009 budget request from the perspective of LM’s four 

strategic goals. Strategic goal number one, protect human health 

and the environment through effective and efficient long-term surveillance and maintenance. For the long-term surveillance and 

maintenance program, total funding request for fiscal year 2009 is 

$48 million. 

This request will allow Legacy Management to monitor and conduct long-term management in accordance with legal, contractual 

and regulatory agreements at 86 sites plus eight additional sites 

that are planned to be transferred to LM in fiscal year 2009. This 

request includes $8.5 million for long-term surveillance and maintenance at the Fernald site in Ohio and $5.5 million for activities 

at the Rocky Flats site in Colorado, two of our larger closure sites. 

We are also requesting $15 million to monitor and conduct normal long-term surveillance and monitoring activities at the eight 

Nevada off-sites, located mostly in western states, which includes 

scheduled drilling of deep groundwater monitoring wells. Monitoring wells at these sites are very costly because nuclear tests 

were conducted at extreme depths in order to minimize surface impacts. Placement of wells around these sites is decided upon after 

consultation with state regulatory authorities. 

Strategic goal two is to preserve, protect and make accessible legacy records and information. In fiscal year 2009, Legacy Management is requesting just over $9 million for archives and information management programs. The increased funding levels for archives and information management includes costs associated with 

preparing to consolidate all of our archived records into one facility. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
185 

These records are currently located in five different federal 

records centers scattered across the country, and consist of records 

for all of our sites, as well as the eight new sites that are coming 

to our control in fiscal year 2009. With the planned lease of a new 

records facility, these records will be transferred to a single records 

storage facility in fiscal year 2010. 

Goal three, support an effective and efficient workforce structured to accomplish departmental missions and ensure contractorworker pension and medical benefits. The largest single portion of 

the Legacy Management budget for fiscal year 2009 funds the pensions and benefit continuity program. The total request for this 

program is $112 million. This funding allows the department to 

make the required Employment Retirement Income Security Act, 

ERISA, minimum pension fund contributions and provide post-retirement benefits of medical, Medicare Part B, and life insurance 

to contractor retirees at LM closure sites. 

Our final goal, manage legacy lands and assets, emphasizing protective, real and personal property reuse and disposition. LM is requesting approximately $4 million for reuse of property management programs. Legacy Management is also charged with the 

transfer or reuse of sites that no longer support an ongoing departmental mission and possible disposal of properties for beneficial 

reuse. 

The Office of Legacy Management manages thousands of acres of 

land and other assets. When land is transferred to a private interest, it allows the land to be reused productively, reduces the department’s footprint, and resumes payment of local property taxes. 

Finally, the president’s budget for fiscal year 2009 requests just over $1 million to fund all of DOE’s Environmental Justice program, an increase of about $400,000 from last year’s request. The 

additional funding will expand our environmental justice outreach 

activities more into the southwestern part of the country, and allow 

for better outreach to Native American and Hispanic communities 

in that area where the department has a large footprint. 

In conclusion, you can see from the President’s fiscal year 2009 

budget request that the Office of Legacy Management is taking 

proactive steps to increase our efficiency and effectiveness by consolidating funds from other appropriations accounts, and more importantly using prior-year funds from previously appropriated 

funding to reduce our fiscal year 2009 budget request, while fully 

meeting our commitments. 

As the second office in the entire federal government to receive 

official designation from OMB as a High-Performing Organization, 

LM’s fiscal year 2009 budget request continues our commitment to 

make prudent use of taxpayer dollars. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I 

would be glad to answer any questions you may have. 

[Statement of Michael Owen, Director, Office of Legacy Management follows:] 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
186 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 257 43355A.134
187 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 258 43355A.135
188 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 259 43355A.136
189 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 260 43355A.137
190 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 261 43355A.138
191 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 262 43355A.139
192 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Hobson. 

Mr. HOBSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

IDAHO TRANSURANIC CLEANUP

I have a couple of comments on something first, then I have a 

long question. This map, I am pleased to see this map. This was 

a priority of this committee. It should have been a priority of everybody before you and everybody else. If this doesn’t work, this is a 

world catastrophe waiting to happen. I know the state wants to 

take credit for it, but it was really this committee that kick-started 

the program. 

If the river there becomes contaminated to the degree that it 

could, you would have something you couldn’t fix. It would destroy 

a whole ecosystem and people’s lives would be at risk. I view this 

as one of your most critical programs that you have to watch and 

maintain and do. I am pleased to see the progress on it. 

That is enough said about that, but I am pleased to see the map 

and pleased to see the response, because this is something that I 

used to wake up at night worrying about. It was on our watch, we 

couldn’t really fix it, and pump-and-treat didn’t work. I commend 

you for getting on that, and I hope whoever follows you at the department understands the potential world-problem-class catastrophe of what would happen if this vital river becomes contaminated. 

Mr. RISPOLI. And I thank you because I recall our past conversations. I know you have discussed it with our secretary. I know that 

you have plussed-up our money one year. We have this year added 

another $65 million on top of $104 million from last year, and we 

do recognize it and I do appreciate that. I would hope that this will 

continue because this is the real and present danger out there right 

now. 

Mr. HOBSON. It is one of the major problems in this country, the 

waste that is life-threatening if it happens. 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, sir. 

EM-WIDE NATIONAL MASTER DISPOSITION PLAN

Mr. HOBSON. At the secretary’s hearing, we questioned why the 

department does not have a nationwide ‘‘master plan’’ showing the 

types, quantities, schedule and final disposition for all materials intended for consolidation and disposal. These would be the radioactive waste resulting from your cleanup activities, as well as special nuclear materials that are being consolidated for security, safety or economic reasons. 

Offices like Environmental Management and NNSA offer us their 

piecemeal plans for moving material and cleaning up sites, but no 

one has shown us the master plan or ‘‘road chart’’ that shows how 

all these pieces fit together. In particular, I have concern that EM 

is making promises to clean up certain sites on the assumption 

that all of the high-level waste will go to Yucca Mountain for disposal. But the repository does not have the authorized capacity to 

accept all the high-level waste in the DOE complex. 

My questions, and I am going to read them separately, does Environmental Management have such a nationwide master plan, or 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
193 

at least a nationwide plan, that shows the types, quantities and 

scheduled shipment dates for all the EM materials? 

Mr. RISPOLI. We have something called a disposition map that is 

actually a book, Congressman Hobson. It does show that where 

there is no firm disposition path, it so notes, but for the most part 

it actually shows the disposition path for all the various types of 

waste. I would also mention that our Deputy Assistant Secretary 

Frank Marcinowski has developed this with his staff. It has been 

discussed with many stakeholders that are affected in those areas. 

It does exist. It is a living document. In other words, it doesn’t 

have a date or a sit-on-a-shelf. 

Mr. HOBSON. Is this information available? First of all, is that 

DOE-wide? 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HOBSON. Or just EM? 

Mr. RISPOLI. It is the entire—no, I am sorry, sir. It is EM-wide. 

It is for the EM complex, but it is all nationwide for the EM complex. 

Mr. HOBSON. Is this information available in a format that you 

can provide for this hearing record? If not, can you provide it in 

a summary format, including the nationwide part of it showing this 

information graphically for the record? 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, sir, we can. 

EM-WIDE MASTER DISPOSITION PLAN

The Office of Environmental Management has complex-wide disposition maps for 

the various waste types resulting from our cleanup programs. The data are derived 

from our project baselines, provide life cycle estimates, and are updated annually. 

The Waste Information Management System (WIMS), which generates life-cycle disposition maps through 2050 for low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste, is 

available on the Internet (http://wims.arc.fiu.edu/WIMS/) and is maintained by Florida International University. These WIMS disposition maps identify: The waste type 

generator site, physical form, projected volumes, the general type of treatment required, and the disposal facility. Wastes that do not have a current disposition facility are labeled ‘‘To Be Determined.’’ DOE sites and Headquarters organizations 

work together to establish final treatment and disposal paths for these wastes and 

monitor capacity of existing disposal sites. Later this year we will add transuranic 

waste data to this system. We will provide a folder with these disposition maps. 

Mr. HOBSON. Which office, if any, in DOE is charged with integrating all these different moving pieces from the various DOE programs—treatments on-site, shipment-off-site and receipt of waste 

and spent fuel for disposal? 

Mr. RISPOLI. If we are talking about wastes that are in the Environmental Management program, then the Deputy Assistant Secretary Frank Marcinowski and his office are responsible for that. 

The Department still employs for non-waste, but for nuclear materials such as plutonium, uranium, a consolidation committee, a nuclear materials consolidation committee. It is presently chaired by 

Mr. Bill Ostendorff. It used to be chaired by Charlie Anderson. It 

is now chaired by Bill Ostendorff, who is the principal deputy administrator of the NNSA. They handle those materials that are not 

waste, but might have a future benefit or a present benefit for the 

nation. 

Mr. HOBSON. I think what we are concerned about is seeing an 

integrated plan for the Department as a whole. We need to talk to 

the staff and everybody. One, we want to know that there is such 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
194 

a plan. Second we think there could be some efficiencies if there 

is an overall plan, instead of a hit-or-miss approach as you move 

through that. 

MOUNDO OU–1 CLEANUP STATUS

If I have any further time, I am going to switch to somewhat of 

a parochial thing, but it is not really in my district. Both Congress 

and your department have put additional funding toward cleaning 

up the contamination at OU–1 at the Mound site in Miamisburg, 

Ohio. I gather the local community still believes the Department 

has not done enough and is seeking even more federal funding for 

this site. Can you explain the current status of the OU–1 cleanup 

and how the department proposes to resolve that problem? 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, Mr. Hobson. There are two issues that are related to this. The first is, the Department has offered to convey the 

property minus the OU–1 area that is of concern to the community 

and that dialogue is ongoing with the community now. In fact, I believe that we are well along the path toward executing such an 

agreement once it is finalized. So that would remove that particular property from the transfer to the community. 

However, related to the cleanup, I was aware of the concern. You know, this committee gave us $30 million to—— 

Mr. HOBSON. And you know why. There was a signoff by a couple 

of people that everything was okay, and I didn’t believe it was 

okay. And guess what? It wasn’t okay. We would have left a mess 

for the community. We had the money, and frankly, the staff came 

and said we don’t think this thing is cleaned up. This was even 

though the Ohio EPA signed off and I don’t know who else signed 

off. 

Mr. RISPOLI. The federal and the Ohio—— 

Mr. HOBSON. Yes, but let me tell you, what did you find? They 

had stuff. 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HOBSON. And we would have all walked away from that site 

and left it right over an aquifer if this committee and its staff 

hadn’t said, whoa, wait a minute. 

Let me ask another question on this to Mr. Owen. What is the 

status of the department’s payments to the Miamisburg Mound 

Community Improvement Corporation? Does DOE still owe any 

further money to the community organization? Is the community 

organization using the DOE funds that they have received to date? 

Mr. OWEN. Yes, sir. We owe them no additional monies. All the 

monies have been paid. The way the contractual procedures that 

are followed by the government, that is considered a grant. So the 

Miamisburg Mound Community Improvement Corporation would 

invoice against a balance there of approximately $6.1 million which 

is available to them, and we owe them no additional monies. We 

have made all payments. 

Now, they may have to come in with matching grant requirements for the release of some of the funds, and that may still be 

going on. They have a master plan as to how they plan to develop 

the site. 

Mr. HOBSON. But they claim that you haven’t cleaned up this 

other little site. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
195 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, sir. They do. 

Mr. HOBSON. And I don’t know who is right or who is wrong on 

that, but I would like to get rid of that thing off our books one way 

or the other. It is so close to being done it ought to get done. 

Mr. RISPOLI. I ought to give the Congress an update as to what 

was going on. I have asked the Army Corps of Engineers to take 

a look at what we have done so far, given the $30 million that you 

directed to it, and we added another $4.5 million, which is below 

all the reprogramming thresholds. I was informed informally today 

that we probably have removed with that about 60 percent of the 

quantities. 

When I was first told of this issue several years ago, I was told 

that it was likely over $100 million problem, but nobody had really 

characterized it and nobody knew. But now we have removed 60 

percent, but it took $34.5 million to do the 60 percent. The Army 

is working on a report for me to recommend what should we do, 

what did they think the costs would be for the balance. It is a protective option, Mr. Hobson to cap it as we do others, like at 

Fernald, where we have a cap over a landfill, or what should we 

do with it. 

I expect that report within the next month or so. 

Mr. HOBSON. I just worry about the groundwater. 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, sir. I understand. 

GUARANTEED FIXED PRICE REMEDIATION CONTRACTS

Mr. HOBSON. This committee directed DOE to explore the use of 

guaranteed fixed price remediation contracts for some of your 

cleanup work. Can you explain the results of any trials you have 

conducted to date? 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, sir. We actually did provide a report to the 

Congress that was required as a result of that direction. The report 

mentioned about four or five different things that we looked into 

with respect to that issue, with respect to that type of contracting. 

What it came down to was that there are a couple of candidates. 

There is a gun site at the Savannah River site. There are two reactors at Brookhaven and we believe that the SEFOR reactor at the 

University of Arkansas at Fayetteville would be candidates for it. 

However, with the budget we have, the Brookhaven reactors and 

the SEFOR, which was added to our program by an authorization 

act, actually by EPACT 2005, I am sorry, we don’t have the funds 

to do anything with those right now. 

In fact, we are slowing down the work in 2009 on the 

Brookhaven reactors and we have nothing other than perhaps 

spending some planning money to look at SEFOR at Fayetteville. 

So we have some potential candidates, but at the present time, in 

all honesty, they are not moving very far, but we are poised to take 

them on when the time is right. 

PORTSMOUTH CLEANUP STRATEGY

Mr. HOBSON. Okay. My last question is on Portsmouth. 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HOBSON. Portsmouth, as they would say if you were there, 

sort of a southern Ohio twang in there. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
196 

The contract for the cleanup of the technetium 99 at Portsmouth 

should be completed sometime later this year. What is DOE’s current strategy for cleaning up the rest of the Portsmouth site in addition to the DUF6 project? 

Mr. RISPOLI. I am happy to tell you—well, the DUF6 project, of 

course, has its own place. I am sure that you or someone will have 

questions about the status. It is, as I mentioned, our one project 

that is listed as red. It is not on cost or on schedule at the present 

time. 

On the larger front of the future D&D, I am happy to report to 

you that we are working in tandem, both the project management 

planning and the procurement planning, as I say, in parallel. We 

expect that this summer we will be approving both an acquisition 

strategy and a path forward so that we could package up an RFP 

and be able to do that work. 

Mr. HOBSON. How are you going to deal with the hundreds of 

skilled employees that will become available once the Tech-99 contract is completed? Do you have any plan to keep these skilled 

cleanup workers usefully employed at the site, or what are you 

going to do? 

Mr. RISPOLI. Mr. Hobson, I don’t have an answer for that. I will 

have to take that for the record. 

PORTSMOUTH WORKFORCE PLAN

Yes, currently the Office of Environmental Management (EM) has funded activities at the Portsmouth site which supports approximately 440 United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) employees. About half of these employees support the 

Cold Shutdown of the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP) and the others 

are assigned to the Technicium-99 (Tc-99) cleanup program. On March 3rd, DOE 

initiated discussions with USEC to establish a contractual relationship for the support of Surveillance and Maintenance of the PGDP DOE owned facilities until the 

contract for the decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) of the facilities is 

awarded. At that time it will be the Department’s intention to transition the USEC 

employees to this new D&D contractor. 

The successful completion of the Tc-99 cleanup program is approaching. As this 

program nears completion the natural migration of the associated USEC employees 

to other deactivation projects at Portsmouth has already begun and will continue 

throughout the current fiscal year and into FY2009. In addition, DOE will approach 

USEC about using their employees to support the Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride 

(DUF6) project and American Centrifuge Project (ACP), as the projects transition 

from construction to operations. A significant number of the USEC pool of experienced employees will be used to staff these projects. The natural attrition of USEC 

at the Portsmouth site is being closely managed to ensure that there is a minimal 

impact to the existing workforce during the transition of the plant to D&D. 

URANIUM DISPOSITION SERVICES PERFORMANCE

Mr. HOBSON. And lastly on this, we asked the secretary several 

questions about the performance of the contractor, Uranium Disposition Services, LLC, for the depleted uranium hexafluoride 

projects at Portsmouth and Paducah. It sounds like the only consequence to the current contractor for his poor cost and schedule 

performance is that DOE may re-compete the operational phase for 

these projects. 

Well, the question is, what will be the consequences to the current contractor in terms of reduced award fees? 

Mr. RISPOLI. On that contract, it was initially one contract to 

build, commission and operate for I believe a total of 5 years that 

particular facility. As you know, we have given them both a cure 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
197 

notice and then a second cure notice, and then a show cause, which 

is the step as a precursor to termination for default. We are now 

in dialogue with that contractor to remove, as you accurately conveyed, the operations part, which is a significant amount of work 

that would have been done with that plant. 

That is the path we are on. And certainly, the contractor is not 

enjoying when we are in termination-type proceedings, they are not 

enjoying a significant or any fee payments for the work they are 

doing. They are behind schedule and over cost. 

Mr. HOBSON. The Department of Commerce maintains a list of 

nonperforming contractors that agencies are supposed to review before making new contract awards. Will the department submit the 

UDS partnership or the individual members of that partnership as 

non-performing contractors? If not, please explain why not? 

Mr. RISPOLI. Mr. Hobson, I do not know the criteria for submitting a contract that is nonperforming, so I will have to take one 

for the record. 

NON-PERFORMING CONTRACTORS

The Office of Environmental Management (EM) collects and maintains information on contractor performance and routinely uses this information, as well as past 

performance information available from other sources, in making contract award decisions. EM inputs information on contractor performance to the National Institutes 

of Health Contractor Performance System (NIH CPS), an automated contractor performance information database. EM also uses the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) which is maintained by the Department of Defense, as a 

Government-wide contractor past performance repository. Following the completion 

and closeout of contracts such as the DUF6 Contract held by UDS, performance information and supporting data that will be entered into NIH CPS is automatically 

downloaded into PPIRS; this information is captured and maintained for universal 

access by other Federal Acquisition Officials as needed in accordance with restrictions outlined in the Federal Acquisition Regulations. 

Mr. HOBSON. I always worry about these contracts, although I 

don’t know DOE contracts as well as I know defense contracts. In 

defense contracts, the government always—and I won’t use the 

word that I would normally use—gets the short end on these things 

because they are written in such a way that we give performance 

awards to people that shouldn’t get them. 

They say, well, that is the way the contract is written. I have 

had deals where they say if you are terminated early, it costs the 

government more than if the contractor completed it. I hope we are 

not doing that here. I hope that DOE doesn’t do that and your 

agency doesn’t do it. 

I look forward to your answers on this in a timely fashion while 

I am still here in Congress. Sometimes we don’t get them for a long 

time, but I am sure you guys will do better. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RISPOLI. Thank you. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Ms. Emerson. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I just put a mint in my mouth. 

I apologize. I am ready now. [Laughter.] 

NAPA STUDY

If I start coughing, forgive me. Thank you. 

And thank you all so much for being here. Mr. Rispoli, your testimony mentioned the NAPA study that reviewed EM. I know this 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
198 

report was just released in December, but can you update me and 

the rest of the committee on the recommendations you have already implemented? And also what near-term recommendations 

can we expect to be implemented in the next few months? 

Mr. RISPOLI. Thank you. That panel has been extremely useful. 

They were I think pleasantly surprised that we did not wait for 

them to issue a final report, but actually worked with them every 

step of the way to begin implementing recommendations as we 

went. 

We have taken some significant actions. For example, they recognized that our staffing, that if you looked across the complex, we 

were short in both numbers, but just as importantly, in skill mix. 

So we initiated an effort to do a nationwide review of the staffing 

across the complex. We used the Corps of Engineers to do that, by 

the way. 

We then immediately plugged in 50 support people to help us to 

close the skill gaps. While we recruit, they recommended that we 

use our Cincinnati business office to do more of these functions. So 

we have done nationwide recruitments out of the Cincinnati business office so that we don’t have to do them one at a time from 

each site, so that we can get faster and more professional expert 

help at all of these sites. 

I think most importantly to us is, again, recognition that many 

of the shortcomings we have had have in fact been due to a shortfall in the right skills at the right places at the right time. If I had 

to pick any one thing, I think that is probably one of the more important. 

They also helped us to restructure some of the organization at 

headquarters so that we at headquarters could be more responsive 

to the field. We took some of those actions. For example, we put 

all of our own environmental management personnel management 

in one office, as an example, instead of having it fragmented. We 

reorganized and created a new office to look at strategic issues, and 

that office now, not being a part of any other office, can look across 

the EM complex at strategic issues. 

So they have done some things for us that really have assisted 

us greatly. I thank you for it, and I would say any other time that 

you need good expert help somewhere, these are the people to send 

for it. 

Mrs. EMERSON. We need to send them to a lot more agencies in 

the government, it seems like. 

So in the near term, are there some things that you are beginning to implement in accord with the recommendations? 

Mr. RISPOLI. Absolutely. We have already begun, or in fact completed, I am given a monthly update on status. We have an executive who tracks that and actually manages the implementation so 

that we are not waiting for some future date. My objective is to get 

as much of it as we can done during my tenure here at the department. 

Mrs. EMERSON. That is good. Thank you. 

ACCELERATED CLEANUP STRATEGIES

You mentioned the accelerated cleanup strategies you are developing and evaluating to aggressively clean up sites or segments of 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
199 

the work involving multiple sites. Can you just talk a little bit 

about the review of these strategies? Is there an independent entity 

looking at those ideas to make sure the safety and efficiency? Or 

is that review done within EM itself? 

Mr. RISPOLI. Let me mention really quickly, we have, as you 

know, not only closed complete sites, sites such as some of the ones 

we have mentioned, like Fernald as an example. But we have 

closed discrete areas on bigger sites, larger sites in discrete areas. 

We went through this 18-month effort to re-evaluate our costs and 

schedules. 

They are now to such a degree of detail, we could actually look 

at making business decisions to close discrete areas on big sites or 

perhaps even pick out a few smaller sites and get those closed. So 

we now have the tools to do that, and in fact we have begun the 

process of evaluating from a business perspective whether or not 

that would be a good way to go as we go forward. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Okay. Of the cleanup sites left to address, which 

ones should we be most concerned with? Which one are you giving 

special attention to, or are there any special considerations for that 

site? 

Mr. RISPOLI. From a risk perspective, unfortunately, the places 

that still take the largest dollars, and I believe it is nearly 50 percent of our budget, are the liquid tank waste issues at Idaho, at 

Hanford, and at Savannah River. I mean, that is just the reality 

of what it is. The volumes in those tanks are such that they just 

have to be dealt with. 

So that greatly, of course, takes a big wedge out of our budget 

that has to be dedicated to that. What we are looking at, as I said, 

though, is with the information we now have, can we make business decisions to target smaller areas like an area at Savannah 

River. We closed Melton Valley at Oak Ridge. I think we closed the 

‘‘T’’ area—is that the name of it at Savannah River? These are discrete sites on a bigger installation and we are looking for opportunity to do more of that. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Very good. Thank you so much. 

Mr. RISPOLI. Thank you. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Simpson. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome to the committee. This is going to be the last time, so 

let’s get some tough questions. I am just kidding. [Laughter.] 

I do want to thank you, before I begin, for the job you have done. 

I think you have been one of the best EM directors we have had 

and gone a long way toward to restoring some credibility within 

the Department, so I appreciate what you have done. 

MISSED COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT MILESTONES

Now, let me ask questions. According to the Secretary’s testimony on February 28, the EM’s fiscal year 2009 budget request of 

$5.528 billion would not meet some of the milestones and obligations contained in all of the environmental agreements that have 

been negotiated over many years with regulators. I am interested 

in what compliance milestones will be missed at the $5.5 billion 

level and how much money is needed if we were to fully comply 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
200 

with all of those milestones? And could we comply with all of them 

technology-wise, or if money was no object? 

Mr. RISPOLI. I think we provided to the staff and to the subcommittee ahead of time a summary. Let me just run through it 

so that it is on the record here. In 2008, not all of these would be 

budget-driven, but a fair number of them are and you have the 

breakdown on a cheat sheet. In 2008, we are projected to miss as 

many as 16. I shouldn’t say we will miss them. I would say we 

could miss as many as 16. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Are those budget-driven? 

Mr. RISPOLI. Not all. At Oak Ridge in 2009, as many as nine. Not 

all of these are budget-driven, and the table you have that I think 

looks like this or something similar to that actually shows the 

numbers. I can give them to you in that detail if you would like. 

At Oak Ridge, we could miss as many as 11 in 2008, all of which 

would be budget-driven. In 2009, we could miss as many as nine 

at Oak Ridge, seven of which would be budget-driven. To buy back those milestones would take about $65 million at 

Oak Ridge. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Just at Oak Ridge? 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, sir. 

At Richland, Washington, I will cover Richland and the Office of 

River Protection separately, but they are basically the same Hanford reservation. In 2008, we could miss one milestone at Richland, 

not budget-driven, technical reasons. In 2009, we could miss as 

many as 11, of which seven would be budget-driven. 

And of the total, which is not small, the amount it would take 

to buy those milestones back, and I am prepared to talk about 

some of the typical ones and what they are if we have time, would 

take almost $500 million at just that one site, to buy back those 

seven budget-driven milestones in 2009. 

At River Protection on the same site, they have a potential to 

miss as many as three in 2008 and another three in 2009, none of 

which are budget-driven. They would primarily be driven by the 

technical challenge of dealing with the liquid tank waste and 

things of that nature. 

At Savannah River Site in 2008, they would be at risk of missing 

one milestone in 2008 and it would be budget-driven. And in 2009, 

another five, also budget-driven, and that could be as much as, say, 

$175 million to $200 million, something in that range. At Los Alamos, none in 2008 would be at risk, but in 2009 as many as three 

budget-driven would be at risk, and that would take about $100 

million to not miss those. 

Those are the most significant ones and the total would be in the 

range of $800 million to $900 million. 

Mr. SIMPSON. About $800 million to $900 million? 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SIMPSON. How many of—— 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Would the gentleman yield? Is that $800 million to $900 million total for 2008 and 2009? Or 

is that 2008 or 2009? 

Mr. RISPOLI. Those would be to buy back the 2009, because 2008 

is already—— 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. That is just 2009? 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
201 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, sir. 

I would also for the record point out that there are also future 

milestones. In other words, you do a milestone in 2009, and it may 

then spawn other milestones for the future. That would cover 2009 

and what we know would be other milestones related to those in 

the future. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Let me get that straight. What you are saying is, 

you miss a milestone this year; it causes you to potentially miss 

milestones further down the road. 

Mr. RISPOLI. That is very true. 

Mr. SIMPSON. And if you had the $800 million or $900 million, 

that you could meet the milestones now and you might not miss 

those ones down the road. 

Mr. RISPOLI. That is true. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Are you counting when you say that such as Richland that you have seven budget-driven milestones that you might 

miss in 2009? Are you counting future milestones that you might 

miss because you have missed these seven? 

Mr. RISPOLI. Not in that number. No, sir, that is only milestones 

in 2009. But as an example, if I may, let’s say that there is a report 

due that studies—let’s just pick a hypothetical—a groundwater 

contamination. You make that milestone on time. You may then sit 

with the regulator and develop another three or four milestones to 

do certain things, like put in wells, begin a treatment system or 

something like that. So just doing that milestone may then result 

in future milestones. So clearly if you don’t meet the first one, you 

then push the other ones further out as well. 

MISSED MILESTONE FINES AND PENALTIES

Mr. SIMPSON. How many of these missed milestones are subject 

to penalties and fines? 

Mr. RISPOLI. Not all of them, but a number of them would be. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Do we know what the total fines potentially could 

be with the Department for missed milestones at this budget level? 

Mr. RISPOLI. We have a pretty good estimate. It is somewhere in 

the range of $10 million. 

Mr. SIMPSON. And that is for next year? 

Mr. RISPOLI. That would be for 2009. Yes, sir, the 2009 milestones. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Do we have an estimate of what the penalty would 

be because of these missed milestones of future missed milestones? 

Mr. RISPOLI. No, I don’t believe we do. No, sir. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I assume that missing these milestones means that 

the Department is intent on renegotiating contracts or agreements 

with states. 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, sir. The process whenever a milestone is at 

risk, and we have already begun dialogue with all of the states because this is very important to our sites and to the states, is to 

begin that dialogue and to look at the relative priorities, because 

for example, the budget we are proposing to you represents priorities as we in our best judgment evaluate it. But a particular regulator may say, you know, I would rather see you do this milestone 

than that one, and we are open to that type of dialogue. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
202 

We certainly hope that with the longstanding relationship we 

have with these regulators, that we can continue to engage in that 

dialogue. I have spoken with several myself. Our other executives 

have spoken with other state regulators, as well as the site managers, to begin that process. 

COST PROJECTION CONFIDENCE

Mr. SIMPSON. I noticed in an article I was reading that at Hanford, the largest site cleanup in the complex, DOE now projects 

completion between 2050 and 2062, which is 20 years behind the 

previous estimates. At Savannah River site, it is 2038 to 2040, 

compared to 2031 in the 2008 request. At Idaho, it has moved from 

2025 to between 2035 and 2044. 

Obviously, we are pushing the projected completion dates—I 

should emphasize ‘‘projected’’—of these sites back a number of 

years. Is there any confidence that this is any more than any of the 

other projections in the past? Because we have kind of had the 

same—and I am not trying to throw cold water or anything—but 

we have had the same type of reports from other EM managers 

that have come in and they have done a top-to-bottom review and 

moved the sites and so far. And we got, ‘‘Aha, now we have some 

firm knowledge of when this is going to be done.’’ 

And we keep doing it and we keep doing it. It is kind of like 

studies when Congress does them. We pile up on shelves. What 

confidence do you have that this is any more accurate than any of 

the other studies that have been done? 

Mr. RISPOLI. Congressman, I think what happened to us in the 

past, and I think you are absolutely correct in your observation, I 

think that all of our projections were done with the view that we 

were challenging the contractors and therefore we were projecting 

with the most optimistic outlook. 

Now, that is a great thing to challenge the contractors, but when 

I mentioned that we did an 18-month process to review the entire 

program and it was audited by people who are outside of my program, independently audited, they audited for the first time to a 

realistic funding profile. Before that, they were all estimated too 

unconstrained, so everyone was estimating and making all these 

commitments to you and to the state regulators based upon unconstrained funding profiles. 

Now, we have gone through and used this funding profile, and 

by the way, out here, we just said adjust for inflation. Assume it 

is flat and just adjust for inflation, because this is now $6.1 billion 

to $6.2 billion at the last part here. So we have redone this in an 

intensive 18-month effort. The work is voluminous. It breaks every 

project down into what they call a work breakdown structure so 

that every element of work is estimated. 

And now for the first time, each element of work has an early 

finish and a late finish, so we have allowed for risk. So when you 

ask how do you know that it is realistic this time, these estimates 

are no longer a point estimate. They say, okay, the best finish is 

here; the worst or the most pessimistic finish is here. And likewise, 

congressman, on cost, the most optimistic cost is down here and the 

most pessimistic cost is up here. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
203 

So for the first time, we can share with the communities at each 

location, with the regulators and with the Congress what those cost 

and schedule ranges are. The actual work at each site would fill 

bookshelves, but we are working on providing a synopsis that we 

can provide to show for the whole program, site-by-site, and at the 

major work elements, site-by-site, what are the early-finish, latefinish, the low-cost and the high-cost ranges for the entire program. 

So I think this is intended to restore confidence with the Congress and with the communities that we recognize have suffered. 

Mr. SIMPSON. What has been the response of the states and regulators and the communities? 

Mr. RISPOLI. Everyone that we have talked to, including professional organizations that I have explained this to, think that we 

have done exactly the right thing. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Will renegotiation of settlement agreements be required because of a more realistic view, if you want, of cleanup? 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, sir, but the beauty is that now we have enough 

detail so that we can sit with the regulators and say, okay, if you 

would like to delay this one in favor of that one, this one costs so 

much money, this one costs so much money, can you move that 

around to come to a mutual agreement with the regulators. 

PENALTIES PAYMENT RESPONSIBILITIES

Mr. SIMPSON. If I could just finish this line for a second—not this 

line—I got distracted with this for just a second. 

Back to the penalties. 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Who pays the penalties? 

Mr. RISPOLI. If it is driven by a lack of funding, the Department 

of Energy would pay the penalties. Some penalties that you have 

read about in the papers that were caused by other performance 

issues, we assess those to the contractor. But if it is driven by a 

lack of funding, then the department would pay the penalty. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. If I could, it would not come out of the U.S. 

Treasury. It would come out of DOE’s budget. 

Mr. RISPOLI. It would come out of DOE’s budget. Yes. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Is there a line item that is in your budget for penalty payment? 

Mr. RISPOLI. No, sir. The penalty—correct me if I am wrong—but 

I believe it would be paid from the money provided by this committee for that project. 

Mr. SIMPSON. That kind of bothers me, because if we are putting 

money into a project for cleanup and we use it to pay a penalty instead of the cleanup, obviously I would like to see more of the 

money actually go into cleanup. 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Are the penalties always paid in cash? Or are 

there in-kind payments? 

Mr. RISPOLI. We actually went back to look at that, and there are 

both ways. Some are paid in cash. For example, we have paid several penalties to the US EPA in cash to their penalties fund. 

Mr. SIMPSON. To USEPA? 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, sir. We have paid several in cash to them, and 

we have paid several in cash to a state equivalent-type fund. It 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
204 

might be like an emergency response fund in a state where the 

money would go toward helping them for emergency response. But 

in the case of the federal EPA, it goes to their collection fund. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Do the settlement agreements generally dictate 

how those penalties will be paid, or to what they will go in the 

state, if it is a state that gets paid? 

Mr. RISPOLI. We have had penalties, and not all of them are for 

missing a milestone. There may be others. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Sure. 

Mr. RISPOLI. Generally, what happens is then our site manager 

enters into negotiation or dialogue with the regulator and they may 

determine an in-kind type of a thing. For example, in Richland, I 

think we bought two boats for the Columbia River for the state to 

be able to pull samples, pull water samples, which actually does 

benefit the state and the program. 

In the state of New Mexico, I think we have paid, and some has 

gone to provide staff so they can review our work, and others have 

gone into their emergency response fund. So it is negotiated each 

and every time, and it is not always a given that the maximum 

penalty—when I gave you the roughly $10 million—it turns out to 

be the penalty. Sometimes it is negotiated to some other amount. 

MISSED MILESTONES PENDING LEGAL LAWSUITS

Mr. SIMPSON. Is the department being sued anywhere by outside 

entities, not the state regulators or the people with whom you are 

in agreements, for missing agreements? 

Mr. RISPOLI. I think I would take that one for the record. I just 

don’t know off-hand. I do know that there have been a number of 

outside groups that have sued related to certain types of things. 

For example, a current interesting one is an outside group sued the 

regulator in the state of New Mexico and brought them to court. 

Eventually, I believe the state prevailed. But this is not an uncommon thing. I would take that question for the record, if you would 

like. 

OUTSIDE ENTITIES LAWSUITS

No, the Department is not being sued by any outside entities for missing requirements in our cleanup agreements. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Okay. Yes, I would like to know that, because I 

have heard of—and of course you hear of a lot of things but— 

groups that sue the department for noncompliance to something. 

And part of the settlement, and it is usually an out-of-court settlement, is to help fund that group in future years. That kind of concerns me. 

But I will quit now and move on a little bit later. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY [continuing]. To follow up on Mr. Simpson’s line 

of questioning. When we are talking about missing a milestone for 

budgetary reasons for lack of funds, and you mentioned the gap of 

$800 million to $900 million, that is in the proposed 2009 budget? 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, sir. And it is only tied to those particular milestones. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. But you would need an additional $800 million 

to $900 million to make sure, from a budgetary standpoint. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
205 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, sir. But as I would point out, not all milestones 

are what you might say equal. I, in fact, have some examples 

that—some might be considered more significant than others, but 

they are not really all equal, so to speak. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Okay. 

Mr. Calvert. 

NEW REPROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

To preserve nuclear energy as a part of our future, electric generation especially, we must move toward technologies that I believe 

you can process spent nuclear fuel and recycle the hazardous radioactive materials. For the record, what reprocessing technologies are 

you presently working on and what is being developed at Argonne 

or any of the other labs? 

Mr. RISPOLI. Well, I can address certainly within my own program. We have the capability to, for example, recover uranium in 

our H Canyon at the Savannah River site, where we have an ongoing program to bring other uranium products from all over the 

complex to the H Canyon. We are doing this not only for environmental management supplies of uranium, but even other programs 

within the Department of Energy. So that capability to recover uranium already exists. 

The Department is also working on a uranium strategy. I would 

say it is pretty far along. It is being headed up by the Office of Nuclear Energy. My office is cooperating with the Office of Nuclear 

Energy, but they are looking at the entire inventory of uranium 

across the Department of Energy, both within the nuclear energy 

supply, the environmental management supply, and the former 

weapons program supply, and looking at what can be done with 

this uranium, what would be the best way to manage it for the 

benefit of the nation, really. 

If it is to be released to public consumption, in what manner and 

at what rate to not upset the uranium industry, to not cause an 

imbalance or an uncertainty in the market, things of that nature. 

That is pretty far along. As I say, we are cooperating with the Office of Nuclear Energy on that issue, and that is being headed up 

by Assistant Secretary Spurgeon, who I think you know. 

Mr. CALVERT. Is there any reprocessing technologies in the basic 

research stage right now that are moving along, that have promise, 

that need funding, that you see on the horizon that might be ready 

for some kind of laboratory-scale type of study? 

Mr. RISPOLI. Congressman, I understand the question, but I 

think I would take it for the record or it would be better answered 

by Assistant Secretary Spurgeon. I don’t know yet—has he yet appeared before this subcommittee? 

Mr. CALVERT. No. 

Mr. RISPOLI. Is it next week perhaps, or postponed until April? 

But I could take it for the record or you could also address that 

to him when he appears before you. 

PROMISING REPROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

Yes. The following are few examples of promising reprocessing technologies that 

would benefit from additional funding. A first example is the reprocessing of graphVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:21 Jul 24, 2008 Jkt 043355 PO 00000 Frm 00205 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A355P2.XXX A355P2

yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
206 

ite-based fuels. Spent fuel from high-temperature gas-cooled reactors is difficult to 

reprocess, because the fuel particles are coated with graphite and silicon carbide, 

neither easily penetrated by conventional dissolution processes. Grind-leach processes have been partially successful, and there has been some progress in the use 

of molten salts as silicon carbide solvents. Fluorination is technically feasible but 

provides significant containment problems. The reprocessing of graphite-based fuels 

is a fertile field for basic research. 

A second example of a promising class of advanced reprocessing technologies is 

hybrid treatment in which aqueous dissolution is followed by crystallization, solvent 

extraction and electrochemical separations. The separations literature contains information on each, but combined experimentation is uncommon yet offers considerable potential. 

A third example is the exploration of ways to convert electrochemical separations 

which are currently operated as a batch process into a continuous, counter-current 

process. In concept, one could imagine the flow of a molten salt and molten metal 

in opposite directions in a series of contactors, within which electrolytic or chemical 

exchange processes take place. Counter-current processes in general offer potential 

for very high recoveries, low losses and high throughput, and all three attributes 

would be beneficial for non-aqueous spent fuel treatment. 

Mr. CALVERT. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. WAMP. Well, this is my fourth hearing in the last 6 hours 

on completely different topics, on things all around the world. So 

I will try to focus. 

I want to start, Mr. Secretary, by echoing Mr. Simpson’s comments. You have drawn the short straw and difficult environment 

and you have done a very good job, but the deck is kind of stacked 

against you. It is a tough time, but I do really, really appreciate 

your service. 

This EM post, in my 14 years of service, is always the kind of 

hardest one to fill and to keep. And so you should be commended 

for serving your country in a challenging environment. 

I don’t know if anybody here can answer this question, but I was 

just at another appropriations subcommittee hearing where it was 

said that at last night’s budget markup, that a particular priority 

was fully funded in the budget resolution. Does anybody know 

where EM would come out in 2009 based on the budget resolution 

that passed the Budget Committee last night? Does anybody have 

any idea? 

Mr. SIMPSON. I was way too tired when we passed it. 

BUDGET PRIORITIES WITHIN DOE

Mr. WAMP. It was 12:30 a.m. when they finished, and I actually 

watched it until about 11 o’clock. That is how bored I was. The 

budget resolution in some years doesn’t mean anything. This may 

be one of those years. In some years, they do mean a lot. But I just 

wondered, because that is somewhat a piece of this, is there any 

money for the Congress to do anything more than what OMB has 

asked us to do with respect to environmental management. 

Because obviously I was surprised last Thursday at Secretary 

Bodman’s candor when I asked him the question that you heard me 

ask at the cleanup meeting, and that was whether we were moving 

from accelerated cleanup to decelerated cleanup. And Secretary 

Bodman just basically said last Thursday, I am afraid you are 

right. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
207 

But he also went on to say that OMB has just tied the hands of 

the Department of Energy. Do you believe that is just the final 

analysis of where we are at right now, is that you made a valiant 

case for why we don’t want to be out of compliance and miss milestones and get fined and postponed and put off, but OMB just 

wouldn’t hear the cry. 

Mr. RISPOLI. Congressman Wamp, if I could answer that this 

way. First, when you opened you thanked me, but I have to say in 

all honesty that many of the executives in this room and the other 

34,000 people at your site and all of our sites are the ones that are 

really making this happen. I think they have done us all a fabulous 

job and they will continue to do that long after I am gone. So I 

thank you for the compliment, but they are the ones that are doing 

this. 

My own view toward any budget process is that, number one, 

any of us would like more in anything we do, in our personal lives 

or anywhere, but when you get what you get, my job then is to get 

the maximum return to the American public for what we get. And 

that is what we have endeavored to do. 

You reach a point where you can’t go back and lament what you 

didn’t get. You have to look forward and say, this is what I got, 

and what do we do with what we have to try to make this a betterrunning program. I am here to defend the budget. The Congress 

certainly has the right to give us what we ask for or give us less 

or give us more. But whatever that is, we will do our utmost to deliver to the American public and the communities the best we can 

for the money we have. 

Mr. WAMP. I am not being snide, but I would ask, on your own 

sheet of 2008 versus 2009 site-by-site budgets, Mr. Simpson and I, 

our sites are down, and Paducah, Portsmouth and Savannah River 

are up. The rationale behind that—— 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. That is a big mistake. 

Mr. WAMP. Well, they are trusting the Congress way too much, 

aren’t they? Is there a rationale behind the budget request on those 

sites? 

Mr. RISPOLI. Congressman Wamp, for us, the entire budget was 

driven on a risk reduction basis. Unfortunately, when we look at 

Idaho and when we look at Oak Ridge, D&D is considered by us 

generally, not absolutely, to be among the lower-risk problems we 

have. 

Now, sometimes you have to do the D&D and get the building 

out to deal with groundwater, and I think what has happened to 

both sites is when the year got to be lean, D&D was what we had 

to address first as being on the relative risk ranking of a lower priority. 

Now, as Mr. Simpson knows, we are working on some planning 

to perhaps look at re-racking what we do at Idaho to not cause a 

major loss of skilled people, because as I pointed out on this 5-year 

funding profile, 2009 is the lowest year. We don’t want to go 

through one of these periods where we have a dip and lose people 

and then you can’t get them back to do the work. So we are ready, 

willing and able to do that. 

I will also tell you, Mr. Wamp, that we are working very carefully with Gerald Boyd down there, the site manager, to work on 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
208 

our acquisition planning and our project planning for this integrated facilities disposition plan so that when other work finishes 

up in the 2011 timeframe, we don’t lose that workforce and still 

have all of that major work to do. 

So again, with the idea that we do the best we can and we try 

to make the right decisions for the communities and for the nation, 

that is exactly what we are doing. 

Mr. WAMP. My staff actually wrote a note on here that said, he 

is going to say that it is all based on risk reduction, et cetera. 

[Laughter.] 

But let me also just put in here the caveat that we see is that 

if your site does a really good job at meeting its milestones and 

cleaning up the site, there is lower risk. And so the whole system 

rewards the ones that are out of compliance, not making progress, 

not meeting milestones. That is where the money goes in the budget request, and then we are sitting here saying why are we working 

so hard to make sure that we are a model site, and that we meet 

our milestones, et cetera? I know why, it is because that is what 

you are supposed to do, but the system I think is a little upside 

down. 

Tennessee does have 11 missed milestones, seven of which are 

budget-driven. On January 9, I got a letter from the governor—you 

got a letter from the governor, I got copied on it—and I thought, 

now why is the governor of Tennessee sticking his finger in the 

eyes of the Department of Energy? Then the president’s budget request came out February 4, and I said why is the Department of 

Energy sticking their fingers in the eye of our governor? 

It is right at Mr. Simpson’s question here. Our site is a little different on those missed milestones. It is not just a fine. It is that 

we have an incinerator that the state permits. You have to turn 

right around and ask the state for a permit to use the incinerator. 

So it is a whole lot more than just paying a fine and going on. 

Frankly, the letter that the governor wrote here is about as 

tough as one we have seen, and I have been on both sides of this 

thing, with a Democratic administration, Republican Congress, now 

Republican administration and a Democratic Congress, a Democratic governor or a Republican governor. I have literally seen 

every view of this prism in the last 14 years, and this is very serious. 

The environmental management missions at the Oak Ridge site 

are my critical care patient. And we have to find a way somehow 

to get back to square one so that we don’t end up so sideways with 

the state that we can’t even carry forward on our missions. It is 

not as easy as to say the low-risk priorities can wait. It is not just 

that simple with us. It is a whole lot more of an integrated site on 

a variety of fronts, and we have to have the cooperation. 

INTEGRATED FACILITIES DISPOSITION PLAN

Now, I want to close with saying I really appreciate you mentioning IFDP without me bringing it up, because it is a little awkward to even bring up the integrated facilities disposition strategy 

at a site like ours when we don’t even have adequately funded yet 

the current accelerated cleanup milestones and missions of the 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
209 

Cold War legacy that is out here, and that is underway, talking 

about and then where do we go after that. 

But when you are talking about workforces, like Mr. Simpson is, 

it is very important because, again, we are trying to maximize efficiency. So we want to go ahead and set up the long-term strategy 

of cleaning up this and this and that because we see this as a very 

serious responsibility of the federal government. 

We made a decision to build up the nuclear deterrent, and there 

is an environmental legacy associated with it, and we can’t retreat 

from it. I mean it literally is like your home. If there is a big mess 

in your home, you are not going to keep functioning as a family 

until you stop and clean it up. That is where we are at. 

So IFDP is important. I think it is great long-term planning. Are 

there other sites around the country that have an organized plan 

like the IFDP in Oak Ridge to look at beyond accelerated, beyond 

the current closure, how do you maintain the budget authority, the 

workforce and the momentum to go ahead and finish cleaning up 

within the fences of what are state-of-the-art facilities. 

I mean, the Y2 national security complex and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory are really two of our jewels now in the whole system. In the modern era, they have gone through a transformation, 

but it is very ironic to have brand new buildings prepared for the 

balance of the 21st century next to World War II-era buildings that 

literally look like Quonset huts that need to come down. They literally are side by side. It is almost like you are caught in a time 

warp of two generations. 

Mr. RISPOLI. I would say, in all honesty, I think that the Oak 

Ridge site has done the best job I know of of any in looking at their 

future needs and how to integrate their future needs with their 

present. I think you must know that when I talked about the acquisition planning and the project planning, they have had an industry day. We have been seeking input on how to approach this. 

We recognize that this is important, and we recognize, too, Congressman Wamp, that we can’t afford to lose the workforce and 

then have to spike them back up again. What we did this year at 

Oak Ridge because of the relative risk ranking, we basically took 

whatever shortfall there was and focused it on ETTP, believing 

that that would limit the slowdown to that one particular area. It 

will delay the completion. Instead of the 2010, 2011, 2012 timeframe to probably 2015, because of the way that we prioritized the 

work at Oak Ridge. 

Again, our objective is to be sure that the planning for the IFDP 

can be done in such a way that using this funding profile that we 

plan to, that we gave to the Congress last year, we preserve that 

workforce and can recommence and pick up that work as we go forward. 

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your courtesy. I know 

I went over the 5-minute limit. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. No, no. Thank you very much, Mr. Wamp. 

MISSED MILESTONES CONSEQUENCES

Mr. Rispoli, I am going to return to Mr. Simpson’s line of questioning about the compliance milestones and project management. 

But before I do, I would follow up on Mr. Wamp’s observations and 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
210 

the dilemma we have talked about on the committee and the dilemma I think we face. And that is for people who are doing their 

very best and showing results, depending on where they fall on a 

risk continuum, we tend to assume they will be taken care of at 

some future date or they can take care of themselves. 

For others who year after year and going back 10 years, continue 

to fail as far as project management, operational systems, changes 

that don’t pan out, huge overruns in their budget, because of the 

public risk, it is very difficult for us to propose corrective action. 

I have an impulse to just, well, you don’t need any more money. 

I am not saying, you, but that project, that manager, that system, 

that location, they don’t need any more money. You can’t do that. 

On the other hand, no, listen, we are going to do a better job 

next year, and there are several sites—we are going to talk about 

some of them—we are having the same conversation today that we 

had in 1998. 

And I must just express my frustration with that, that I don’t 

know how to get at that problem, to really force some corrective action in some of these areas. 

Mr. Simpson did cover a lot of material in the waterfront on compliance. But it is an important area, and I would like to discretely 

go down some areas with some additional fill-in questions. 

On each of these, for the record, we certainly would want to 

know, from a budgetary standpoint, because we do have the sheet 

that you provided the committee yesterday. For each of the milestones that are being missed, for a budgetary reason, whether it be 

2008 or 2009, what is that dollar amount? Because, for example, 

with the $800 to $900 million spread, that is a huge volume. And 

we had an interchange with the Army Corps earlier this morning 

where we had 54 lines of justification for $2.5 billion. I suggest that 

that is just not going to do it. 

So in each of these, I would appreciate per milestone, what the 

budgetary implications are. 

For the waste isolation pilot plant, the fiscal year 2009 budget 

request is $211.4 million. That is a decrease of $23 million. Again, 

I would ask, and it would be true for each one of these, if you could 

enumerate specifically, which milestones are being missed. 

Also relative to WIPP, since this is a disposal facility, are there 

other sites that will miss milestones due to the level of funding proposed at WIPP. And I would ask you that now. 

Mr. RISPOLI. I think it is fair to say that WIPP should be able 

to handle everything that is destined for WIPP, but that for certain 

sites the amount that they can package and ship could possibly 

change. 

Now one of the things that we just announced, yesterday, or the 

day before, when we passed along a copy to you is, an ammended 

record of decision whereby we will use the Idaho facility, the advanced mixed waste treatment facility, and we will take transuranic waste destined for WIPP from other sites and, in order to 

get a better efficiency and use equipment that is already in place 

in Idaho, bring that material to Idaho so that it can be prepared 

to be shipped to WIPP and then be shipped directly from Idaho to 

the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
211 

So again we are trying to do things that are, perhaps, more innovative, to minimize the impacts of our ability to ship waste from 

throughout the complex to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. And it would be true for this in each of the subsequent questions in this field, if there are fines or penalties per 

compliance miles, then we would want to know what those anticipated fines or penalties are. At the Idaho National Laboratory, for 

the 2009 budget, the request is $447.4 million, a decrease of $76.1 

million below the 2008 inactive levels. At this funding level, are 

you deferring the decontamination and decommissioning of buildings, and slowing of varied waste retrievals? And are there any 

other additional missed milestones as a result of this? 

Mr. RISPOLI. Mr. Chairman, at Idaho, we would in fact slow both 

retrievals of waste as well as D & D, but I would point out that 

there are other high-risk activities, including milestone driven that 

will be met, such as ground water treatment in certain areas on 

the installation, shipment of transuranic waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. 

Still making good progress on the tank farm and getting the 

tanks empty. And as I mentioned we would still continue on with 

construction of the sodium bearing waste project. 

We are considering at Idaho as I alluded to, but it might not 

have been clear, we are considering, if we don’t put a real push on 

getting the construction for this new construction project done to 

treat the sodium bearing waste in the three remaining tanks that 

have that waste, could we in fact, avoid the loss of skilled workforce that are doing these other tasks. And the answer appears to 

be that we can do that. 

And so we are looking at those types of things, too, to mitigate 

the negative impact that could occur and the loss of skilled people 

at Idaho. Right now we are projecting no missed milestones at 

Idaho even though we are beating a number of activities that are 

driven both by milestones and by risk reduction. 

Again, as you correctly pointed out, the focus on where money 

would not be sufficient would be in the areas of D & D and also 

some waste retrieval. But we think from a risk perspective again 

we have made the right decisions in that regard. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. At Oak Ridge, for 2009, you have a decrease of $40.4 million. At this funding level, are you in compliance with the 

federal facilities agreement? 

Mr. RISPOLI. At Oak Ridge, that is the place where, I think I 

mentioned earlier, at which we probably have the most milestones 

in jeopardy. It would be a total of 11 in 2008 and another 9 in 

2009. All but two of those are budget related. And again, the combined value of those would be about $65 million. But I would point 

out that—— 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. So you wouldn’t be in compliance with the federal facilities agreement? 

Mr. RISPOLI. I am not sure that it is the federal facilities agreement. There are several agreements at Oak Ridge. We operate typically under RCRA, under the Toxic Substances Control Act, under 

several, so they may not all be directly tied to the FFA. But I 

would point out, as an example, what we consider to be a very high 

priority at Oak Ridge, is getting the uranium 233 out of building 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
212 

3019. That is driven by no milestone. And we have put a very high 

priority on that and intend to continue to make progress on that 

project. And that, by the way, is one which this committee directed 

EM to do. It was previously an NE responsibility, Nuclear Energy, 

and we have taken that on, and we are making very good progress 

on that now. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. At Richland, the budget request for 2009 is a re- duction of $48 million below 2008. At this funding level are you in 

compliance with the tri-party agreement? 

Mr. RISPOLI. We would have at jeopardy as many as four milestones in 2008 and another 14 in 2009, but only 7 of those 14 

would be due to budget, and none of those in 2008 would be due 

to budget. 

We have been in dialogue with the state. I have been out there 

several times working on the issue, primarily driven by the tank 

waste, the delay in the treatment of the tank waste. The short answer is, yes, we would have several milestones in jeopardy. But 

once again, we believe that we have picked the lower risk-related 

milestones. We need to dialogue with the state to see whether they 

would concur with the milestones that we believe are the lowest 

risk milestones. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would then have the same series of questions 

about the milestones tri-party agreement and penalties for the Office of River Protection, where there was an increase of $9.8 million 

in 2009. For the Savannah River site, there was an increase in the 

budget of $63 million, and again would have the same series of 

questions. 

I would have the questions relative to clean-up activities at Los 

Alamos National Laboratory, where there was an increase in the 

funding request of $10.4 million. I have the same request for cleanup activities in Nevada, I saw a decrease as far as budget request, 

of $14.8 million. 

I have a request for the West Valley site. We saw an increase in funding of $3.5 million. 

Next is the Brookhaven National Laboratory, which has a decline 

in funding of $19.9 million. 

For the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, which is declined by 

$1 million. And also for the Moab site, that saw an increase in $6.8 

million over the enacted level. 

If I could ask you about the renegotiation of these milestones, 

and again, there have been some conversation about that, what 

protections does the government, do the taxpayers have, that in 

these negotiations, well, just to get somebody off our back. You do 

have a new administration, we have a new Congress coming in. 

Look, I will agree to anything to get you off my back. 

And so we are going down this road. I miss a milestone, boom, 

I am in a new agreement to get some regulator, someone off my 

back. And maybe it is an appropriate agreement. But suddenly now 

there is a new program, there is a new tank, there is a new process, and there is a new cost. And we have seen that occur over the 

years. 

What direction, what controls do you have over this so that when 

whoever is here next year is having the same discussion, that, hey, 

wait a minute, somewhere over the last 12 months, because of 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
213 

some anticipated missed milestones, whether it be funding or contractor failure, all of a sudden somebody took a hard turn in the 

road. And we have a whole new program now that has been promised and contractually entered into. How can we best make sure 

that that doesn’t happen? 

Mr. RISPOLI. Mr. Chairman, I think you have hit on exactly the 

problem that helped get us to where we are. When there was a 

shortfall of money in a given year and negotiations were being done 

in good faith, those milestones would be moved out to a future year 

with the hope and the expectation that the funding would be adequate. 

When I said we spent 18 months redoing all of our costs and 

schedules, we redid all those costs and schedules to this 5–year 

funding profile we provided to you last spring. And all the milestones are imbedded in there. 

So now our site managers can sit down with the regulators at 

each state and say this is our long-term funding profile, and discuss with them what can we do and what can we not do and share 

where are the priorities. 

Because there is enough detail now, it is broken down to what 

I call the work breakdown-structure-level work packages, with the 

best estimate cost, worst estimate cost, early finish, late finish, so 

we now have for the first time, enough information to sit down, 

really at the micro level, not just roll it up to present to you, but 

at the micro level at each state, to sit down and do something that 

is much more credible and much more reasonable. 

So when I mention we wanted to restore our credibility with the 

Congress, it is not only with the Congress, it is with the regulators, 

with the communities, because for the first time we have that information, all independently audited. It has never been done before. 

EM PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I have one more series of questions for this 

round for myself for project management and would have a question for Mr. Owen after that. And then if I could turn to Mr. Simpson. 

On project management, the May 2007 GAO report on DOE 

project management says that despite considerable efforts to improve, such as training for federal managers and having contractors implement their own value management systems, overall performance on DOE’s projects has not substantially improved. 

Performance goals for line-item projects were only met one-third 

of the time. Starting in 2004, DOE began reporting performance information separately for EM clean up activities, funded from operating funds, rather than as individual line-item construction 

projects. Prior to this time these operating projects were included 

with the line-item construction projects. 

Since February 2004, these operating projects met cost and 

schedule performance goals only about 21 percent of the time. Can 

you give us some examples of EM operating projects in your costs? 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes sir, I can. Basically, right now, EM has only a 

handful of capital projects, so let’s get those set aside first. The 

Waste Treatment Plant at Hanford, the sodium bearing waste 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
214 

project at Idaho, the Salt Waste Processing Facility project at Savannah River, are among the handful of line-item projects we have. 

The other 70-plus projects are not funded as capital projects. They 

are operating-funded. 

In June of 2005, EM signed a commitment that all of those operating projects, over 70 of them, would come into full compliance 

with DOE order 413, which is the project management order. That 

was not done until June 2005. In fact I signed it as the director 

of the Office of Engineering Construction Management before coming to this position. 

When we first got started with this, as I mentioned, I have this 

sheet but this is a report by OECM and, from July of 2005, that 

shows that we had 17 projects that were not green, they were red 

or yellow, which gave us a track record of only about 51 percent 

on cost on schedule. 

I honestly don’t know where GAO got 21 percent. I can’t find 

anything as low as 21 percent. But I did find for this report about 

51 percent that were on cost, on schedule, as opposed to 21 percent. 

Now what we do, this is again an Office of Engineering Construction Management chart, and Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to tell 

you, that with a lot of hard work by a lot of people at all of our 

sites, we now have only one project that is not green. 

You see this track record starts down here at 80. This was in August of 2005, and you can see it gradually but persistently climbs 

to the point that we are now near 100 percent. 

Our objective is to maintain 90 percent on cost on schedule. We 

have not been below 90 percent since August 10 of 2006. So when 

I talk about credibility, it is not only having accurate cost and 

schedule ranges, but performance. Right now, the Environmental 

Management program is unequaled in the Department of Energy 

in the percentage of our projects that are on cost and on schedule—— 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. On operating projects, what is your level of confidence in the cost estimates? 

Mr. RISPOLI. All of those ranges are audited to the 80 percent 

confidence level. But it is a range, Mr. Chairman. In other words, 

when you are looking that far out, you have to have a range. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. It is audited to 80 percent. What is your confidence level in these cost estimates? 

Mr. RISPOLI. I have a very, very high degree of confidence in 

these cost estimates. I do not know what else we could have humanly done within the understanding I have of project management and cost estimating to do a better job than we have done in 

getting these cost estimates to the 80 percent level. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I believe you gave it your best shot possible—— 

Mr. RISPOLI. I will tell you, we do not fund then into the 80 percent confidence level. The operating projects that we put into the 

budget are not put into the budget at the 80 percent confidence 

level, they are put into the 50 percent confidence level and there 

is quite a difference between how much you would have to have— 

we do not think it is prudent to budget to the 80 percent confidence 

level because it would greatly constrain what we could do with the 

money we have. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
215 

So as a result, when I mention those 34,000 contractual employees, we challenge them every day to perform, because the funding 

they have is not to the 80 percent, it is to the 50 percent confidence 

level. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I just was going to ask the same thing. I have 

been waiting to hear the 50 percent. 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes sir. Every project when you develop it is made 

up of many many building blocks, and every one has an optimum, 

or a best case and a worst case, for both cost and schedule. And 

it most likely is somewhere in the—you can actually calculate, 

using standard tools available in any profession, what is the right 

number to the 50 percent confidence level. Which means, 50 percent, I will make it, 50 percent, I won’t. 

Or even to the 100 percent. But it goes like asymptotic—the 

curve goes way up. So the standard in industry generally is to— 

like in capital construction in the private sector, is to estimate to 

the 80 percent confidence level. We have adopted that, using that 

for all of the value of our portfolio. So the life cycle cost of our entire portfolio has been developed with a range that gets you to the 

80 percent confidence level. However, because the curve goes asymptotic, the amount of money you would need, we can’t afford to 

budget to the 80 percent for a program this size. 

So we budget to the 50 percent. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I didn’t understand your answer at all. 

Are you saying that you are 800 or 900 short for 2009 or are you 

only—I don’t understand what you are telling me at all. 

Mr. RISPOLI. The life cycle cost of our program, if you look at how 

long will it go and how much will it cost, is all estimated to the 

80 percent confidence level. 

Our budgets that we submit are budgeted to the 50 percent confidence level. 

Our capital projects—— 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Okay. For EM for 2009, are you only asking for 

half the money? 

Mr. RISPOLI. No, sir. No. We are asking—— 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I just don’t understand what you are getting at. 

Mr. RISPOLI. On our capital projects, we asked you for the 80 percent confidence level. That is what we are—— 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Do you understand? 

Mr. SIMPSON. I think so. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. You probably do. 

Mr. RISPOLI. We are 80 percent confident that we can deliver the 

capital projects for the amount we asked for, capital projects. 

For operating projects, which is the vast majority—— 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Your confidence is 50 percent. 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, sir. The amount we have asked for would get 

us to the 50 percent confidence level. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Why the lack of confidence? I am just trying to 

think through this. 

Once you know what your facility processing—I would assume 

there would be a greater level of predictability. 

So much of what happens at the Department of Energy is unique 

when you start down that road. But once you kind of have your 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
216 

program, I would assume there would be a greater level of predictability. 

Mr. RISPOLI. I think what causes the uncertainty are the risk 

and the assumptions. For example, as an example, you could be 

working on a process that is going along fine and then, all of a sudden, let’s say there is an unexpected rupture of a drum and you 

have to shut down the operation for 2 or 3 months while you recover and say what happened. 

We had a case at Hanford recently where there was a spill of radioactive material out of a burst hose. We shut down the operation 

for months. 

Those types of risks introduce the uncertainty and when you are 

budgeting for that, you have to allow for that uncertainty. 

The question is do you want to say, ‘‘Hey, I have a 50/50 chance 

of making this cost and this schedule,’’ or do you want to have the 

80 percent confidence level. 

All of the estimates we have take us to the 80 percent confidence 

level. But for the operating projects, we budget to the 50 percent 

confidence level. 

For the capital projects, we do budget to the 80 percent confidence level. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. It is becoming clearer. 

FUTURE CLEANUP SITES TRANSFER TO LEGACY MANAGEMENT

Mr. Owen, you have been very patient. I understand you are 

planning to receive eight sites in fiscal year 2010. 

Are there any pension liabilities associated with these sites and 

could you explain? 

Mr. OWEN. At 2010, sir, the site would have pension liabilities 

associated, where there would be the transfer from EM to LM of 

the Mound site at Miamisburg, Ohio. 

Correct, none of the other sites would have pension liability. Just 

the Mound site in Miamisburg, Ohio. 

That site has a worker population of 656 retirees, 787 additional 

deferred, but vested, potential retirees, for a total of approximately 

1,400 people at about a total of 1,800 medical recipients at that 

site, because you have spouses and dependents. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Fair enough. 

Do you want to? 

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes. I will let you drink, Mr. Owen. 

Mr. OWEN. I thought they were going to back to you, Jim. 

MONITORING WELLS IN NEVADA

Mr. SIMPSON. A couple of questions here. 

Your fiscal 2009 budget request, $10 million for installing deep 

monitoring wells at the central Nevada test area site, is a fourth 

of your request for all long-term surveillance and maintenance activities. 

I understand that given the depth of groundwater at the site, oil 

drilling techniques are required to be used. 

While that explains part of the projected costs, I am still unclear 

why this activity has been given such a high priority in the LM 

budget. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
217 

How far will these wells be from population centers? Is this activity required by statute or is this an arrangement between DOE 

and the state of Nevada? 

And although I think these are one-time costs, anticipated onetime costs, what are the ongoing costs associated with it? 

Mr. OWEN. Yes, sir. One, when the Nevada offsites were transferred from Environmental Management to Legacy Management, in 

that transfer were targeted dollars for these wells to be drilled. 

We are still working with the State of Nevada to determine just 

what is the most practical and needed means of drilling the wells. 

The wells are called for at the one site in a Federal Facilities 

Agreement and a consent order signed between the Department of 

Energy and the State of Nevada. 

Some of the other Nevada offsites have configurations of wells, 

but each site is somewhat different. 

This particular site is pretty isolated. It is pretty remote. So from 

that standpoint, there is no immediate population center that is 

very close to the site. 

We want to and we have agreed with Nevada to confirm and continue to ensure that the way we have characterized the subsurface 

contaminants is indeed correct and accurate. 

Whether or not it is actually one well or multiple wells, I think 

it will be probably multiple wells, maybe upwards to as many as 

three wells in that price tag. 

Mr. SIMPSON. So it is the $2 million. If we don’t know how many 

wells, is that budgeted—to what confidence level? 

Mr. OWEN. I don’t have the technical expertise to tell you if it 

is one or three. For some reason, in the back of my head, I believe 

they say that when they refer to that well drilling, it is actually 

three different shafts that would comprise the well. 

CONSOLIDATED RECORDS FACILITY IN MORGANTOWN, WV

Mr. SIMPSON. Okay. Also, you are requesting funds to consolidate 

records in order to move them, in fiscal year 2010, to a new storage 

facility in Morgantown, West Virginia. 

Currently, those records are at five federal records centers 

around the country. 

Is this facility on track for being ready to receive the records in 

2010? Was your budget request—is this a lease or, rather, a purchase? And how much will this be if it is a lease for a long-term 

lease and how much will be saved by consolidating these records? 

Mr. OWEN. The proposed facility is on track at this time. We are 

currently awaiting a final offer from a developer through GSA. I 

believe that offer is scheduled in tomorrow, literally, and it apparently is going to be on time, and then GSA will analyze it to see 

the appropriateness of the offer. 

We will have to pay some unique startup costs, in other words, 

unique equipment we will have to purchase with our funds and 

then the rest of the costs will be in a long-term lease, which I believe is going to be about $1.4 million per year. 

It is a very standard leasing procedure that GSA has used to accomplish these projects for other federal agencies. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
218 

I will have to answer for the record, if I could, the actual—our 

cost estimated on savings over a number of years by consolidating 

at one location versus five. That all has been looked at. 

COST SAVINGS FOR THE LEGACY MANAGEMENT RECORDS STORAGE FACILITY

A project alternatives analysis was performed by DOE–LM in early 2007 to compare life-cycle costs for several alternate approaches for fulfilling the approved mission need for a consolidated records storage facility. The selected approach was a 

long-term lease of a build-to-suit facility. 

The estimated cost for a 25-year life-cycle of consolidating all the records in a 

build-to-suit leased facility would be $223.6 million. The life-cycle cost estimate for 

retaining the present situation with the records dispersed among five national archives facilities would be $251.7 million. The resulting cost savings, which are calculated based on a comparison between the costs of using five national archives facilities versus a consolidated facility would be $28.1 million. 

Mr. SIMPSON. What is going to happen with the five facilities out 

there now? 

Mr. OWEN. They are National Archives facilities, so they will continue keeping records for others. Our records are retrieved somewhat more often than others. 

A lot of our records are medical records of former contract workers at the plants and they are pulled up for health surveying purposes. 

But the five centers are currently part of the National Archives 

network. 

TRANSFER OF ASSETS

Mr. SIMPSON. Okay. Thank you. 

Jim, talk about transfer of assets. As you know, we have talked 

about transferring and when you look at EM’s total liabilities out 

there, there are liabilities that aren’t assigned to EM that are truly 

EM liabilities, but they sit under NE and other types of things. 

So when we have talked about transferring some of those assets 

from NE to be more appropriately under the EM budget, and I understand why the department has some problems with that, while, 

philosophically, they agree with it, if you are going to transfer the 

assets and not transfer any money to handle those liabilities, you 

have got some problems. 

What is the department doing so that we have a more accurate 

record of what our EM issues are out there and where they should 

be located? 

Because I would rather have them under EM so I know exactly 

what they are, whether I transferred the money to actually deal 

with them or not, so that I know what I need in total EM dollars 

to address these, rather than having some maintained under NE, 

where I don’t think they should be. 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Simpson, in August of 2006, a policy directive was 

issued with concurrence of EM, NNSA Science Nuclear Energy that 

basically says that EM will receive all excess facilities, including 

the contamination that goes with them. 

We actually put out a call for those. Mr. Wamp talked about the 

IFDP. That is but one of them. With this complex transformation 

of NNSA, with NE at Idaho, basically, we have gotten responses 

from Science, from NNSA, from Nuclear Energy to a call that we 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
219 

just put out late last year and we are now evaluating how to best 

incorporate these facilities and properties into the EM inventory. 

What you may be referring to, though, is not included in that 

policy memorandum that was issued back in August of 2006, and 

that is nuclear materials that may be in the buildings as opposed 

to waste or contamination. 

For example, if there are inventories of uranium or things like 

that, that is not really an EM mission to deal with products that 

are not waste or contamination. 

So what we are doing with those is referring them to this nuclear 

consolidation committee that I mentioned. It has a long name. But 

it is headed by Bill Ostendorff, the principal deputy administrator, 

now. It used to be headed by Charlie Anderson. 

And they will be looking at all of these non-waste type materials 

that are in the inventory of NE, for example, to determine what is 

the best way for the Department to handle those. 

So if you follow the distinction, the real property, including the 

buildings and the grounds and any contamination clearly would 

come to EM as part of this protocol that we are working on. 

What is not yet resolved is what will happen with the materials 

that are not waste, that could have a value to the nation. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Will a final decision on this be made this year? 

Mr. RISPOLI. My belief is a decision will be made on that this 

year. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Because if we don’t, new administration and new 

Department of Energy, et cetera, et cetera. 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SIMPSON. That would be one of the important things I think 

we get done this year. 

CONTINUED OPERATION OF H CANYON FACILITY

The DOE has announced plans to extend the operations of the 

H Canyon facility at Savannah River, to extend it to 10 years, to 

process spent nuclear fuel from the site’s now shut-down reactors, 

spent nuclear fuel from foreign and domestic research reactors and 

surplus high enriched uranium inventories from throughout the 

complex and that have no other disposition pathway. 

Operation of H Canyon is expected to cost approximately $200 

million per year and this project is expected to cost upwards of $5 

billion before H Canyon is scheduled to shut down in 2019. 

DOE justifies the project, in part, by citing the Floyd D. Spence 

Defense Authorization Act of fiscal year 2001 and 2004, which requires the department to continue operations and maintain a high 

state of readiness at H Canyon. 

The Department of Energy invested a lot of money and time in 

developing environmental impact statements under the last administration to identify disposal pathways for spent nuclear fuel. 

In the example of aluminum clad fuel, I believe the record of decision was to can it and send it to Yucca Mountain. 

Why has the department decided to reprocess it now? 

Mr. RISPOLI. I think that the answer to that is that as the value 

of uranium has gone up, that it puts the uranium inventory the department has into a different perspective. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
220 

And, yes, you are correct, with the—I think it is Public Law 

107—no, maybe it is not 107–107, but the law that says we must 

operate H Canyon. But, in fact, that Canyon is the very last what 

I would call chemical process capability in the inventory that can 

do this type of a thing. 

And, for example, the clad fuel from Idaho would go to this Canyon to be processed. 

We believe there is great value in retrieving that. We actually 

have, as part of the working plan, an actual map that shows what 

uranium products could be processed through H Canyon, from 

where and where they would go, and I actually have that with me 

that I can share with you, if you like, after the hearing. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Okay. Is the department using it just because it is 

available or because it is the least cost option? 

Mr. RISPOLI. The Department is using it for a couple of reasons. 

One is that it has the capability to process both uranium and plutonium, and, secondly, it does give us a pathway out of the state of 

South Carolina for the plutonium that is being brought into the 

state. 

As you know, from several sites, Los Alamos, from Hanford, from 

other places, we are now actively shipping plutonium to the state 

of South Carolina. 

This Canyon, along with other facilities that are there at South 

Carolina, will give us the capability to take that plutonium and disposition it so that it doesn’t reside in the state of South Carolina, 

but actually has a pathway out. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Under the agreement with South Carolina, do you 

have to have a disposal path for it to bring it in? 

Mr. RISPOLI. That is public law and I think that is 107–107. That 

is Public Law 107–107. 

Mr. SIMPSON. What are the capital improvements that will be required to continue the H Canyon operations for a decade? 

Mr. RISPOLI. I have been in dialogue with the Defense Nuclear 

Facilities Safety Board. They have had questions of us on that. 

They have actually gone to review the facilities we have. 

I believe this subcommittee may know something of that. They 

believe that the facility is safe, that you would have to do upgrades, what I would call, of a normally expected nature to take 

a 1950s facility. 

But this facility has been upgraded over the years anyway. So it 

is not as though it has been in a time warp since 1950. 

We actually have a business case on it called the H Canyon business case. We have had that reviewed by three outside experts, not 

from the government at all, and they believe that, if I could use 

their words, that ‘‘use of the H Canyon is like an open-and-shut 

case.’’ 

This is very clearly an asset to the nation to use this. And that 

business case is available or is not available? 

It has been provided. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Is the operation until 2019 and then closure, is 

that a firm date or is that—why 2019? 

Mr. RISPOLI. Sir, I would have to take that one for the record. 

I just don’t recall the answer to that. I would think it is in the 

business case, but I don’t recall. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
221 

Mr. SIMPSON. Do we have a disposal path for other spent nuclear 

fuel the department might take in after 2019? 

Mr. RISPOLI. I understand the question. I will have to take that 

one for the record, sir. 

SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL DISPOSITION PATH

The spent nuclear fuel within the scope of the Enriched Uranium Disposition 

Project is based on the current inventory of aluminum-clad spent nuclear fuel and 

estimated projection of future receipts and spent nuclear fuel to be generated by the 

Department. Should additional aluminum-clad spent nuclear fuel and surplus special nuclear materials above and beyond the current scope be identified in the future, the Department would need to evaluate possible disposition paths for these 

materials and determine the viable and cost-effective options, including operating H 

Canyon beyond 2019, The Department will continue to evaluate this situation as developments occur during the next several years. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Okay. Mr. Chairman. 

MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT OF HANFORD WASTE VITRIFICATION

PROJECT

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Rispoli, I would like to turn to Hanford at 

this point in time and I don’t know the exact date it came over to 

this subcommittee, but it now stands a decade, and asked the staff 

to pull the House report from fiscal year 1998 and would like to 

just read a portion of that. 

‘‘The Committee has some additional concern about the Hanford 

waste vitrification project. The success of the project also rests on 

the ability of the department to provide high level waste from the 

Hanford waste tank farm to meet the waste specifications of the 

vitrification plant. 

There is a concern that the department is focusing so specifically 

on the contract for the vitrification plant that the integration of the 

entire waste tank system may be overlooked.’’ 

And there were specific dollar figures and other verbiage and, to 

this day, it sounds, I must tell you, unfortunately, very familiar. 

Several years ago, under the chairmanship of Mr. Hobson, in another report, in this case, a conference report, there was also language about the high level waste vitrification program at Hanford 

and its long history of failure. 

Reasons for the increases in funding include contractor estimating problems, technical problems in sufficient project contingency, and it is unclear what steps DOE will take to better ensure 

effective management. 

That was more than 2 years ago. 

And so I will now ask about Hanford. 

The GAO issued a report on DOE oversight of contractor payments at the Hanford waste treatment plant in July of last year, 

at the request of this subcommittee, and wouldn’t characterize it as 

flattering. 

According to the GAO, DOE did not adequately oversee the contractor to ensure accountability for assets purchased with waste 

treatment plant contract funds, relying primarily on the contractor 

to manage government property. 

GAO found little to no review of contractor invoices or supporting 

documents for the $40 million to $60 million in charges that BechVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:21 Jul 24, 2008 Jkt 043355 PO 00000 Frm 00221 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A355P2.XXX A355P2

yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
222 

tel billed to DOE each month to help ensure the validity of these 

charges. 

And quoting from the report, ‘‘These internal control weaknesses 

over property, coupled with the lack of DOE oversight, created an 

environment in which government property could be lost or stolen 

without detection.’’ 

Mr. Rispoli, the WTP project is five construction projects, all in 

some form of construction mode at the same time. 

Is it true that DOE did not assign a property administrator dedicated to the project until June of 2006, over 5 years after rewarding the contract? 

Mr. RISPOLI. Mr. Chairman, we did review that report. I don’t 

know if there was never a federal employee, but I do know, at the 

time of that report, there was no federal property, personal property expert assigned to that particular project. 

Since that report was issued, we have hired not only a competent 

federal employee, but Bechtel has hired 10 employees, 10, to keep 

track of the personal property that is basically bought for the 

project and dispersed throughout the various very large construction sites. 

So the report is valid. I would not dispute that. I think we have 

taken the corrective actions that we had to take and I think they 

were appropriate, and I think the GAO report was correct in pointing that out to us. 

WASTE TREATMENT PLANT CONCERNS

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Two years ago, you were here when the subcommittee had an oversight hearing on the Hanford waste treatment plant, which experienced several cost overruns, from $4.3 billion in 2001 to over $12.3 billion in fiscal year 2008. 

And I would like to revisit the status of the WTP, because I am 

still concerned regarding the management of the project. 

The waste treatment plant, as I understand it, is composed of 

five facilities—a pretreatment plant, which receives waste from the 

tanks and then sends the pretreated waste to either the high level 

waste vitrification facility or the low level waste vitrification facility, known as the low activity waste facility. 

And the two other construction efforts are an analytical lab and 

a balance of facilities activity, such as a steam plant and water 

treatment activities. 

Am I correct in that understanding as far as those activities? 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. And that does not include the bulk vitrification 

plant. 

Mr. RISPOLI. That is correct. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. On the issue of treating waste, what is the total 

cost of the low activity waste facility? 

Mr. RISPOLI. The low activity waste facility portion—and I could 

always confirm this for the record, but I believe the capital cost of 

it is about $1.1 billion, in that range. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. And that is just the cost of construction. 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. And you can specifically answer it for the record, 

I understand. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
223 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Giving us an estimate. 

When will the low activity waste facility be completed and ready 

for operation? 

Mr. RISPOLI. The low activity waste facility could be ready for operation as early as 2014. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. And when will the pretreatment facility be constructed and begin sending waste to the low activity waste facility? 

Mr. RISPOLI. If you recall, Mr. Chairman, we actually stopped 

construction for a couple of years on the pretreatment facility and 

the high level waste while we worked through the technical issues 

and the seismic issues. 

So that was kind of like the critical path delay that will get us 

to not before—2019 is what it is projected to be for the 

pretreatment facility. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. So there will be a gap then between when—— 

Mr. RISPOLI. About five. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. About. 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Can you explain what happens to a facility that 

is completed and it is not going to be used, or am I incorrect about 

that, for 4, 5, 6 years? 

Mr. RISPOLI. We have a report, a study that has been done called 

‘‘Early Low Activity Waste’’ that would actually bring this plant online in 2014. That report, by the way, is publicly available. It is on 

both the DOE website and an Office of River Protection website. 

But we have basically looked at the options to bringing the low 

activity waste plant online early in 2014 so that we could actually 

begin to process liquid tank waste at the Hanford site. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. And you wouldn’t need the pretreatment facility 

to do that. 

Mr. RISPOLI. It would not have the capability that it would have 

after the pretreatment facility was installed. So what we already 

have in the cost and schedule baseline for this project, for the tank 

farm portion of the project, is an interim pretreatment capability 

that could provide feed to the low activity waste treatment plant 

to let it be in operation as early as 2014. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. How much of the tank waste will the low activity 

waste facility be able to handle once it is operational and once the 

pretreatment facility is operational? 

Mr. RISPOLI. I was given a correction on the number of low activity waste as being 1.7 billion, not 1.1 billion. So we will still confirm that for the record. 

LOW ACTIVITY WASTE FACILITY

The Low Activity Waste facility ($1.748 billion) is projected to immobilize about 

50 percent of the low activity waste, depending on Waste Treatment Plant performance. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Yes. 

Mr. RISPOLI. The plant is actually sized and has been sized, since 

I was first introduced to it, such that if it all began on the same 

day, the plant would be able to process all of the site’s high level 

waste, vitrify all of the high level waste into glass canisters to go 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
224 

to Yucca Mountain national repository, but only 50 percent of the 

low activity waste that would be kept onsite. 

And the reason is that the plan was and still is to look at what 

other technology could be used—— 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Can I stop you right there? 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Because it only handles 50 percent, you have to 

look at that now. 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, sir, that is correct. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Why did the department start a program and go 

to all the trouble and design and begin construction of a facility 

that is only going to take half the waste and then have to sit 

here—when did they decide to build a lower activity waste facility, 

what year? 

Mr. RISPOLI. I can’t answer that, Mr. Chairman. I would take 

that for the record. 

CAPACITY OF THE WASTE TREATMENT PLANT LOW ACTIVITY WASTE FACILITY

The record of decision for construction of the Waste Treatment Plant was published on February 26, 1997. The decision then was to build a Phase I plant and 

the award for the plant was in December 2000. This Phase I plant was to be capable 

of treating 10 percent of the tank waste by volume and 25 percent of the tank waste 

by activity in about 10 years. It was designed to operate for 40 years, so was capable 

of treating 40 percent of the tank waste. The Phase I plant was to ‘‘verify that the 

treatment processes would function effectively.’’ It was anticipated that the remaining 60 percent of the waste would be treated in a larger Phase II plant over 30 

years. 

Subsequently, testing has resolved much of the early uncertainty in the effectiveness of process operations. The Phase I plant design was revised in 2003 to increase 

the capacity to immobilize the entire high activity fraction of tank waste in the 

Phase I plant. Additional capacity for immobilization of the larger volume of low activity fraction waste was also needed. Thus, alternatives for supplementing what 

began as the Phase I plant in order to treat the remaining low activity waste have 

been considered. 

The original need for including the treatment of the high level waste fraction in 

a Phase II plant has now been eliminated by increasing the throughput of the 

Waste Treatment Plant. Using supplemental treatment we estimate the total cost 

to treat the remainder of the low activity fraction will be only about 20 percent of 

the current Waste Treatment Plant capital cost, much less than the previously envisioned cost to build and operate a large Phase II plant. 

But I have known it to all be part of the same integral project 

from the beginning. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Two, 3 years ago? 

Mr. RISPOLI. No, sir. This goes back to the earliest—even during 

the Clinton administration, conceptually—— 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I just think this is fundamental, myself. 

All those years have passed and they designed a waste treatment 

facility for half of the waste. And here we are, I read a committee 

report from 10 years ago, thinking about how we are going to deal 

with the others. 

How could you—you weren’t there. How could you do that? How 

could the department do that? 

Mr. RISPOLI. The reason is that—— 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. What was the thinking? 

Mr. RISPOLI. The reason is that the low activity waste, when it 

is eventually processed, by whatever method, would be disposed of 

onsite. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
225 

So, for example, at Savannah River right now, the low activity 

waste is being put into—its fancy name is saltstone, but it is really 

a grout. 

At Idaho, it is being put into a powder type of a form. There are 

various forms it could be. 

And it was believed that there could be another supplemental 

treatment that might even be cheaper than a low activity waste 

plant. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. That is what they believed then. 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, sir. That is true. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. So if they thought there was a cheaper way, why 

didn’t they do the cheaper way instead of going halfway down one 

road and, 10 years later, we are still thinking about a cheaper way 

now? 

BULK VITRIFICATION

Mr. RISPOLI. The current estimate range that we have, if we 

were to build bulk vitrification as a supplemental treatment, would 

be a capital cost of about $600 million compared to a second low 

activity waste treatment plant, which would cost about $1.1 billion. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. No, I am talking about before. It may be lower 

cost today. Did they know that 10 years ago? I mean, what were 

they thinking about? 

Mr. RISPOLI. I think they believed, 10 years ago, that by looking 

at supplemental technologies based upon how they knew them then 

and in discussing with regulators what the possible options would 

be, because it generally has to be acceptable to them, that another 

way could be found to treat the balance of the low activity waste 

that could be more cost-effective for the balance. 

They could be treated with—— 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Which leads us to bulk vit today. 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, sir. But, again, bulk vit would not be capable 

of handling the same types of waste that the low activity waste—— 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. We are going to get to that. 

Now, bulk vit, is that under construction today? 

Mr. RISPOLI. No, sir. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. That is still a concept. 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Now, bulk vit, and you talked about the potential 

cost estimates and the fact that you have got 50 percent of the 

waste, but the type of waste varies. 

Was bulk vit decided upon because of a renegotiation with the 

state and others because of compliance issues and requirements to 

deal with the waste? 

Mr. RISPOLI. I will have to take that for the record, Mr. Chairman. I don’t know why specifically it was looked at as a viable 

technology. 

BULK VITRIFICATION DECISION

There has been no decision yet or selection of a preferred supplemental technology 

for low activity waste immobilization. Bulk vitrification is among several technical 

approaches judged to be potentially most effective considering a broad spectrum of 

criteria by a series of expert panel reviews done since 1999. The planning basis for 

low activity waste immobilization is vitrification or a waste form ‘‘as good as glass’’ 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
226 

per the Washington Ecology clarification of their position on the form for on-site disposal in their letter of April 25, 2003. 

The Department will commit to a supplemental low activity waste treatment decision once the Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), is completed 

in the fall of 2008. However, we will select a preferred alternative for planning and 

funding of development by the summer of 2008, before completion of the NEPA process. 

I do know that they were looking at grout at Savannah River. 

They were looking at a powder type form at Idaho and they looked 

at bulk vit as a form in Hanford. 

But I don’t know the driving reason from back at that time. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would like an answer to that, because it gets 

back to my earlier comments about compliance, is that people are 

renegotiating these under—and I understand the state pressuring 

the federal government to deal with this. 

I mean, if I am the state of Washington, I am pressuring you if 

you are building a facility to deal with half the waste. If you are 

starting down a road you are only building a facility to deal with 

half of the waste, I am pressuring you to do something. 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. And then if it is part of that renegotiation, now 

we are stuck paying for bulk vit. 

The next question is, okay, you have got 50 percent, you have got 

bulk vit. Are you pursuing other technologies to address additional 

low activity waste at Hanford? 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, sir. We are looking at other things that 

can—— 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Why? 

Mr. RISPOLI. For example, we are looking at an—— 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Why? Because bulk vit doesn’t take care of the 

rest of the other half of the 50 percent? 

Mr. RISPOLI. Bulk vit would indeed take care of the other 50 percent. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. So why do you need the other? 

Mr. RISPOLI. The other options would be to build a second low 

activity waste treatment building or—— 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Why? 

Mr. RISPOLI. To process the balance of the low activity waste. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I thought you had 50 percent and vit takes care 

of the other half. 

Mr. RISPOLI. It would. If we were to do—— 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I come up with 10 percent. I mean, I didn’t understand the other one at all, but I am coming up with 100 percent 

here. 

Mr. RISPOLI. If we were to do nothing, if we were to do nothing 

at all, other than build a Waste Treatment Plant, we would not finish processing the tank waste until approximately 2079. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Okay, wait. Hold on. However, add bulk vit. 

Mr. RISPOLI. But if we add bulk vit, we project we could finish 

by 2046. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Okay, 100 percent. 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. So why are you doing the other ones, to accelerate that process? 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
227 

Mr. RISPOLI. If we don’t do anything, if we provide—— 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. If you do bulk vit. 

Mr. RISPOLI. If we do bulk vit, we would finish, projected, in 

2046, all of the tank waste. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. And you are done. 

Mr. RISPOLI. And we would be done. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. In 2046. 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, sir. If we don’t do anything, it would be until 

2079. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Right. But you are pursuing bulk vit. But I am 

asking about now the third option. 

Why the third option if you can deal with 100 percent and you 

have a deadline and you know you can be done then? Why the 

extra cost? 

Mr. RISPOLI. The extra cost of bulk vit? 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. No, no, no. You are building a third facility now. 

Mr. RISPOLI. No, no, no. The third facility—I am sorry, I am 

missing it. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. You are building a new low activity facility. 

Mr. RISPOLI. No, sir. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. What is your third option? Are you building a 

second low activity waste facility? 

Mr. RISPOLI. What you may be addressing is we intend, as part 

of the cost and schedule, we are looking at building an interim 

pretreatment facility to service the bulk vit facility. 

Bulk vit can process only about two tanks with no treatment 

whatsoever. To process more than two tanks of waste, it would 

need some other form of pretreatment, we believe. 

So I have asked, again, for another—to take this the next step 

and by this summer to have the full business case presented to me 

to show what is the best alternative. 

In other words, should we go ahead with bulk vit the way it was 

originally planned and envisioned? Should we build or not build an 

interim pretreatment? Is it necessary or not? 

And we should have the answer to that this summer. And I think 

that is what you are getting to. The other facility you are, I think, 

referring to is an interim—— 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Is an interim second pretreatment facility. 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Because the pretreatment facility, as designed, 

doesn’t have enough capacity. 

Mr. RISPOLI. Will not be online until 2019. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Right. But you are saying, under your current 

scenario, with nothing else changed, you still complete 100 percent 

in 2046. 

Mr. RISPOLI. We would not complete, if we do nothing else, until 

2079. We have to have some supplemental technology to complete 

in 2046. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I thought you just told me if you have the low 

activity waste facility and you do the bulk vit, you are done by 

2046. 

Mr. RISPOLI. I did say that. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. But if you don’t have the bulk vit, then you can’t 

complete until 2070 something. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
228 

Mr. RISPOLI. That is right. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Okay. 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. But now what you are saying is on the front end 

of this, we don’t have enough pretreatment capacity to feed the low 

activity waste facility and bulk vit. 

Mr. RISPOLI. We will not have a pretreatment capacity until—because it was the one that is the most complex and the most—we 

stopped construction on it. 

It will not be ready until 2019. So in order to begin processing 

waste early in 2014, we would need to use bulk vit, which could 

handle, we believe, based upon what we know, two tanks. 

But in order to increase the amount of tankage that could go 

through bulk vit, we would need an interim pretreatment capability. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Because you, even though bulk vit isn’t under 

construction, can complete that earlier. 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, sir, that is correct. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. And you need an interim pretreatment for bulk 

vit. You essentially need to—but in the end, by the time I am at 

2018, I have got two pretreatment facilities now. 

Mr. RISPOLI. By 2019, yes, sir. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. 2019. 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Which gets me back to my earlier comments and 

frustration and anger. I mean, this is somebody’s money. 

Who thought this up? And now we are left holding the bag here. 

And let me ask you, is there some legal requirement that bulk 

vit can’t wait until 2019 with the pretreatment and you are simply 

deferring? 

I don’t live in the state of Washington, but you are deferring before we now hit the taxpayers with another construction project at 

DOE that, I am guessing, the odds are less than 50/50 is going to 

come in on cost estimate or on time. 

Mr. RISPOLI. I understand your question. But you hit the answer 

exactly and that is that if we didn’t begin until 2019, bulk vit could 

only handle approximately two tanks without some form of treatment, for the balance of the tanks we would like to send to bulk 

vit. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. So who do we punish? What agreement do they 

have with the state of Washington as far as the end, the time? 

What is the agreement? 

Mr. RISPOLI. Well, obviously, we have long missed the milestones 

that would have been the original milestones. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. So we continue to renegotiate—— 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY [continuing]. New construction projects for new 

pretreatment plants and the interim pretreatment plants and bulk 

vit plants, and we are still looking at 2046. 

What confidence does the subcommittee have that if you proceed 

with an interim pretreatment facility, that is, from what I understand, going to be finished before the one that is already under construction—— 

Mr. RISPOLI. That is right. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
229 

Mr. VISCLOSKY [continuing]. Or the bulk vit plant that is not 

under construction, but is going to be done before the low activity 

vitrification plant is done, that is under construction, what confidence do I have that you have got two that are already—one is 

going to sit there for 6 years, although you are claiming you are 

going to use it. 

You have two projects that you haven’t even started yet, one of 

which you are thinking about, are going to be completed before 

2019, on time, on—and do we have any estimate today as to what 

that interim pretreatment facility is going to be, how much it is 

going to cost? 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, sir. That is why I indicated that we have a— 

the next step to the study that has already been published is to 

help us make that business decision, look at the risks, and I expect 

that in the June timeframe. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Let me ask you this, Mr. Rispoli. If you ever get 

the money for the interim pretreatment facility, if you get any 

more money, that is, what confidence does Mr. Simpson, any of us 

have that someone is not going to be sitting here 2 years from now, 

‘‘Well, you know, we have been talking to Washington and, well, 

you know, this interim pretreatment thing, because it is a concept 

and it is new technology and now we realized there is another 

problem with bulk vit,’’ that you are going to, ‘‘Well, we need an 

interim Part B pretreatment facility with a smaller bulk vit, while 

the other one’’—what confidence do we have that you are not going 

to come back with part five within 2 or 3 years? 

Mr. RISPOLI. And I have the same question, which is why I have 

asked for an independent, outside review of what we have got so 

that we can make the best decision in the June timeframe, this 

summer. 

I mean, I have the same question you do. How do we know that 

this is the right way to go? And we do not want to make that decision unless we have vetted it and we are confident. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Maybe if the contractors, nobody got any money 

for a year, they would pay attention and really would get serious 

about things. 

I read a committee report from 10 years ago. It is the same story 

today in that we are thinking about building a pretreatment facility that is going to be done before one that is under construction 

today, that is going to be done in 2019. 

It boggles my mind. 

Mr. RISPOLI. I understand. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. And it frightens me to death from a fiscal standpoint. 

Mr. RISPOLI. I understand. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Frightens me to death. And it does get back to 

this issue of the renegotiations and, again, I understand the urgency. We talk to the Washington members all the time, I understand, but that people are making these agreements and there is 

a lot of money being spent. 

Mr. RISPOLI. Well, it is also correct, Mr. Chairman, that the objective is to meet the milestones, but I also believe it is absolutely 

true that the tank waste is a high risk activity and we have got 

to get rid of it. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
230 

And so whether or not we had milestones, which we really want 

to endeavor to meet, this is not something we want to leave in 

those tanks until 2079. 

We, obviously, are trying to make the right decisions to prudently get on with it, and I will have much more and be happy to 

get back with this committee when we have that study and share 

it with you. 

But we expect that in the June timeframe. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. But that is just like this is catch-22. This is 

catch-22. If we don’t do anything, well, there is a penalty and there 

is such an abysmal track record out here at Hanford. 

There is speculation we are going to build another facility and 

I have no confidence, even if it all turned out that somebody is not 

going to come back, ‘‘Well, you know, we are still short that last 

15 percent here, still short.’’ 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR GREATER THAN CLASS C

WASTE

If I could turn to your office’s preparation for the environmental 

impact statement for greater than Class C waste. 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Your office is responsible for that, as I understand it, the impact statement. 

The GNEP program, waste volume accounts for 625,000 cubic 

meters of waste or about 93 percent of the total waste volume included in the EIS. 

Can you explain why the EIS is going to address the GNEP 

waste when Congress has not appropriated any funds to build an 

operational GNEP facility? 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, sir, I believe I can. I have shared this with 

your staff. Perhaps I could have someone bring it up to share with 

you and Mr. Simpson. 

We were tasked with doing the EIS for the Greater Than Class 

C waste by Congress and we have already expended a significant 

amount of effort on that particular project. 

If you look at the chart I have just given to you, what we have 

expended our effort on so far is only in the leftmost tier. In other 

words, it is 4,300 cubic meters, if you see that here in the leftmost 

here. 

In addition, there are two other either known or projected 

sources of Greater Than Class C waste. 

The middle tier, that you see as tier two, includes waste from 

West Valley, the state licensed disposal area, and also for new reactors that we now envision the country would build, as well as 

greater than Class C like waste totaling 26,000 more cubic meters 

that would come from an advanced fuel cycle facility. 

The pure GNEP part is in the right-hand most tier, which would 

be—you see the amount is enormous, 600,000 cubic meters. Our 

NEPA organization now resides within general counsel. They advise us that if we do not consider tier two quantities, the middle 

column, in this EIS, we would jeopardize the entire EIS. 

So the current approach we are taking is to include tier one and 

tier two, but not include the quantities in tier three and, in fact, 

make it severable. So that as we go forward with the EIS, if GNEP 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
231 

does not go forward, that entire portion could be severed from the 

EIS. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. So it is not integrated, it is severable. 

Mr. RISPOLI. It would be severable. In fact, the quantity itself of 

600,000 cubic meters would not even be addressed, because it is so 

huge that it would greatly change where the stuff could go. 

So it would be not only severable, but we would not address the 

actual quantity, but rather just, if it goes, it would have to be considered at some point. 

Our counsel advises us this is the only way they know to protect 

the EIS process, because NEPA requires that you not have severable—you not sever certain aspects of the same EIS. 

So they believe that this will let us get started and then at the 

appropriate time, if we need to shed this, it can be severed and we 

can go forward. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. On tier two, in the bottom green box, you highlight the advanced fuel cycle facility 25,000. 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. That is part of the GNEP program, too, as I understand it. Why would it not be also in the far right column? 

Mr. RISPOLI. My understanding is that the advanced fuel cycle 

initiative—and it is not my program, I could be understanding this 

incorrectly—is required whether or not GNEP goes forward. 

Now, I have read excerpts of the hearing with Secretary Bodman. 

I understand this subcommittee’s concern about the advanced fuel 

cycle facility. I understand the distinction you are drawing between 

studies and design and design and construction. 

But notwithstanding any of that, the view that the department 

has is that if we don’t include this, since it is a well known entity, 

that as soon as we progress with an EIS without inclusion, we will 

be challenged in the courts and the entire EIS would be in jeopardy. 

Hence, the approach that has been recommended to me, which 

I have shared with staff here before this hearing. 

SALT WASTE PROCESSING FACILITY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Simpson, did you ask the question about the 

Salt Waste Processing Facility at Savannah River? If you didn’t, I 

would want to do that. 

Mr. Rispoli, successful completion of the Salt Waste Processing 

Facility is vital to ensuring continued availability of space in the 

Savannah River site underground high level waste storage tanks, 

as well as feed for the DWPF in a saltstone facility. 

However, design and construction of the Salt Waste Processing 

Facility has been delayed and the facility is not projected to be 

open until 2012 or 2013. 

What is the status of the interim salt processing facilities at Savannah River and do these facilities have sufficient capacity to continue to indefinitely provide feed to the saltstone project and the 

DWPF? 

Mr. RISPOLI. Mr. Chairman, there are interim facilities. In fact, 

one of them, the one that simply did a mechanical process of dissolution, it completed its mission and has been finished. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
232 

The next two components just went through their operational 

readiness review and are ready to begin their processing. 

As far as all indicators are, those are on schedule and capable 

of performing as intended. 

I don’t have one to share with you this moment, but we have developed an in-and-out chart that shows what quantities go into the 

tanks and what quantities come out of the tanks at Savannah 

River. 

It goes through the entire life cycle of the project. It shows when 

the Salt Waste Processing Facility comes online. 

We have already brought the inventory down from about 

36,500,000 gallons down to, in fiscal 2008, 36 million gallons. By 

2009, we should be at 33.9 million gallons. 

This shows both incoming and outgoing fluids from those tanks. 

All of this depends upon the interim processing and then, at the 

appropriate time, Salt Waste Processing Facility comes online in 

the 2013 timeframe. 

I would point out that even that 2013 timeframe has 60 months 

of schedule contingency. Recall, I had mentioned you have the best 

case and the worst case. 

This table assumes the very worst case. A 60-month contingency 

is included, schedule contingency, and it still shows that we can 

avoid a capacity issue at the tanks at Savannah River with the interim and with the Salt Waste Processing Facility coming online. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY [continuing]. Because of funding or what we 

talked about earlier? 

Mr. RISPOLI. No, sir. This is a very significant issue. Basically, 

it is not so different than what we encountered at Hanford with the 

Waste Treatment Plant. We had seismic issues that, if considered 

appropriately, are protective of the workers and the site and the 

environment. 

And by us directing the contractor to include those seismic considerations, we essentially resulted in a schedule that now causes 

the need for the interim processing that we have. 

I think the good news to the story is that the interim processing 

that we have already deployed has worked. We did do a Section 

3116 determination and have been providing material to the 

saltstone facility, the grout facility, under NRC oversight, as you 

know. 

The new steps have gone through their operational readiness review. The next interim steps are built and are ready to go and they 

will cover us until the Salt Waste Processing Facility comes online. 

So we believe that we are on a very solid path to managing the 

tank waste appropriately. 

TANK INVENTORY CAPACITY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. And what is the approximate compliant tank inventory capacity today? 

Mr. RISPOLI. The tank capacity is about 37 million gallons, plus 

a one million gallon cushion. So it would be about 38 million gallons. 

And the chart I have shows that for fiscal 2008, that we would 

finish fiscal 2008 at 36,020,000, down from 36,500,000. 

So we are bringing the inventory down. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
233 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Here is my chart, and this is an older chart. I 

have got one visual for you and this is old. This is June 30, 2004. 

And the white scheme on the top shows the available tank space. 

In relative terms, obviously, it looks like a small margin of error. 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Do you have confidence that there is going to be 

enough capacity as we proceed here? 

Mr. RISPOLI. Well, clearly, this is still a small margin. I mean, 

with 37,000 plus a million for reserve, and here we will wrap up 

2008 at 36—I am sorry—37 million, with a million in reserve, we 

will wrap up at 36 million. 

This clearly takes careful management. I would say that with the 

work of our contractor, the work of our federal workforce oversight, 

we are bringing it down, which is at least going the right direction, 

and there is nothing in this projection that shows the inventory 

will go up. 

It is all in the right direction. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. But you admit it is a small window. 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. If something goes wrong with the tank capacity, 

what happens to the overall project? 

Mr. RISPOLI. Well, we need that tank capacity in order to continue the retrieval operations, the processing of the vitrification 

plant and so forth. 

So, clearly, we have to keep a sharp eye on this and make sure 

that we continue to do this saltstone processing for the low activity 

waste. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Can I ask, if there is that margin, does it make 

sense to keep adding more material to the tanks from H Canyon? 

You are claiming that the capacity is continuing to increase. 

Mr. RISPOLI. The vitrification plant puts into H Canyon about 

two million gallons per year. Just washing the canisters and things 

of that nature puts in one million gallons per year. 

The H Canyon operation puts in only 300,000 gallons per year. 

So the quantity is very small compared to other inputs into the 

tank farms at Savannah River site and this projects the continued 

use of H Canyon. 

So it is one-tenth of just—nearly one-tenth of just the recycling 

from the vitrification plant, which is two million gallons per year 

by itself, whereas H Canyon is 300,000 gallons per year. 

So we are aware of all these things and that is the reason why 

we have developed this input or inflow-outflow to be sure that we 

are managing the waste appropriately. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Rispoli, thank you very much. 

LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY CLEANUP

Mr. SIMPSON. Who is responsible for the cleanup at Los Alamos, 

your office or the NNSA? 

Mr. RISPOLI. We are responsible for the budgeting, the strategy. 

The oversight of the contractor is the responsibility of the NNSA. 

The actual contractor is the NNSA contractor, called LANS, the 

Los Alamos National Security Consortium, that is the university 

with Bechtel. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
234 

So the day-to-day operations are done by the NNSA under their 

management. We fund the staff for the environmental management 

program, but they are managed, because of the NNSA Act, by the 

NNSA. 

Mr. SIMPSON. So how much oversight do you actually have over 

it and what is your responsibility other than just budgeting? 

Mr. RISPOLI. We work very closely. I mean, this is a regular topic 

of conversation seriously, maybe once every week or two, between 

myself and Administrator D’Agostino. 

I have met now Mr. Bob Smolen, the new Deputy Administrator 

for Management of the laboratory. We coordinate this very closely 

with their environmental group within the NNSA, regular meetings with them. 

Essentially, if you think of it this way, we provide the staffing— 

and, by the way, they are plussing up their staffing. They are woefully short of staffing. 

Mr. George Rael is their environmental manager there, the fed 

in charge. He is a tremendously capable individual. But I believe 

at one point he had a staff of only three to do our work. 

I believe he is hiring another 10 people, but I met with him 2 

weeks ago, he is having great difficulty in attracting people to the 

Los Alamos area. It is very, very difficult, I understand, because of 

its geographic location, the cost of living and all those things. 

So we are taking the right steps. When I mention that we did 

this nationwide survey of our sites using the Army Corps, we 

plugged in some contractor people. I think—is it five? Does he have 

five? Do you recall? 

We have plugged in a number of support to him in the interim 

to help him out. I think they are on the right path to get themselves properly staffed to manage the contractor. 

So we work very closely together, Mr. Simpson. I don’t know if 

that has answered your question. 

Mr. SIMPSON. DOE is requesting a quarter of a billion dollars for 

cleanup activities at NNSA sites. 

How does the risk at these sites compare with non-NNSA sites? 

Mr. RISPOLI. We use the same basic approach, to a risk management—risk reduction, rather. So we look at the highest priorities 

first. 

Los Alamos, the baseline that was the cost and schedule estimating that was done for them that we just finished, it was one 

of the last ones that we finished, would, in fact, require significantly more money than we presently have available for them, but 

it is such a new cost and schedule baseline that you really couldn’t 

reasonably jump to the level that would be required. We were funding them at $140 million a year. I think in 2008 we went to $154 million, in 2009 $164 million. If you were to look 

at the independently reviewed cost and schedule, you would need 

double that. 

But it isn’t reasonable to think that you could go this way and 

then go like that and the money could be effectively used. So our 

intent is to continue to ramp the funding resources provided to Los 

Alamos— 

Mr. SIMPSON. How reliable is that baseline that you are talking 

about with Los Alamos compared with other sites that we have? 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
235 

Mr. RISPOLI. It has been audited to the same degree of rigor. I 

will tell you that it has taken, I think, at least 3 years to get all 

of the issues addressed, to be sure that we have the same degree 

of confidence. 

So I won’t mislead you. I mean, it took a lot of work. They have 

had a change in contractor. There has been a change in personnel. 

I think they are now on the third manager since I have been in 

this position on the contractor side. 

So I think we have now reached the point that we have a pretty 

high degree of confidence, very comparable to the rest. It is just 

that we would have to ramp the funding up significantly to get to 

what it would take to meet all of the compliance agreements that 

have been negotiated with the state out there. 

Mr. SIMPSON. So we are going to see, in future years, continued 

increases in that budget. 

Mr. RISPOLI. Well, we are in the 2010 budget cycle right now. I 

haven’t really, myself, seen what we are looking at, but the same 

risk management approach and focus on risk reduction would 

apply as we develop the Los Alamos budget. 

It is a significant issue there. I mean, they have groundwater 

issues that are threatening the drinking water aquifer. I mean, it 

is not—we have significant transuranic waste that is stored both 

above ground and below ground. 

And when they went through the Cerro Grande fire a few years 

ago, they were very concerned about the hazard to not only the installation, but to the community at large, that could jeopardize 

really the national security of the country because of the importance of that lab. 

So, clearly, we have some work to do to get that situation where 

we need it to be. 

RISK REDUCTION BUDGETS

Mr. SIMPSON. The reason I ask that is I am looking at the out 

years here and we are looking at ramping up Los Alamos significantly and then I am looking at your proposed 5-year budget, 

which ramps up slightly, somewhat, over the next several years. 

Does that mean that the other sites are going to be looking at 

budgets that continue to go down as we are taking on additional 

responsibilities? 

Mr. RISPOLI. I think that the real challenge for us is recognition 

that to meet all the milestones at Hanford alone, just the milestones, if we were to try to cover all those, would be, in 2009, half 

a billion dollars. 

And Hanford, meanwhile, when the EM budget went up from the 

beginning of the Bush administration, it was about $1.2 billion, 

and it grew to nearly $2 billion, nominally, it never came back 

down. 

So the question that we will have to deal with is, looking at the 

relative risk, what is the latitude we have to look at Hanford 

issues, because a half a billion dollars would go, obviously, a long 

way in anybody’s budget. 

And so the approach we are taking is to look at the relative 

risks, but also, now, with this capability to look at the individual 

work elements, we can even look at it, from a business sense, 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
236 

would it make sense to get something out of the way and be done 

with it, and that is the approach we are taking now as we do the 

fiscal year 2010 budget build. 

Of course, the fiscal year 2010 budget will never really go anywhere. I mean, this administration will not deliver a fiscal year 

2010 budget, but at least all of the process will be there to look at 

both risk reduction and are there any good business case decisions 

to be made based upon what we now know, with all these independently audited costs and schedules. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Let me just tell you, as we talked earlier about 

this, I agree with the department on what they are doing in risk 

assessment. We ought to clean up the sites that pose the greatest 

risk as quick as we can and really focus our resources there, and 

we all understand that that doesn’t mean that you can’t—that you 

just ignore the other sites, that we have to continue to work on 

those and that presents problems at sites like Oak Ridge and Idaho 

this year. 

Particularly, we don’t want to see the fluctuations in funding 

that create the workforce problems that you have talked about and 

are willing to look at and try to address, and I appreciate that, because that does create problems when we are trying to—when we 

are trying to do a job, we lay off workers and then, years later, we 

are trying to hire them back and you can’t get them back, and that 

creates special problems. 

So I appreciate the fact that you understand those challenges 

that this creates. 

But, also, I have been out to Hanford and I have looked there 

and I understand that that is a huge problem and we can’t allow 

that river to get contaminated. 

If we do, I think the nuclear industry in the United States is 

over, because the American public won’t accept it. 

And so it is not just the future of the nuclear industry, it is the 

right thing to do, and it is the future of that river. 

I was sitting here listening to your discussion with the chairman. 

I want to see this—everything you guys were discussing about—I 

want to see a picture, so I can understand it. 

It is confusing to us and, obviously, it is challenging to us and 

frustrating to us and part of that is based on the history of DOE 

and things we have been told time and time again, and we naturally sit back and say, ‘‘Are we being told something else that 5 

years from now, somebody else will tell us something different’’ in 

terms of cleanup. 

Members of this committee, particularly, who have cleanup sites 

should know, 3 years ago, 7 years ago, it was accelerated cleanup. 

Now it is more risk-based and other types of things, and we keep 

seeing changes in policies. 

We want to see some consistency and some things that get these 

sites cleaned up and I think we are willing to put the resources in 

to clean them up, as long as we have some consistency, and we are 

willing to do what is necessary at Hanford to clean it up. 

Everyone on this committee understands the challenges there 

and the difficulty. That is a tough site. 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, sir. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
237 

Mr. SIMPSON. And when you say we can’t afford to leave that 

waste in those tanks until 2076, the problem is it won’t stay in 

those tanks. It will be in the river, and we have got to get that site 

cleaned up. 

So I appreciate, actually, your attention that you are focusing on 

Hanford and these other places, even though I hope you understand that our job is also oversight and to make sure things are 

done with the taxpayers’ dollars that we can justify. 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, sir. 

FIXED PRICE REMEDIATION CONTRACTS

Mr. SIMPSON. One last question I have. This committee directed 

DOE to explore the use of guaranteed fixed price remediation contracts for some of your cleanup work. 

Did you give us a report on that? Have you done any trials on 

that? What has been done to date? 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, sir. I will get you the date of the report. The 

report was signed out to you all actually on September 29, 2006. 

And we used a consultant who has done work for the DOD to 

help us with this report, because we learned, actually, from this 

committee staff that the DOD has been pretty successful. 

They are called LRS Federal, LLC is the name of the company. 

And we looked at a variety of places and, again, the ones—there 

were some that were ruled out right away. For example, Stanford’s 

linear accelerator, there were just so many uncertainties. The university owns the property. 

There are disagreements between us and the regulator and the 

state that we are working through and I think making good 

progress, but the consultant said that is just a nonstarter. There 

is way too much risk there. 

And then they eventually came down and we focused in on, 

again, a couple of reactors at Brookhaven. The SEFOR reactor, we 

believe, would be a good candidate that was added by EPACT– 

2005. 

And there are two gun sites, Savannah River site, that are not 

nuclear contaminated. They are basically hazardous waste contaminated, and we believe one of the two would be a viable candidate. 

And what we said to you in our letter was that we would pick 

this up again once we finished the C.R. Well, now that we have a 

stable appropriation for 2008, we look at our budget for 2009 and 

we realize that, from a risk reduction perspective, SEFOR, 

Brookhaven reactors, where we have obviously cut the budget, are 

just not at the level that we can begin doing this. 

We could begin doing something with any of those at this point. 

It is a matter of the fact that they fall at the lower end of the risk 

priority. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Appreciate it. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, one of the things that I would like to see, quite 

frankly, as we develop this budget is I think it would be a good 

idea, when we talk about penalties, that we are paying on, so I 

would like to see a line item in there somewhere that the DOE has 

for penalties, because I hate to see us appropriating money for a 

cleanup site and part of that money is going to pay penalties instead of cleanup. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
238 

And I would like it separated out somehow so we know pretty 

much what we are appropriating for penalties. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. And it would evidence part of the price you are 

paying because of—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. Right, exactly. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Not all of them, but—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. Somehow, we ought to be able to do a better job 

of that so that we have some idea of it, because obviously the budget level does have some impact on the penalties you are going to 

pay. 

Appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. And I do appreciate a couple of things. One is 

the illustration that was provided to me earlier today. I was confused between PIT disassembly and MOX, and some people were 

very concerned about this afternoon’s hearing, and appreciate that. 

I still got a bit confused myself, anyway. 

But, also, Mr. Simpson, appreciate your attendance. Mike does 

take his responsibilities very seriously. 

And I appreciate the fact that we didn’t vote this afternoon and 

that he stayed in attendance. And while he and I are desperately 

trying to come back next year, both gentlemen here at the table 

may not be with us and I do want to take this opportunity, Mr. 

Rispoli and Mr. Owen, to thank you very much for your service and 

for your diligence and hard work. 

Again, as I said in my opening statement, I know you are trying 

your best. It is just very frustrating when you refer back 10 years 

and it is just the same tune. 

Mr. RISPOLI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. STUPAK. So wish you well and would encourage you, in your 

last year, to just keep plugging away as hard as you can. And if 

we can be of any assistance, too, I would ask that you let us know. 

Mr. RISPOLI. Well, if I may, I would like to, again, thank this 

committee and this committee’s staff for the very, very strong interest in supporting our program, and we know that you really endeavor to understand it and we appreciate that. 

We understand that and we appreciate it. And we thank you. It 

has been, for me, personally, very rewarding to work with all of 

you on this committee. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Good. We are adjourned. Thank you very much. 

Mr. OWEN. And I thank you for allowing me to rest my vocal 

cords. 

[Questions and answers for the record follow:] 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
239 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 376 here 43355A.140
240 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 377 here 43355A.141
241 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 378 here 43355A.142
242 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 379 here 43355A.143
243 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 380 here 43355A.144
244 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 381 here 43355A.145
245 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 382 here 43355A.146
246 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 383 here 43355A.147
247 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 384 here 43355A.148
248 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 385 here 43355A.149
249 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 386 here 43355A.150
250 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 387 here 43355A.151
251 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 388 here 43355A.152
252 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 389 here 43355A.153
253 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 390 here 43355A.154
254 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 391 here 43355A.155
255 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 392 here 43355A.156
256 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 393 here 43355A.157
257 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 394 here 43355A.158
258 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 395 here 43355A.159
259 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 396 here 43355A.160
260 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 397 here 43355A.161
261 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 398 here 43355A.162
262 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 399 here 43355A.163
263 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 400 here 43355A.164
264 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 401 here 43355A.165
265 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 402 here 43355A.166
266 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 403 here 43355A.167
267 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 404 here 43355A.168
268 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 405 here 43355A.169
269 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 406 here 43355A.170
270 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 407 here 43355A.171
271 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 408 here 43355A.172
272 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 01 here 43355A.173
273 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 410 here 43355A.174
274 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 411 here 43355A.175
275 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 412 here 43355A.176
276 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 413 here 43355A.177
277 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 414 here 43355A.178
278 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 415 here 43355A.179
279 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 416 here 43355A.180
280 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 417 here 43355A.181
281 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 418 here 43355A.182
282 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 419 here 43355A.183
283 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 420 here 43355A.184
284 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 421 here 43355A.185
285 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 422 here 43355A.186
286 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 423 here 43355A.187
287 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 424 here 43355A.188
288 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 425 here 43355A.189
289 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 426 here 43355A.190
290 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 427 here 43355A.191
291 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 428 here 43355A.192
292 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 429 here 43355A.193
293 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 430 here 43355A.194
294 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 431 here 43355A.195
295 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 432 here 43355A.196
296 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 433 here 43355A.197
297 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 434 here 43355A.198
298 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 435 here 43355A.199
299 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 436 here 43355A.200
300 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 437 here 43355A.201
301 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 438 here 43355A.202
302 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 439 here 43355A.203
303 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 440 here 43355A.204
304 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 441 here 43355A.205
305 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 442 here 43355A.206
306 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 443 here 43355A.207
307 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 444 here 43355A.208
308 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 445 here 43355A.209
309 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 446 here 43355A.210
310 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 447 here 43355A.211
311 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 448 here 43355A.212
312 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 449 here 43355A.213
313 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 450 here 43355A.214
314 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 451 here 43355A.215
315 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 452 here 43355A.216
316 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 453 here 43355A.217
317 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 454 here 43355A.218
318 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 455 here 43355A.219
319 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 456 here 43355A.220
320 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 457 here 43355A.221
321 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 458 here 43355A.222
322 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 459/600 here 43355A.223
(323) 

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2008. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—SCIENCE RESEARCH 

WITNESS 

RAYMOND L. ORBACH, UNDER SECRETARY FOR SCIENCE 

CHAIRMAN VISCLOSKY’S OPENING REMARKS

Mr. VISCLOSKY [presiding]. I want to bring the hearing to order. 

And, first of all, I certainly want to acknowledge the presence of 

Dixon Butler, who is making what apparently is a great recovery. 

It is good to see you here, Dixon. 

Give him a round of applause. [Applause.] 

And on another, personal note, Shari Davenport, who is just coming in the door now, worked strenuously all week and yesterday, 

completely through her birthday. But the reason I note that is, last 

night, we were at a dinner, and the waiter asked for her ID before 

he served her a glass of wine at the reception. [Laughter.] 

And so, it was a—— 

Mr. HOBSON. That doesn’t happen to me anymore. [Laughter.] 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. So I just wanted to note that for the record, if 

we could. 

Good morning, Dr. Orbach. Thank you for appearing before us to 

discuss the fiscal year 2009 budget request for the Office of 

Science. 

Your office is something of an anomaly in the Department of Energy. You do your best to deliver on promises made to this committee and to follow the law of the land, a philosophy that other 

programs within DOE should adopt. 

Without your competent management, I would dismiss out of 

hand the 19 percent increase for Science, given that the President’s 

request savages other energy and water programs under the subcommittee’s jurisdiction. 

Before we get into the details of the budget request, I would like 

to highlight some of the bright spots in your program. The U.S. 

continues to lead scientific advancements in many areas. The Joint 

Dark Energy Mission is moving forward. You have proposed the 

Energy Frontier Research Centers initiative, an outgrowth of workshops held to identify key basic research obstacles to technological 

progress in critical energy issues. And the integration of research 

and development across the Department of Energy. 

And, Dr. Orbach, I know this has been a difficult year for the Office of Science, but I confess I am at a loss when confronted with 

people who accuse this committee of cutting the Office of Science. 

In fiscal year 2007, Science received a $200 million increase in 

funding in the continuing resolution over fiscal year 2006. I would 

point out that that was one of the very few adjustments this comVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:21 Jul 24, 2008 Jkt 043355 PO 00000 Frm 00323 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A355P2.XXX A355P2

yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
324 

mittee made across the government at a very difficult time in the 

C.R. 

In the fiscal year 2008 House bill, the office received an increase of $717 million more than 2007. However, given a less generous 

funding level in the other body and multiple threats of a veto from 

President Bush, this subcommittee had to integrate House and 

Senate priorities with a much smaller allocation. As a result, the 

Office of Science received an increase of only $220 million over fiscal year 2007. 

I am not a logician, and therefore, when looking forward to 2009, 

I fail to comprehend the President’s logic in requesting a huge increase for Science while cutting funding for Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy programs by $467 million. I fail to comprehend 

the reason behind requesting a huge increase in Science while decimating the DOE environmental cleanup accounts and the water 

programs under our jurisdiction by more than $1 billion. 

From my perspective, floods kill people. The lack of navigation 

facilities impedes commerce and the economy. People’s health is in 

danger if their drinking water is not clean. Contamination at DOE 

facilities poses immediate health risks. These and many other programs under our jurisdiction now also require attention. 

Dr. Orbach, I do look forward to discussing with you the choices 

made in fiscal year 2008 execution and priorities in the Office of 

Science fiscal year 2009 budget request for out-year planning and 

overall management. 

We are under serious time constraints, as you probably know, 

and certainly would ask that, between yourself, your office and 

OMB, for not only the requests made as far as questions today but 

those for the record, that responses be provided to the committee 

within 4 weeks. 

And I would ask members for any additional questions and comments they have, if they could get those to the committee by close 

of business today. 

But, with that, I would like to yield to Mr. Hobson for any opening remarks that he has. 

MR. HOBSON’S OPENING STATEMENT

Mr. HOBSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning, Dr. Orbach. It is always a pleasure to have you 

before the committee. 

Dr. Orbach, you were sworn in as director of the Office of Science 

back in March of 2002 and were promoted to Under Secretary of 

Science in 2006. 

It is hard to imagine that we have been working with you for 6 

years now. Some people tell me that time just seems to pass by 

faster for more mature folks like you and me. And I prefer to stick 

with the explanation that time really does fly by when you are having fun. Maybe not today, but—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HOBSON. Seriously, Dr. Orbach, you are one of the few senior 

managers at the department that has earned the trust and respect 

of members on both sides of this subcommittee. 

I believe that what you have accomplished in the Office of 

Science will live on long after the end of your tenure in this job. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
325 

The advances we are making in high-end scientific computing alone 

will make your 6 years worthwhile. We are far ahead of what we 

all thought was possible just a few years ago when you and I 

talked. 

We also value your long-term vision for the Science program and 

the Science labs and your willingness to understand congressional 

concerns and to work with the committee to address those concerns. It is too bad that some otherwise smart people at the department can’t figure out the most basic principles of getting along 

with Congress. And I won’t name names. But I should. [Laughter.] 

You have been a strong advocate for increased investment in 

basic science research at the Department of Energy, and it is unfortunate that politics last fall between the White House and Congress led to less funding than you had hoped for in fiscal year 2008. 

I hope you believe me when I say that the funding outcome last 

year is not a reflection on you or on this committee’s view of the 

Office of Science. As Chairman Visclosky very eloquently explained, 

we have to balance many competing priorities—a challenge that becomes nearly impossible when we are constrained by artificially 

low budget requests for our energy and water programs. 

I hope the next administration will recognize the need to spend 

enough money to take care of this nation’s pressing energy and 

water needs. And to whomever is in the White House next year, 

I wish them luck in finding a replacement for you at DOE. Yours 

will be hard shoes to fill. 

Before I end, I also want to welcome back Dixon Butler today. 

It is great to see him up and about again. And we wish him well 

in his recovery. He didn’t want to miss this Science hearing for 

anything, and he really worked to come back for this hearing. 

And it is nice to see you, Dixon. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And welcome, Ray. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Dr. Orbach. 

DR. ORBACH’S OPENING STATEMENT

Dr. ORBACH. Thank you, Chairman Visclosky, Ranking Member 

Hobson, for your wonderful remarks. They are very kind. And I, 

too, am thrilled to see Dixon Butler back with us. 

Members of the committee, I am pleased to be able to appear before your committee for what I do expect to be my final budget 

presentation for the Department of Energy’s Office of Science. I 

would like to thank the committee for your support for the Office 

of Science during my tenure—strong support. 

The president’s budget request for fiscal year 2009 continues his 

strong and clear support for science in this country, expressed 

through his American Competitiveness Initiative and Advanced 

Energy Initiative, both announced in 2006. 

Congress has shown strong bipartisan support for an aggressive 

innovation and energy security agenda through the Energy Policy 

Act in 2005 and the America COMPETES Act and the Energy 

Independence and Security Act in 2007. 

And we are grateful to the Committee on Science and Technology 

for its very recent views and estimates, fiscal year 2009 report, 

which states, ‘‘The fiscal year 2009 budget for the DOE Office of 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
326 

Science of $4.7 billion is a step forward in addressing our near- and 

long-term needs. Strong support for basic energy research is needed to achieve major breakthroughs in technologies that will enable 

our country to secure the energy supplies we need for the future 

while addressing the challenges of climate change.’’ 

The president’s fiscal year 2009 request to Congress for the Office of Science creates a bipartisan platform for long-term economic 

health, energy security and the intellectual strength of our country. 

Just a few examples. 

We are introducing the concept of Energy Frontier Research Centers to accelerate scientific breakthroughs and innovations essential to the development of advanced energy technologies in the 21st 

century. 

We are providing $100 million in fiscal year 2009 to award 

grants of $2 million to $5 million per year, on a competitive basis, 

to groups of researchers in universities, laboratories, industry and 

other institutions for an initial 5-year period. 

We seek to engage the nation’s finest intellectual and creative 

talent to tackle the scientific grand challenges associated with how 

nature works to direct and control matter at the quantum, atomic 

and molecular levels and to harness this new knowledge and capability for some of our most critical energy challenges. 

Another example is ITER. While the fiscal year 2008 appropriation for ITER was reduced to R&D, the president’s 2009 request 

calls for the full $214 million required to fully engage in this crucial experiment. It is high-risk, but the potential for energy security is immense. ITER will directly benefit U.S. domestic industries, creating an American workforce knowledgeable in R&D and 

in the production of high-tech components for the fusion industry. 

My last example is high-energy physics. The president’s request 

firmly places this critical field back on track for U.S. world leadership. 

Former Princeton University president Harold Shapiro led the 

recent National Academy of Sciences’ study on elementary particle 

physics in the 21st century. He stated, ‘‘The United States has 

been at the forefront of elementary particle physics for more than 

half a century. Particle physics inspires U.S. students, attracts talent from around the world, and drives critical intellectual and technological advances in many other fields. The United States has an 

unprecedented opportunity, as a leader of nations, to undertake 

this profound scientific challenge.’’ 

President Shapiro’s last sentence applies equally across the frontiers of basic research in science. The Office of Science has 

prioritized its investment to maintain U.S. global scientific leadership. The president’s fiscal year 2009 request to Congress gives us 

the chance to be a leader of nations. I urge this committee to give 

our country and its citizens that opportunity. 

I thank you for your strong support for the Office of Science and 

for basic research, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

[Statement of Dr. Raymond L. Orbach:] 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
327 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 611 here 43355B.001
328 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 612 here 43355B.002
329 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 613 here 43355B.003
330 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 614 here 43355B.004
331 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 615 here 43355B.005
332 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 616 here 43355B.006
333 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 617 here 43355B.007
334 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 618 here 43355B.008
335 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 619 here 43355B.009
336 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 620 here 43355B.010
337 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 621 here 43355B.011
338 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Thank you very much. 

And I would like to recognize Mr. Wamp. 

Mr. WAMP. Thank you so very much. 

I am in an unusual position—I want to welcome Dixon back into 

the room first—but I am in an unusual position, because this is the 

most important subcommittee in my world, but I am the ranking 

member of another very important subcommittee. And when our 

hearings start at 10:30, they can’t start until I get there. So I really 

appreciate the courtesy of the chairman and other members to 

jump ahead here. 

And I will be very brief, because I want to echo, Dr. Orbach, 

what former Chairman Hobson said about your service. I think it 

has been exemplary and very unique. And you have got a skill set 

that—you understand the science, and you understand this business, which is kind of hard to do sometimes. And I really appreciate your service. 

The one thing I want to raise is this issue of ITER. I think most 

members don’t realize that we are caught in a very awkward position; you are sitting in an awkward position. Because, right now, 

this really should be, in a fair and responsible world, it should be 

an issue for the supplemental that is coming to the Congress. But 

then there is a desire to keep the supplemental very clean. 

Because, if we are going to honor our international commitments 

here, we need to go ahead with a supplemental request for ITER 

and not wait until 2009, where you have made this full request, because we are not honoring our agreements and our commitments 

on ITER. 

So I hope that the person you work for—that is, the Commander 

in Chief of our country—will allow a special title for this particular 

international obligation to come with the supplemental. 

FUSION ENERGY

Most people wonder what this means. How many universities in 

our country are involved in fusion energy? 

Dr. ORBACH. I don’t know the precise number, but it is very common in almost every university curriculum. 

Mr. WAMP. And how many laboratories are involved in either fusion energy or partnered in the ITER project? 

Dr. ORBACH. The majority of our laboratories are involved. 

Mr. WAMP. And how many U.S. companies are likely to be involved in the construction of ITER? 

Dr. ORBACH. We would hope a major U.S. presence for construction. 

Mr. WAMP. I understand that just pending right in front of us is 

a couple hundred million dollars’ worth of contracts of hardware, 

actual manufacturing-related U.S. jobs associated with ITER. This 

is not sending money overseas. This is like, if we don’t honor these 

obligations, we effectively outsource these jobs overseas. And this 

is the good stuff; this is the high-tech, R&D-type work. 

And the Congress and the administration need to come together 

on this. And I just want to make a case that this is a big deal. 

And we are fortunate, in Oak Ridge, to handle some of the management of this program, because we have managed other major 

projects on time and on budget, and, as a result, the Office of 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
339 

Science saw fit for us to handle some of the management of this 

fusion project. 

And I just want to raise ITER and fusion energy as a major challenge and priority for the Congress, but the executive branch is 

going to have to do its part, not just send over a 2009 budget request. There are funding problems right now that need to be addressed between here and there. That is the big issue. 

I don’t want to put you on the spot, but I asked you a few minutes ago what your number-one priority for the coming year was, 

and what did you tell me, Dr. Orbach? 

Dr. ORBACH. ITER. 

Mr. WAMP. I yield back. [Laughter.] 

OUT-YEAR ASSUMPTIONS FOR SCIENCE

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Thank you, Mr. Wamp. 

Dr. Orbach, in fiscal year 2007, you asked for an increase of $500 

million for the Office of Science, and you received an increase of 

$200 million. In 2008, your request included an increase of $600 

million for the Science budget, and you received an increase of 

$220 million. 

This year’s request is for an increase of $750 million for Science. 

Given recent history, it would seem to be unwise to make operating 

decisions for the Office of Science assuming that the President’s request will not be changed. 

The Office of Science request represents a 19 percent increase in 

funding over fiscal year 2008 enacted levels. In your view, is a comparable increase in the level of research manpower sustainable 

over the long term, given current fiscal pressures? 

Dr. ORBACH. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I do appreciate the committee’s support in fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008. And I acknowledge the incremental increases that the Office of Science received in a very difficult budget environment. And so, I want you 

to know that I am appreciative. 

I also have the responsibility of looking at the health and welfare 

of our country from the scientific perspective. And it is my view 

that the American Competitiveness Initiative, the trajectory that 

the president laid out in 2006 and that Congress has supported 

through the America COMPETES Act, recognize the importance of 

basic research for the health of our economy. 

Scientific research in the physical sciences underpins not only 

our scientific programs but also our manufacturing and our economy. The request looks large but, in fact, follows a trajectory that 

both Congress and the president and have laid out for an increase 

for basic research. 

You ask whether we have planned for less. We are very hopeful 

that the president’s request and the America COMPETES Act authorization levels will be possible in this fiscal year, fiscal year 

2009. 

We are planning for operations of all of our facilities at optimum 

levels. We are planning for a modest but significant increase in research support for universities across the country. We are planning 

very carefully for prioritized large-scale facilities. We are also planning for infrastructure improvements in our laboratories. And 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
340 

when these are bundled together, the president’s request is the 

number that we work toward. 

We are prepared to work with the committee and to do the best 

we can with the resources that the budget will allow. But I do firmly believe that this increase, which looks large because of past history, is on the trajectory that both Congress, the president and industry, have recognized as essential for the economy and well-being 

of our country. 

U.S. LEADERSHIP IN SCIENCE

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Doctor, some scientists, probably those in particle physics, raise the issue of U.S. leadership when advocating for 

increased federal support. Could you delineate for us what areas of 

research sponsored by your office do you believe the U.S. is clearly 

a world leader in and which ones are not? 

Dr. ORBACH. As I have stated in the past, my commitment to this 

committee, to our scientific community and to our country is to be 

a world leader in everything we do. 

And we don’t do everything. When we prioritized our facilities, 

it was for the future. It was on the basis of scientific leadership. 

And where we have found that we are not leaders, we either ask 

ourselves, ‘‘Why not?’’, and try and fix it or we leave that for someone else. 

If you will look across the Office of Science, from high energy 

physics to nuclear physics to fusion energy to condensed matter 

physics to basic energy sciences, biology—every one of those programs are world leaders. 

I think we are recognized internationally for that. Ranking Member Hobson referred to scientific computation. It was this committee that enabled us to become the world leader. There is no 

issue, when it comes to the open science on high-end computers, 

the United States is very far in front of any other country. 

More or less, what I plan in our budget is to give us a decade 

of leadership over any other competition. This is important not just 

for the science, but also for industry and for our economy. And so, 

we will not support work that is not world-class. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I can understand doing work in a world-class 

fashion. We all try to do that in our lives. But are there not any 

areas where someone else has an advantage on us? 

You mentioned a computational power, and I actually remember, 

some years ago—and it was under Mr. Hobson’s leadership that 

the funding was provided—that Japan was at the time considered 

a leader. 

Are there not any of these slices, given the world competition, if 

you would, in science that we have fallen behind in? 

Dr. ORBACH. I am worried the advent of the large hadron collider 

at CERN will mean an offshoring of the highest-energy physics machine in the world. And we have, up to this time, always had that 

leadership, and so it is a new world for us. We are going to have 

to try to maintain leadership while recognizing that the best machine, after the Tevatron is finished, is in CERN, in Switzerland. 

ITER is another example, that will be built in France. 

What we are attempting to do, as these large-scale facilities are 

found—actually, built in Tennessee but assembled in France—— 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
341 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. ORBACH. We will ship the material. But, actually, we will 

have scientists in France too, in Cadarache. 

It is a new experience for us. We have always had the biggest 

machines here in the United States. And we would welcome people 

from around the world to come and use them. And their intellect 

and their contributions has added to our own and given us tremendous advantages. 

Now we are in the position, at least in two of our fields, of having 

to go somewhere else in the near future for that leadership. And 

it is tricky. In high energy physics, the advisory committee is, as 

we speak, considering how to maintain U.S. leadership under a situation where the biggest machine is in CERN. And I think you will 

see a similar situation for the fusion energy community. 

To be honest, Mr. Chairman, I don’t want that to happen in 

other areas. And so—at the light sources, we are moving hopefully 

to keep that decade of leadership. 

You are quite right, the Japanese did assume that leadership 

with the Earth simulator in 2002. And that was an area where we 

had lost it but we felt that we could not afford to. And so, that is 

what I meant when I said we then stepped in and, thanks to you 

and Congressman Hobson, we were able to regain that leadership. 

So there are some areas that we really feel, even though we may 

be behind, we have got to catch up. And that is an example of how 

we have done it. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Now, for the record, I would make a note that, 

with the growth in the world economy—look at the size of the European community, and you discussed some of the facilities in Europe—whether or not it is practical, despite our desire, to maintain 

that leadership across the board, and whether or not there are 

some particular areas over and above those you have enumerated 

now that we should be, as a committee, very concerned about, as 

far as that funding is allocated. 

So, for the record, if there is anything else in some prepared 

questions we have, I would appreciate that. 

U.S. MAINTAINS WORLD-CLASS SCIENTIFIC LEADERSHIP

Our goal is to be world leading or among the world leaders in every aspect of our 

portfolio investments—advanced computing, x-ray and neutron scattering, nuclear 

physics, and high-energy physics. While we prioritize our work and the funding of 

our facilities based on scientific leadership, all of our facilities are world leading, 

and we are recognized internationally in these scientific communities. Our triennial 

Committees of Visitors, other independent reviews, and reports such as those from 

the National Academies help us set direction and gauge success. The Office of 

Science prioritizes within its research programs, as well, in the accompanying areas 

based on opportunities for world leadership. 

In some cases, strategic partnerships are required to enable the U.S. to be among 

the world leaders. For example, the U.S. has supported an international team in developing the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland, which 

will become the world’s highest-energy particle accelerator when it turns on later 

this year. In particular, the U.S. has been involved in the design and construction 

of both the LHC experiment detectors and the accelerator magnets. 

The U.S. is also playing a key role in the ITER international partnership. ITER, 

to be sited in Cadarache, France will demonstrate the scientific and technological 

feasibility of fusion energy, the power source of the sun and the stars. The U.S. is 

one of seven partners in ITER, which collectively represents more than half the 

world’s population. Such international partnerships are expected to become more 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
342 

common in the future as ‘‘big science’’ incorporates more disciplines into increasingly 

larger-scale, more costly projects. 

Our strategic planning for both facilities and research programs is focused on 

identifying and investing in those areas of research most essential for U.S. scientific 

leadership over the next decade. 

Mr. Israel. 

NATIONAL SYNCHROTRON LIGHT SOURCE

Mr. ISRAEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Orbach, let me echo what has been said. I have a very high 

regard for you and very deeply appreciate your leadership, appreciate your visits to Brookhaven National Lab with me, which is a 

very significant priority of mine. And we will miss you. 

I appreciate the department’s commitment to the NSLS, National 

Synchotron Light Source. You mentioned before that you are trying 

to make sure that we at least retain our leadership for a decade 

on light sources. And it seems to me that NSLS is critical to maintaining that leadership for at least a decade. 

I am pleased, once again, to see the commitment for funding for 

this project in fiscal year 2009. Of the $103.3 million budgeted, $93 

million is slated for construction. And my first question is, can you 

give us an update on exactly what is happening with NSLS, the 

construction and related issues? 

Dr. ORBACH. Yes. It is coming along quite well. This was an example of a machine that we didn’t think could be built this decade. 

And the scientists at Brookhaven figured it out and proved us 

wrong, wonderfully. And so we moved to regain that leadership. 

Every country that is interested in biotech or pharmaceuticals or 

areas like that is building a light source. We are seeing Diamond 

built in England, which is a beautiful machine, just built for biology. And so the question is, how do we regain leadership? Just exactly the question Chairman Visclosky asked. 

And in this case, we didn’t want to cede it. We felt that it is so 

important for biology, for materials, for the economic benefit of our 

country, we had to be the best. And so we designed it. 

We took a small hit in 2008. There was about a 30 percent reduction of the amount we had put in for PED. But we can fix that with 

the 2009 request. We now have a firm figure for the baseline for 

NSLS–II. And if we are allowed to follow the construction profile, 

of which the $103 million is a first step in that profile, we will 

build it on time, on budget. 

So we are, so far, on track. The technical issues, which were very 

sophisticated when you get down to that level of resolution, have 

been dealt with. And we have done review after review that the 

laboratory has surpassed beautifully. 

Mr. ISRAEL. If we were to slip on the budget for NSLS, what 

countries are poised to move ahead of us within the next decade? 

You mentioned England? 

Dr. ORBACH. Well, yes, Diamond, which is just coming online, as 

I say, is an exquisite machine. 

You know, if we slip on the funding of NSLS–II, we are going to 

build it. But it will get more expensive. Because once you slip, you 

have escalation and inflation that hurts you. But one way or anVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:21 Jul 24, 2008 Jkt 043355 PO 00000 Frm 00342 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A355P2.XXX A355P2

yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
343 

other, the Office of Science is going to build NSLS–II. I have said 

that even in periods of budgetary stringency. 

This was, again, related to the question that the chairman asked 

me: Can you maintain leadership given difficult budgets? And so 

we are cherry-picking those areas that we feel are critical to our 

country. 

The Linac Coherent Light Source at SLAC in California and the 

NSLS–II will give us leadership in chemistry, in biology, in materials, that no other country can match. We are just going to do it. 

I just hope we can do it on time, on budget, if we get the money. 

CONTINUING RESOLUTION

Mr. ISRAEL. How do we do it if we have a C.R. for 6 months, let’s 

say? What are your plans? 

I appreciate and fully support what you are saying; you know 

that. But the assumption must be, unfortunately, that we are going 

to have, not a 3-month C.R., but we could have a 6-month C.R., 

maybe even longer. 

So what contingencies are you and your budget folks developing 

in that eventually, for, say, a 6-month C.R.? 

Dr. ORBACH. Well, we could keep the R&D going, and we would 

use what funds we have on the C.R. at the fiscal year 2008 level 

that we could use for construction. But it would ultimately end up 

with an increase in cost and a lengthening of the schedule. 

I want to indicate, it sounds easy just to lengthen the schedule, 

but these are machines that our communities are depending on. 

The Northeast, as you are well aware, is a wonderful economic generator of jobs, and pharmaceuticals are especially strong. And the 

NSLS–II will give us the ability to see the proteins and cell walls 

one at a time. They have never been seen before, because they 

don’t crystallize. So, just think of what that means for pharmaceuticals, for drugs and so on. 

We are going to build it. And if it takes longer, it will mean that 

our industries then have to take longer to develop their products. 

Mr. ISRAEL. This will be my final question. Have you been able 

to project the amount of increased cost—— 

Dr. ORBACH. Oh, yes. 

Mr. ISRAEL [continuing]. Or the added schedule? Could you share 

that with the subcommittee? 

Dr. ORBACH. I would prefer to do that for the record—— 

Mr. ISRAEL. Yes, sure. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

NATIONAL SYNCHROTRON LIGHT SOURCE–II (NSLS–II) PROJECT

The National Synchrotron Light Source–II (NSLS–II) project is currently on 

schedule and within budget. In the event of an up-to-three month Continuing Resolution (CR) in FY 2009, no impacts on the project’s cost and schedule are anticipated, assuming that the language of the CR allows spending to continue at the FY 

2008 level. 

A CR lasting into the second quarter would, however, delay key project activities 

and reduce the project’s schedule contingency. The project’s spending rate would be 

reduced to roughly half the planned rate and would necesitate delays in critical experimental facilities R&D activities, in completion of the initial linac design activities, and in site preparation activities. Such delays would substantially increase the 

risk of cost and schedule overruns on the project. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
344 

A CR lasting longer than six months would seriously delay the start of construction and would certainly delay the schedule and increase the cost of the project. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Rehberg. 

Mr. REHBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And welcome to the committee. 

Dr. ORBACH. Thank you. 

CARBON CAPTURE AND SEQUESTRATION

Mr. REHBERG. I have already said hello to Dixon, so I don’t have 

to do that again. [Laughter.] 

I don’t know if you are doing a good job, because this is my first 

hearing with you. 

My question has to do with FutureGen and a change of direction 

within the Department of Energy. And it is hard to have a sense 

of urgency in energy projects or research that takes 10, 15, 20 

years to see to fruition. But one of the concerns that I have is, any 

time you change directions within an agency that affects both the 

agency and the private partners, it creates a delay in the technology actually coming to a commercial schedule. 

And so, can you give me assurances that the decision that was 

made by the DOE is not going to delay the science of sequestration 

and/or carbon capture? 

And, especially as it relates to your budget, are there changes 

that are having to be made within your budget to adjust for a 

change in direction within the Department of Energy? 

Dr. ORBACH. That is a very fine question, and thank you for raising it. 

The reason I say that is that I believe that carbon capture and 

sequestration is critical to the future of coal and of other fossil 

fuels for energy production. And, therefore, given that coal-fired 

power plants amount to 50 percent of our electricity, it is a major 

issue. 

We have joined with Fossil Energy in a collaborative program— 

and, in fact, it is in the budget—for carbon capture and storage. 

And that was unaffected by the decision of the department for 

FutureGen. 

We are working with Fossil Energy not just for FutureGen but 

also for the partnership for carbon sequestration, where they have 

seven sites across the country. And if you look at the budget, you 

will see that we have added $5 million to our already-robust program in sequestration so that we can be there, on the site, with our 

researchers, doing basic research, while the sequestration projects 

are being pursued. 

And we work very closely with Fossil Energy developing a plan 

to make sure that we know where the carbon is, we can measure 

it and we know where it is going when it is stored underground 

in saline aquifers. So we have maintained and expanded our commitment for carbon capture and sequestration. 

FutureGen referred as well to the front end, namely to the socalled combined cycle gasification. And that is an area where, actually, our high-end computers have played a role. We have been able 

to optimize the gasifiers by using simulations on the high-end computers, working with metal and fossil energy. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
345 

So we are beginning to see the integration of the basic science 

with the applications. And I share your view; this is a critical area 

for our country and, indeed, for the world. 

Mr. REHBERG. I inherited an earmark from Senator Burns. He 

got earmarks in zero emissions before I got to Congress, and, now 

that he is gone, I have carried that forward. And we have what is 

called the Center for Zero Emissions Research Technology or 

ZERT, at Montana State University. 

CO2 MONITORING

But I am not familiar with other universities or other programs 

that are either within the Department of Energy or are congressionally mandated from within the existing larger budget. Do you 

know of any other university projects or congressionally mandated 

earmarks that are working on some of the monitoring? 

That is what Montana State’s project is. They have the capacity 

to monitor leakage and such. And they are working on—it is well 

beyond me. I have been there, I have seen it, and I still couldn’t 

explain it to you. But it is pretty interesting. 

Could you tell me of any others? 

Dr. ORBACH. I don’t know expressly, but I would be glad to answer for the record. We could check through it. 

But I will say that that particular issue of monitoring is critical. 

We need to know where that CO2 is and what its behavior is. 

There is only a single example on Earth, off the coast of Norway, 

where such experiments are being conducted. 

But for us in the United States, we have lots of saline aquifers 

into which we can pump CO2. And so, for us, we have a different 

kind of substructure than Norway has. It is critical that we understand that. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
346 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 641 here 43355B.012
347 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 642 here 43355B.013
348 

Mr. REHBERG. They are certainly doing something, then, unique 

that you are not doing within your budget somewhere? 

Dr. ORBACH. I am afraid that I am not familiar in detail with 

what they are doing. But—— 

Mr. REHBERG. I would like to know that, as well. 

I am one of those who can go either way on earmarks. I don’t 

want it to be a duplication if something else is going on within the 

department. But then I also think, on the other side—and the 

members of the committee have heard me say—in some situations, 

when it has been authorized and appropriated and the president 

doesn’t put it into his budget, makes us earmark, then the question 

becomes, why not? 

I mean, if it is, as you say, so important to the future of coal development to have carbon capture and sequestration and the ability 

to monitor, why do I have to keep coming to my colleagues every 

year to ask for a $6 million appropriation to Montana State to do 

something that you ought to just automatically do and give the 

money to Montana State? 

Dr. ORBACH. Well, first of all, Montana State is a fine academic 

institution. And I am very familiar, actually, with the physics department there, which is excellent. 

If you will allow me, I would like to take a closer look at what 

is actually being done, and then I will return to you. 

Mr. REHBERG. Great. Thank you. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Olver. 

BIOENERGY RESEARCH COMPETITION

Mr. OLVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I apologize. I don’t get to hear with the other subcommittee, the 

one that I chair. This happens to be one of those days when my 

other two subcommittees are meeting simultaneously, but not my 

own. So I can be here. And I am pleased—I don’t get much of a 

chance to talk with Mr. Orbach. 

You arrived in 2002 and served as director of the Office of 

Science, which was then elevated to an assistant secretariat, or 

deputy secretary—undersecretary for science in 2006. It seems to 

me that you have made quite an impact here. And the way you express what you are trying to accomplish, it seems to me very exemplary, and I am very impressed by that. 

However, let me—I am actually very pleased with the additional 

money that is being requested in the budget here, though I am 

somewhat concerned that a fair amount of that must be coming because the budget for EERE over in renewable energy sources has 

been substantially reduced. So maybe it has all just been rearranged, and I don’t understand what has been rearranged, so that 

some of that that legitimately maybe should not have been there 

has been moved. 

Under your leadership, there was an initiative in 2007, three 

new bioenergy research centers were created, each center having to 

do with a national lab and a series of universities. I don’t know 

much about that. I suppose you have something specifically about 

that that I could have, to know exactly what those three are. But 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
349 

it has been said that they were named, at a point. They have been 

named, they have been established, those consortia, essentially. 

What are the areas in which—this is biofuels, basically, cellulosic 

ethanol and biofuels. Is that one of the areas that you think we are 

approaching world leadership? Are we there, in your view? 

Dr. ORBACH. Well, that is an area where I believe we are the 

world leader. And it is a very difficult area. It is one of tremendous 

importance for energy and for the balance of carbon dioxide upon 

combustion. 

We have three centers—actually, one of them is at a university, 

University of Wisconsin, which is allied with Michigan State. The 

other two are headed at laboratories. The three of them are very 

complementary. And it was a competition—— 

Mr. OLVER. It was competed? 

Dr. ORBACH. Oh, absolutely. 

Mr. OLVER. For the three of them? The three of them are—— 

Dr. ORBACH. We had enough money—— 

Mr. OLVER [continuing]. Competition. 

Dr. ORBACH. Yes. It was a very tight competition, very exciting 

one, actually. And the competition ended up with the three. And 

they are very complementary, just coming out of the competition. 

The university one, at Wisconsin and Michigan State, focuses on 

sustainability. Can you take biomass and produce enough—— 

Mr. OLVER. So, not only are they in competition, but they are 

also in communication and collaboration. 

Dr. ORBACH. Very closely. 

Mr. OLVER. Very closely. And you are organizing that, as well? 

Although, in the scientific community, it is all pretty open, through 

the processes of publication and review and so forth. 

Dr. ORBACH. Absolutely. 

Mr. OLVER. The word was that their research activities were 

going to begin in the fiscal 2008 budget. Has that actually occurred? Obviously, these places had already been doing basic research that they had put together in different ways. But any new 

impetus from that would have started in 2008? 

Dr. ORBACH. It actually began in 2007. 

Mr. OLVER. Began in 2007. 

Dr. ORBACH. We were able to take funds and, through Congress’s 

approval, provide $30 million at the end of fiscal year 2007 to give 

each of those three bioenergy centers $10 million to start up. They 

are all under way now. 

ENERGY FRONTIER RESEARCH CENTERS

Mr. OLVER. Okay. Now, all right, so that one is one where we 

have, actually, leadership, world leadership. 

You have the other program that you mentioned earlier today of 

$100 million a year, to go out in $2 million to $5 million sums, 

which sounds likely to be anywhere from 20 to 50 such places. That 

sounds like a much more shotgun arrangement. I imagine they are 

going to be competed in some kind of a manner. I would be very 

curious about how that is going to go. 

And what are the areas in which that is going to function? 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
350 

Dr. ORBACH. Well, what we want to do—it will be competed in 

what we call a ‘‘funding opportunity announcement,’’ which means 

it is wide open but it will be peer-reviewed. 

Mr. OLVER. Is it one institution each, one of those $2 million to 

$5 million goes to one institution? 

Dr. ORBACH. That is correct. 

Mr. OLVER. And over what areas of science are those going to be 

focusing? 

Dr. ORBACH. Well, we have given eight or nine suggestions. 

Mr. OLVER. I see. 

Dr. ORBACH. But, in fact, what we want to do is to really explore 

the frontiers. And so, we are going to allow groups to come together—we call it self-assembly—and tell us what areas of energy 

research they would like to address. We have given some examples. 

Mr. OLVER. Okay, you have given them nine examples. But 

these, then, are ones where you think, from your range of scientific 

advisors and so forth, that there are opportunities in the future, 

rather than where we have identified something where we have 

world leadership or are trying to maintain world leadership. Would 

that be fair to say? 

Dr. ORBACH. That is a very accurate description. We have had 

over a dozen workshops since 2002 trying to identify the opportunities for energy production. 

Mr. OLVER. Have you provided the committee with the background and the format for how this is to function, how this is to 

be done? 

Dr. ORBACH. We have discussed it with the staff on the committee. I would be pleased to provide all of the information. Also, 

all of these workshops are on our Web site, and the description of 

the Energy Frontier Research Centers is also on our Web site. 

ENERGY FRONTIER RESEARCH CENTERS

The Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs) are a means to attract the very 

best American scientists and engineers to address our country’s energy needs. EFRC 

awards are expected to be in the $2 to $5 million range annually for a five year 

period. The magnitude of the funding and the five year minimum commitment will 

enable ‘‘self assembly’’ of our finest minds to address current fundamental roadblocks to U.S. energy security. The EFRCs will address energy and science ‘‘grand 

challenges’’ in a broad range of research areas, defined through a series of workshops conducted over the past five years. EFRC proposals will be solicited in an 

open competition among all researchers for the very best ideas to address the fundamental questions of how nature works and to help solve some of our most critical 

real-world challenges. Universities, DOE national laboratories, the private sector, or 

partnerships among these groups are eligible to apply. The selection of the initial 

20 to 30 awards in FY 2009 will depend on the quality of the proposals received 

as determined by peer review. 

There are two main criteria for research in the Energy Frontier Research Centers: 

the research must lie at the forefront of one of the science grand challenges described in the Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (BESAC) report Directing 

Matter and Energy: Five Challenges for Science and the Imagination, and it must 

address one or more of the energy research challenges described in the ten Office 

of Science/Basic Energy Sciences workshop reports on Basic Research Needs series. 

These are: Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems, Catalysis for Energy, Clean and Efficient Combustion of 21st Century Transportation Fuels, Electrical Energy Storage, 

Geosciences: Facilitating 21st Century Energy Systems, The Hydrogen Economy, 

Materials under Extreme Environments, Solar Energy Utilization, Solid-State 

Lighting, and Superconductivity. All of these workshop reports are available on the 

Internet at http://www.sc.doe.gov/bes/reports/list.html. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
351 

Mr. OLVER. Well, I think it is great to actually be looking for 

things which we are not quite sure of. But that means you lay 

them out there, and if you put out 20 or 30 of these, whatever the 

number is that you happen to finally put out, you may get one or 

two that are actually the places that are going to go for major 

breakthroughs, and some of them are going to float along, and 

some of them are going to end up not producing much of anything, 

would be my guess. That is usually the way that research functions. 

Dr. ORBACH. We hope they will all be successful, but you are also 

correct in your final analysis. 

The basic research that will be done in all of these centers will 

be critical. Which ones transform, which ones are transformational 

in how we actually produce energy in our country remains to be 

seen. 

But things like electrical energy storage, for example, which is 

critical if we are ever going to have baseload from intermittent 

sources; issues of biofuels, as we have already talked about—all of 

those are open. 

And what we want to do is—there is so much enthusiasm in the 

research community to contribute to the energy problems facing it. 

These are human beings that pay the same price for gas that you 

do; they are concerned about it. And what we want to do is give 

them the opportunity to come together and create ideas and processes that will give us an advantage in the energy field. 

Mr. OLVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am just preparing myself for the next round. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Calvert. 

ITER

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I am very pleased to be here today with Dr. Orbach. I have 

known the doctor for many years. He was the chancellor at the 

University of California-Riverside, which is in my congressional 

district, and has a great reputation in California, as well as here 

in Washington, D.C. 

And welcome, Doctor. It is good to see you again. 

And let’s talk about ITER a little bit. Obviously, I have been very 

supportive of ITER for some time now. And I think that fusion is 

something that I guess some people describe as a silver bullet. If 

we could ever move in the direction in which we can prove that fusion is a viable energy source for the future of this country, then 

basically many of our energy problems are behind us. 

And I would like to give you the opportunity to describe why 

progress on fusion research in this country is so dependent on our 

participation in this project, ITER. 

Dr. ORBACH. Thank you, Congressman Calvert. And thank you 

for the compliment. I have enjoyed working with you; I look forward to continuing. 

The issue for the world is energy in forms of production that are 

environmentally benign. And there is no other source that I know 

of that is capable of the magnitude of energy production without 

any impact on the environment besides fusion. It is the way the 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
352 

sun works. It is the way the stars are fired. It is an opportunity 

for us to try to create on Earth that environment. 

The difficulty is that the interior of stars exceed any kind of temperature that we have ever controlled on Earth before. And so, we 

now believe that magnetic confinement can work. It is a high risk, 

and I won’t promise that it will work. But if it does, we want to 

be part of it, because the consequences for us and the world will 

be immense. 

We have done very rough estimates that indicate that something 

like half of the extra energy that the world needs under a carbon 

limit could be produced by fusion by the end of this century. That 

is a huge amount of energy. And it is because the only thing that 

you need is deuterium from sea water and lithium, which is one 

of the most abundant elements on Earth. 

So you are starting with elements that are abundant, and what 

you end up with is energy and helium gas. You don’t like helium 

gas—it leaves the Earth because gravity is not strong enough to 

keep it. I just don’t know of another source capable of that amount 

of energy which is clean. And so we are doing everything we can. 

If we are not a part of ITER and it works, just think about the 

United States 30 years, 40 years from now, and the position we 

would be in. In my view, it is absolutely critical that we play a 

major role. 

And our computational simulations, our experiments at MIT, at 

Princeton, at General Atomics, are the best in the world. The ITER 

design, the D-shaped design, is a consequence of our work at General Atomics. 

So we have a huge stake in this. And it has been tough for us, 

but we are going to persevere. I have worked very hard to keep the 

project office alive in Tennessee, at Oak Ridge, because it is a wonderful group of people. It has attracted the very best people in our 

country, for all the reasons that I just outlined. 

U.S. PARTICIPATION IN ITER PROGRAM

Mr. CALVERT. Just from a business point of view, since I came 

out of the business community, we have made a deal, we have 

made a deal with a number of international partners to go into a 

very risky endeavor. Obviously, these partners understand that 

risk, these countries, and they are putting money up. 

And what would happen to us as a country, the United States, 

if we failed to participate, if we failed to meet our obligation within 

this agreement, with international partnerships in the future or 

deals that are going on this very day here in the United States? 

Dr. ORBACH. Well, we have already lost some credibility, and we 

would lose all. Half the world’s population is involved in building 

ITER, and I was criticized over and over again during the negotiations because, ‘‘We couldn’t trust the Americans to stay with us.’’ 

I pushed back. I said we are as good as our word. We ended up 

signing it in November of 2006. It is now ratified and in place. 

It would be tragic for our collaboration on an international scale, 

which I believe is essential for future large-scale scientific experiments. But also, I think we have a huge stake, here in our country, 

for our own self-interest in this program. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Doctor. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
353 

Thank you. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Thank you very much. 

And I am going to recognize Mr. Pastor in just one moment. I 

just would also want to make the observation that it seems as 

though you have just an incredibly unfair advantage before this 

subcommittee, between Mr. Calvert, the fact that the new president of Purdue also held the position you did at U.C.-Riverside. In 

fact, Shari Davenport is from Riverside. It just seems as though 

this is not a fair fight, at this point. 

I will now recognize Mr. Pastor. 

BIOFUELS RESEARCH

Mr. PASTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning. 

In your testimony, you talked about the biofuels, and you talk 

about the limitations and drawbacks of corn- and sugar-based 

biofuels. And I am sure you are aware, in various states, including 

in Arizona, I know that they are doing more research on algae as 

a possible feedstock for the biofuel. 

Are you familiar with any of that research that is going on? 

Dr. ORBACH. Yes, I am. 

Mr. PASTOR. What various places are you aware of it? 

Dr. ORBACH. Well, the research on algae, which is very promising, is focused on both fuels, and in particular fuels like Jp–8— 

is that the right one?—the jet fuel, but it is also possible to generate hydrogen from algae. 

And different parts of our government are supporting different 

aspects of the research. DARPA has just issued an announcement, 

competition, for jet fuel. 

We are looking at the hydrogen production; that is, can you actually treat algae by working with microbial genomics to produce hydrogen? It already does produce hydrogen, but can you actually 

make that commercial? 

Mr. PASTOR. Commercial. 

Dr. ORBACH. So, between the different programs in DOE and 

across the government agencies, we collaborate, we talk to one another. There is tremendous interest in algae. 

Mr. PASTOR. In the omnibus bill that we passed, we have, as part 

of the omnibus bill, ‘‘The department is directed to include algae 

as a potential feedstock in its biomass research and development.’’ 

So is it something you agree with or disagree with or—— 

Dr. ORBACH. Oh, yes, absolutely, and we thank you for that. 

Mr. PASTOR. And, I guess, the real crux of the questioning is 

going to get to, how do you feel about earmarks? [Laughter.] 

You heard about Montana State and the work they are doing. Do 

you think that it is something that is binding on your office, or is 

it advisory, or is it something you can look at and ignore? 

Dr. ORBACH. No, we don’t ignore—we follow congressional direction. And we have always, in my experience, done that. And we intend to continue. 

SCIENCE AND ENERGY STORAGE

Mr. PASTOR. Oh, thank you. Because, I don’t know, several weeks 

ago, we have the Secretary of Energy that probably was on the opVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:21 Jul 24, 2008 Jkt 043355 PO 00000 Frm 00353 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A355P2.XXX A355P2

yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
354 

posite side of your position, it seemed to me anyway. But I am glad 

to hear that you follow the mandated or at least the directed programs that Congress advises you to do. 

Also, in your testimony, and you talk about it, is increasing the 

capacity of storing energy. And we had a panel about 2 weeks ago, 

and I came away with the impression that you can do the biofuel, 

you can do the hydrogen fuel cell, and you can do solar, et cetera, 

but if you don’t have the capacity to store them, that seems to be 

the bottleneck in making it commercially profitable, without the capacity to store it. 

And from that testimony, the impression is that we have the 

chemistry scientists, the people who understand it, but we are behind Korea and, I think, Japan and other countries because of the 

lack of manufacturing capacity. And as we force our auto industry 

to go into hydrogen fuel cells and other types of fuel, it seems like 

we are going to lag in the ability to design and manufacture the 

capacity to store that energy. 

And I think I read in your testimony where that is an area that 

you are very much interested in getting involved in. 

Dr. ORBACH. I think we are doing pretty well. The battery that 

plug-in hybrids need is one of our targets. The lithium ion battery, 

which most of the automobile manufacturers now are looking toward for plug-in hybrids, has been on our radar screen for quite a 

while. 

In fact, the A–123 battery, which GM is using—actually, they 

had a car sitting out here last year, a little black car—that battery 

uses a phosphate electrode that was the result of one of our basic 

research programs. 

So we are committed to electrical energy storage for all the reasons you said. We would like to go beyond what we have now. And 

so, we are also focusing on what we call transformational ways of 

storing electricity. 

This takes us back 200 years. Batteries have single electron 

transfer. They haven’t changed, literally, in centuries. But nature 

uses two electron transfer for photosynthesis. Is there any way that 

we can get multi-electron transfer in a battery? You can just see 

how that would increase the capacity of the battery. 

And, finally, we now have, through nanotechnology, developed 

what we call supercapacitors. When I built radios a long time ago, 

we were talking about microfarads for a measure. We now have capacitors of the same size that can store farads. 

Now, the problem is that there is a materials issue. If we can 

solve that materials issue, we may well use capacitors instead of 

batteries for storage of electricity. 

So there are all kinds of ideas out there that we are working 

with and investing in to see which one would be most effective to 

go beyond what we are doing now. 

Mr. PASTOR. How are you investing in some of those ideas? 

Mr. ORBACH. Through basic research grants. We do that directly. 

I mentioned the Energy Frontier Research Centers before, with 

Congressman Olver, and that is another way that we hope we can 

get people engaged. 

But we are doing it through peer-reviewed basic research. 

Mr. PASTOR. I thank you. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
355 

I thank the chairman. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Simpson. 

U.S. INVOLVEMENT IN INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We are all sitting over here kind of giggling because I certainly 

have always wondered, too, about electron transfers and whether—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SIMPSON. Representative Emerson asked me about 

microfarad, and I said it is a very small farad. [Laughter.] 

So here we are asking you about sciences, which at least I don’t 

understand most of it. I know what an electron is, but—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SIMPSON. I went to an accredited college. [Laughter.] 

You said earlier, when you were talking to Representative Calvert, that you dealt with people from other countries that said you 

couldn’t trust the Americans to stay with us. Do you find that a 

lot? 

Dr. ORBACH. To be honest, yes. 

Mr. SIMPSON. What do you think the genesis of that is? 

Dr. ORBACH. In the science area, it has been a history of projects 

where we have been involved with foreign collaborators and then 

pulled out—the Superconducting Super Collider; we just did it 

again when we had to shut down BaBar at SLAC early; we have 

done it—I would prefer not to go through all of them in open session. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, what do you think the cause is of that phenomenon? 

Because that has been a concern, I think, of members of this 

committee, that, within the Department of Energy, we start down 

a path, then we change paths, and we are always going in different 

directions, and it seems like we never see anything through to completion. And so, consequently, we get very reluctant to be funding 

big, long-term projects, because we are never sure that that project 

is going to see a completion date ever. 

Is it the political process that we have here that changes directions? Is it the fact that, you know, we change administrations so 

rapidly that priorities change? Is it that we don’t select our investments, or where we ought to be investing, put enough thought into 

it beforehand? What do you think the phenomenon is that causes 

that? 

Dr. ORBACH. That is a very difficult question to answer, and I am 

not too sure I know the answer. 

I do know that we have been involved in projects where we have 

not thought through the cost of construction carefully enough. It is 

difficult, sometimes, because they are the first time they have been 

done. 

I will say that, in my 5 years, we have stopped projects, hopefully 

before they began construction. But we did it because we felt that 

either the cost was too high or the timing was such that it made 

no sense to build it. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
356 

There was something called BTeV, which was in our 20-year facilities outlook, and we decided to abandon it. And that was because, by the time we would build it, there would be competition 

and we would not be a world leader. 

We took RIA, the Rare Isotope Accelerator, and we cut that cost 

in half, because we found the Germans were going to invest very 

strongly in this area, and we thought we could do what we needed 

to do with less money. 

So it is a complex set of reasons. 

The reason it is important to maintain commitments when you 

have foreign involvement is that the involvement is not just user 

involvement. At BaBar, for example, the Italian government had 

invested in the experiment itself; they were actually the spokesmen 

of the experiment. 

We profit enormously when other countries invest in us. And 

that is what I am worried about, is that the lack of continuity and 

commitment will discourage that investment. It is not dissimilar 

from other investments in our country, but I am focusing on the 

scientific side. 

We have done everything we can, within the Office of Science, to 

maintain commitments. And, for example, for ITER, we are going 

to keep that project office alive, one way or the other. And it is just 

so important that we are going to do it. And we are going to use 

the resources we have to do it. 

PRIVATE INDUSTRY INVESTMENT

Mr. SIMPSON. You talk about foreign country investment and so 

forth. What about private industry investment? 

We are trying to make more of our facilities user-friendly and 

hopefully recover costs from users of our facilities; is that right? 

Dr. ORBACH. Well, it depends on how the facilities are being 

used. If it is for open science, we don’t charge. We treat industry 

the same way we treat the university researchers. 

For example, on our computers, we have 17 companies that are 

using our leadership class facility. And as long as they agree to 

publish their results in the open literature, there is no charge. It 

is the same as for anybody else. On the other hand, they profit 

from that research. 

If they use it for proprietary purposes, then that is another matter. Then they pay for the cost of operations. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Do they pay the full cost of operations? 

Dr. ORBACH. They certainly do, and we have that audited. 

WORK FOR OTHERS

Mr. SIMPSON. Let me ask you a series of questions here. Your 

laboratories aggressively pursue and perform millions of dollars of 

work for other agencies every year, a practice known as, not surprisingly, ‘‘Work for Others.’’ 

We are all rightly proud of the expertise that our science facilities have developed, and we want to make sure that that expertise 

is available to the rest of the community when it doesn’t detract 

from our core science mission. 

We are concerned about whether the DOE bears a fair share of 

the cost for the expansion of lab capacities needed to perform work 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
357 

for other customers. Are any of the funds that we appropriated to 

the labs to support DOE missions being used by the labs to market 

their services to other agencies or to lobby Congress for increased 

funding? 

Dr. ORBACH. I hope not. The funds that you provide to the laboratories are for the purposes you have indicated and that we are 

pursuing. The work for others is supposed to pay its own way. 

There is an issue of investment in the laboratory infrastructure. 

And there, we use the overhead charge for Work for Others for laboratory renewal. We call that the LDRD funding. 

Whether that is sufficient or not is an interesting question, and 

I don’t know the answer. But we do try to develop our laboratory 

capabilities that others then use in Work for Others through that 

overhead charge. 

Mr. SIMPSON. When the laboratory accepts work for others, does 

it only do so when it has spare space and workforce? If not, do you 

ask the committee for additional up-front funding for additional facilities and to hire new workers? 

Dr. ORBACH. No, we do not. And, yes, it must be something that 

the laboratory can do and not interfere with its core mission. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Do the laboratory contracts impose any sort of ceiling on how many personnel each lab may employ? 

Dr. ORBACH. Not that I know of. 

Mr. SIMPSON. While I could understand why an individual laboratory may want to grow in the future, is it in the best interests 

of the department or the taxpayers to see these labs grow? 

Dr. ORBACH. My belief is yes,—first of all, many of the others are 

federal agencies. And, in addition, I think they provide a service for 

our country. They are very, very sophisticated, and I think there 

is work that can only be done at the laboratories. But, as you said 

at the very beginning, the sine qua non is that their purpose fulfills 

the Department of Energy’s mission. 

Mr. SIMPSON. If the laboratory increases its staff to support work 

for other customers and then those staff are no longer needed, is 

DOE responsible for all of the severance costs associated with those 

employees? 

Dr. ORBACH. I am sorry, I do not know the answer to that. If I 

could respond for the record, I would appreciate it. 

WORK FOR OTHERS

When performing work for other Federal agencies, the Department is required to 

recover the full cost of that work. That full cost includes an overhead or indirect 

component that covers employee benefits, including severance costs. So, the cost of 

severance for laboratory employees is covered by all funding sponsors of the laboratory and not just DOE. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I appreciate it. Thank you. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Berry. 

Mr. BERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Orbach, I am afraid we have just demonstrated to the entire 

world the need for more scientific education, particularly this committee. [Laughter.] 

We appreciate your patience, and we certainly appreciate your 

straightforwardness in the way that you conduct this office. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
358 

Dr. ORBACH. Thank you. 

CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION

Mr. BERRY. I am almost afraid to try to ask you a question. 

[Laughter.] 

Because Simpson is going to try to make it look like I am from 

Arkansas and I talk slow. [Laughter.] 

When Mr. Hobson was the chairman of this committee—he is 

now the ranking member—he came to Arkansas and visited a 

water project that we were working on. And a reporter came up to 

him and said, ‘‘I understand that if you do this project, once it is 

completed it will still take 200 years to correct the problem that 

we are building this project to correct.’’ And Mr. Hobson’s response 

to the reporter was, ‘‘Well, if it is going to take 200 years, we had 

better get started.’’ [Laughter.] 

I thought that was a pretty good answer. 

From what you have said this morning, I get the impression that 

maybe the Congress doesn’t appreciate the urgency of these matters at times, that we are not proceeding—I know, during World 

War II and the Cold War, we put just about any amount of money 

that we needed to put in to develop the nuclear weapons that we 

used during World War II and to develop rockets and all of the war 

machines that we have built. 

And I get the sense that the matter is just as urgent today. It 

may just be a little bit different characterization. Instead of building a war machine, we are building an energy machine, for lack of 

a better way to describe it. 

Are we acting, as a Congress, as urgently and as in timely a 

manner as we need to be? 

I am not trying to get you to ask for something that you are not 

supposed to ask for. But I feel like we are not investing in these 

matters as much as we should be. 

Dr. ORBACH. Mr. Congressman, first of all, I think you do understand completely what the issues are. And I am grateful to this 

committee for its support. The fiscal year 2008, as the chairman indicated, fiscal year 2008 omnibus funded fully our program for our 

bioenergy research centers. The biology and environmental research program was actually given more than the president requested, and I believe that is because the committee felt strongly 

in its mission. And we appreciate that very much. 

The magnitude of the problem that you described is something 

that I don’t think our country has ever dealt with before. I just 

think we have had an atmosphere that somehow energy is available, it is plentiful, it is cheap, we don’t have to worry about it. 

And so, frankly, we are now struggling with something that, frankly, I don’t think any of us were prepared to deal with. 

My belief is it is the most serious problem that our country will 

ever face. Because, without energy, our economy will collapse. 

The trouble is that we have an environmental issue on top of everything else. And so what we are struggling to do is to come up 

with changes in the way we go about producing energy that will 

be both energy-productive and environmentally benign. 

And it is my personal belief that our current technology is not 

capable. This means that we have got to invest in the future. And 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
359 

so I am doing everything I can within our budgetary limits to do 

so. 

I do think Congress understands this. I think that you have been 

supportive. And, as I said before, we are appreciative. 

The scale of the problem is something that is quite staggering. 

My own belief is that we need a continuum of opportunities. We 

need something in what I will call the short near term, the next 

2 to 3 years, that we can rely on. And there are bioenergy research 

centers. They are one of our main hopes. 

But we also have to plan for the long term. And there, ITER is 

the long term. And we have things along the way that we hope will 

materialize. Electrical energy storage that Congressman Pastor 

was referring to, that is not going to happen, I don’t believe—I 

hope it will, but I don’t think it will happen quickly. But we need 

to make the investment so that it can happen. 

So what we have tried to do in our budget is to look at a continuum, 2 or 3 years from now and on out till, say, 35, 40 years, 

at energy production that is environmentally benign. I can’t promise you that we will be successful, but I can say that if we don’t 

try it, then we are going to pay a heavy price. 

Mr. BERRY. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Thank you, Mr. Berry. 

Doctor, what I am going to do is recognize Ms. Emerson for a line 

of questions. We have two votes, so it will be our intent to leave 

toward the end of the first and come back to continue, if that would 

be okay. 

And before members leave too, I also just want to suggest that— 

I want to thank you and all the members. 

I want to thank you very much for Uday Varadarajan, who is a 

detailee from your office. And while Mr. Berry would feign ignorance, Uday has done a terrific job in describing things like inertial 

confinement and its distinction between magnetic confinement. The 

problem I have, at 58, is retaining any of that information. [Laughter.] 

But now I would recognize Mrs. Emerson. 

RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARDS

Mrs. EMERSON. Thanks so much for being here, Dr. Orbach. We 

do love having you. And you are the most articulate physicist I 

have ever met. [Laughter.] 

And my uncle was one, so, actually, I have a tiny bit of experience. But you, sort of, make the science come to life, and it is a 

great gift. And so we thank you for all you do. 

Just because we have a constrained time limit, let me ask you 

one question on each of the subjects I wanted to ask you about. 

And I apologize, since I was late; I was in another committee. 

On the renewable fuel standard, obviously you are aware of the 

energy bill that the Congress recently passed and the president 

signed that calls for us to meet a 36–billion-gallon renewable fuel 

standard goal by 2022. I think that is, from what I can tell, kind 

of a steep hill to climb. 

But anyway, if you could elaborate a little bit on both the challenges we face and the strategies that are being developed to comply with this renewable fuel standard, I would be grateful. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
360 

Dr. ORBACH. Well, it is a steep hill. I think you understand perfectly. 

I used to think that cellulosic ethanol from corn would be—pardon me—corn-based ethanol, the sugars from corn, would be limited to about 17 billion gallons, just on the basis of how much you 

could produce. I have been told by our farming community, no way, 

they could hit 30 billion gallons. And so—— 

Mrs. EMERSON. I don’t think—— 

Dr. ORBACH. Well—— 

Mrs. EMERSON. I mean, we would have to plow up an awful lot 

of land. I think that is a little bit steep. And, believe me, I have 

a total agriculture district, so I will do anything the farmers say. 

I think that is a little bit high, though. Anyway, go ahead. 

Dr. ORBACH. I would never argue with either you or the farmers. 

Mrs. EMERSON. I don’t argue with my farmers either. 

Dr. ORBACH. But nevertheless there are problems, in terms of— 

it is exactly as you said—farm land. The cost of grain now is going 

through the roof. There is also the issue of carbon, because of the 

fertilizers and other products that are necessary for farming. 

So my belief is that we will get to the 36 billion, but the pathway 

will be through cellulosic ethanol and cellulosic fuels. 

I want to make clear that it is not just ethanol; that we are, in 

fact, at our bioenergy centers now looking at things like gasoline 

and diesel fuel from biomass. And it is not only feasible, I think 

that it is real. And you will be hearing more within the next couple 

of years, as we begin to learn how to add these additional carbons 

to the fuel. 

It won’t only be from fermentation. We are seeing some initial 

signs of really quite remarkable success from other ways of converting the sugars to fuel. They involve catalysis, with remarkable 

new catalytic structures. 

I think there are some real surprises ahead. The next couple of 

years are going to be very exciting for fuel from biomass. We have 

enough biomass—our studies with USDA—and you and I have spoken about this—to replace roughly 30 percent of our fuels. The 36 

billion represents something like 15 percent of what our fuel consumption would be in 2022. We have got more there. And I believe 

this is an investment well worth our interest and attention. 

Mrs. EMERSON. You know, we actually have a—there is a company that is doing some experimental work in my hometown of 

Cape Girardeau that is actually taking biomass and converting it 

into gasoline. And it is, you know, kind of interesting. So, anyway, 

I appreciate that answer. 

CAFE STANDARDS

Let me ask you one other question real quick, with regard to 

CAFE standards. You mention them in your written testimony. 

And is the Office of Science coordinating you all’s research and development efforts with the auto manufacturers? Or is that happening somewhere else in DOE? 

Dr. ORBACH. It is happening all across DOE. Our interface with 

the automobile manufacturers is at the basic research level. They 

have excellent researchers. And we are in close contact with them, 

and, in fact, they use our facilities. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
361 

And we are, for example, very much involved in the plug-in hybrid battery issue. I mentioned the lithium ion battery. And the 

fuel cell issue, we are involved with them. For hydrogen propulsion, 

hydrogen storage, we are working with them. 

Mrs. EMERSON. This is a silly question, but do you all include 

consumer preferences or tendencies when you—you know, are those 

taken into account at all when you are developing vehicle technologies? I am just curious. 

Dr. ORBACH. It is a very interesting question. We technically 

don’t understand how to do that. 

However, the noise issue for cars is something that I, as a consumer, and you also care about. And so we are working with General Motors to design the airfoil properties of cars to reduce noise. 

Toyota has done that. That is why some of the Japanese cars are 

quieter. 

That is a consumer issue. It is also, actually, an energy issue. 

But we are actually using our computational facilities for that, but 

I am afraid that is not one of our great expertise areas. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Just wondering. Just wondering. 

I better stop there. I think we only have 4 minutes—3. Thank 

you so much. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Doctor, we will return in a few minutes. 

Dr. ORBACH. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

ENERGY FRONTIER RESEARCH CENTERS

Mr. VISCLOSKY. We will go back into session. 

Dr. Orbach, you have had a number of interchanges, particularly 

with Mr. Olver, on the Energy Frontier Research Centers in the 

Office of Basic Energy Sciences, and had a discussion generally 

about the proposal as well as the $100 million request. 

The question I would have is, much of this funding is intended 

to support research envisioned for these centers. What is the value 

added by the centers themselves? 

And also, is the funding for research, or is it for buildings and 

facilities to do research in? Because when you think of centers, you 

think of some physical place and structure. Is this for research at 

existing centers? Is this to build, from a construction standpoint, 

centers? How will the monies be used? 

Because while $2 million to $5 million on one level is a lot of 

money, in this scenario it is not a great deal of money. 

Dr. ORBACH. It would not be used for buildings. It would not be 

used for capital equipment. It would be used for research. There 

may well be research equipment that would be required, but it is 

meant for people. 

And it would be used for groups, because we believe that there 

is an intermediate between the individual project grant and something as big as a laboratory that we have not explored before for 

this purpose. 

And so we would hope that maybe half a dozen researchers 

would get together, say, at a university, and we would be interested in pursuing some of the aspects that would be helpful for energy purposes for our country—and would self-assemble and would 

create something that six individuals separately could not do and 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
362 

they would work together. You might have people from different 

parts of a discipline who would work together collaboratively. 

So it is meant to, sort of, fill in the middle between the individual project grant and these very large laboratories. And it 

would, we believe, bring into the energy sphere individuals who are 

very, very fine, who want to contribute but who have not been 

given the opportunity to do so. The $2 million to $5 million would be exclusively for research 

and would be committed over a 5-year period. There are no matching requirements. There is nothing else associated with it. It is focused on energy. 

And there would be reviews. But, after 5 years, if they were successful, the intention would be to renew. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Would private-sector entities also be able to compete? 

Dr. ORBACH. Yes. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Okay. What is your plan in the out-years, for 

2010, 2011, 2012? Will there be a commensurate request? Will 

there be follow-on monies on an annual basis then for this first 5- 

year period, or will there be additional competition for other centers, if you would? 

Dr. ORBACH. The answer is yes. 

What we are doing is working under the trajectory of the America COMPETES Act or the American Competitiveness Initiative. 

Both of them essentially track each other. And what we would do—the $100 million would be there for 5 

years in our budget. We would take a look after—— 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. So it all would not be expended in 2009? 

Dr. ORBACH. It would all be expended in 2009. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Okay. 

Dr. ORBACH. Because it is $100 million in the first year, another $100 million in the second and so on. It is permanent. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Okay, okay, I got you. 

Dr. ORBACH. But what we would do is we would take a look, 

after a couple of years—we anticipate this is going to be very successful, but we will take a look, and if it is successful and if the 

trajectory that I just described can happen, then we would probably 

have a second round of competition, and continuing the first, so 

that we would add more of these groups to our energy issues. 

It is hard to imagine 6 years out, but in some steady state I 

would like to see on the order of a hundred of these around the 

country. But we have to get there. And I can’t promise that the trajectories will allow us to do it. 

But we will keep the 20 to 30 funded at $100 million per year 

for 5 years. That is built into our base budget. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Although I assume, with your annual review, if 

something is not being productive or someone takes a hard turn in 

the road, there is no guarantee in the out-years. 

Dr. ORBACH. That is correct. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Okay. 

The committee and I, for one—and, again, I think I speak for the 

committee—really appreciate this initiative. It is an initiative of 

the office that strongly spurs competition, opening it up to additional entities. And we appreciate that. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
363 

We do endorse the open, competitive model being proposed for 

the centers, which feature head-to-head competition between national labs and universities to ensure the best proposals. 

A concern I do have is for smaller universities and entities that 

still, nevertheless, given some of the larger institutions in this 

country, may be at a disadvantage in competing for these centers. 

How do you plan to address that issue in the competition? 

Dr. ORBACH. Well, I happen to be from one of those small universities. And that is why the small group, say, half a dozen, is so important. 

Small universities can be very strong in specific areas. A small 

institution cannot cover all the areas, but most universities of quality will focus on some area that they are strong in. 

And I think the small institutions are going to do just fine, because we are not talking about the whole campus. And we hope 

they will seize upon this. We are trying to make it well-known. I 

spoke before an executive board, a very large cross-section of institutions from across the country, acquainting them with this opportunity. 

I think the small institutions may do just fine. 

APPLIED RESEARCH FUNDING

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Dr. Orbach, your request for the office does call 

for a significant increase. Other areas in the DOE’s budget, as I 

mentioned in my opening statement, see reductions for energy 

technology programs, with the exception of the nuclear sector. 

And with oil around $100 a barrel, you have mentioned, yourself, 

the issue of climate change and needing the best analysis, as far 

as a broad portfolio of energy options; and your tasking to advise 

the Secretary of Energy on scientific issues relative to all mission 

objectives, do you believe that the energy technology offices have 

adequate funding for applied science research in this budget, to 

make use of the scientific results of the basic research? 

Dr. ORBACH. Mr. Chairman, I do. We work very closely with the 

applied programs—with Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 

I mentioned Fossil Energy before. We also work with Nuclear Energy. We work across the board with the applied programs. 

And what we try to do is to maintain the integrity of both, so 

that the basic research and the applied research maintain their 

identity, because that is, after all, what those programs are good 

at. 

But we coordinate at the interface. And in our budget, for the 

first time, you will see six examples of that coordination. And we 

have worked, over this past year, very closely. 

We sent to Congress, in the summer of 2006, 21 areas that we 

thought were ripe for collaborative research. And then, this year, 

over the years, we have worked to develop these relationships. 

The Office of Science will put about, I think it is, $115 million 

of the 2009 budget into these coordinated research relationships. 

And it is something like $400 million, when you take the applied 

program contributions into account—roughly a two-to-one. 

And the purpose of this is to help one another; to have the basic 

research in form be applied, but also we learn from the applicaVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:21 Jul 24, 2008 Jkt 043355 PO 00000 Frm 00363 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A355P2.XXX A355P2

yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
364 

tions. It is a feed to the basic research area which has proven to 

be very effective. 

So it is a true coordination. And I gave the example of carbon 

sequestration, where we would literally have our research scientists on the site of the partnerships. But there are other examples in electrical energy storage and others that are in the budget. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. And I would want to commend you for your efforts to integrate that R&D. That certainly is our impression. 

But it would, then, be your belief that the budget provides sufficient funding for long-term applied science? 

Dr. ORBACH. I would say so, yes, sir. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Okay. And I did not ask, and I would for the 

record, getting back to the Energy Frontier Research Centers, staff 

has indicated that your office and yourself have talked to us about 

those. But you did indicate there were eight or nine areas. If you 

could, for the record, enumerate what those areas are. 

Dr. ORBACH. Of course. 

ENERGY FRONTIER RESEARCH CENTERS

The Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs) program was formulated based 

on the series of Basic Research Needs workshops organized and run by the Office 

of Science in cooperation with DOE energy technology programs. These workshops 

engaged more than 1,500 participants from universities, industry, and DOE laboratories, who identified high priority research directions to address the most critical 

energy research and technology gaps. Workshop topic areas include the hydrogen 

economy; solar energy utilization; superconductivity; solid-state lighting; advanced 

nuclear energy systems; combustion of 21st century transportation fuels; electricalenergy storage; geoscience as it relates to the storage of carbon dioxide and spent 

nuclear fuel; materials under extreme environments; and catalysis for energy-related processes. 

An EFRC must address one or more of the energy research challenges described 

in the Basic Research Needs workshop reports. Examples of scientific focus areas 

that would respond to the EFRC Funding Opportunity Announcement include: direct conversion of solar energy to electricity and chemical fuels; understanding how 

biological feedstocks are converted into portable fuels; a new generation of radiationtolerant materials and chemical separation processes for fission applications; addressing fundamental knowledge gaps in energy storage; transforming energy utilization and transmission; and science-based geological carbon sequestration. The 

EFRC program is designed to allow maximum flexibility to support a broad spectrum of innovative basic research and to bring together lead scientists from one or 

more institutions. We are particularly interested in tapping the imagination and 

creativity of the scientific community to address the fundamental questions of how 

nature works and to harness this new knowledge to meet some of our most critical 

energy challenges. Universities, DOE national laboratories, the private sector, and 

partnerships among these groups are eligible to apply for EFRC awards. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Ryan. 

Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chairman, I am going to pass for a minute. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Olver. 

Mr. OLVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, I want to reiterate the words that were said by Mrs. 

Emerson previously. I think you have done a wonderful job. You 

must be a wonderful teacher on what can be very difficult material, 

and a wonderful lecturer and an explainer, obviously, of this to people. I did not hear, at any point in this testimony, a hint of speaking down to any question on the part of any person on this side 

of the table, and I very much appreciate that. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. It might have been tempting to do. [Laughter.] 

Mr. OLVER. It might have been, I don’t know. 

Dr. ORBACH. You are being unfair to yourself. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
365 

ITER FUNDING

Mr. OLVER. And, of course, now I am going to ask some stupid 

question maybe, that it will be even more tempting, I don’t know. 

I wanted to ask you one more thing on ITER. How much of the 

budget increase is for our obligations under ITER? 

Dr. ORBACH. It is quite a substantial part. We are asking for 

$214 million in the 2009 budget for our contribution to ITER. 

Mr. OLVER. So, essentially, that is the whole of the budgetary increase? If I could find the damn budget. 

Dr. ORBACH. Yes. It is a little less. The fusion budgetary increase, if my memory is right, is about $206 million. But buried in 

that is a $203 million increase for ITER. I think those are the right 

numbers. 

Mr. OLVER. Well, I am having a hard time finding it again. I 

have made myself a bunch of little tabs. 

Does that grow? Is that a steady growth over the years, from 

year to year, is that the expectation? 

Dr. ORBACH. Yes. It is a construction profile. And so we would 

see that grow. In the out-years, I think the budget for fusion energy sciences reaches about $500 million because of the envelope. 

Mr. OLVER. If we were not to do that, if we refused to do that— 

or even if we join in this cooperation, as I agree with you that we 

really must do, would you sense that we ought to do fusion by ourselves as well? Or would we commit ourselves to whatever is being 

done in fusion is going to be done through ITER? 

Dr. ORBACH. We can’t afford to do it ourselves. We pay 9 percent 

of the cost of construction for ITER, and we get 100 percent of its 

operations. 

Mr. OLVER. And you made the comment that half of the world’s 

population is involved in that. That must mean China and India 

are both involved in it. 

Dr. ORBACH. That is correct. 

Mr. OLVER. Okay, along with the other major industrial countries. 

But you don’t envision, at some point, that we would try to establish that world leadership on fusion by ourselves, separate from 

ITER, at any point? It would all be done on a worldwide basis. 

Dr. ORBACH. It is a very important question, and it is a little 

tricky. 

For the research on ITER, no, there is nothing that can replace 

it, because it is a question of scale. You have to produce a burning 

plasma of enough energy so you get more out than you put in. 

Mr. OLVER. But that is, then, committing oneself to magnetic 

confinement. 

Dr. ORBACH. That is correct. 

Mr. OLVER. Are we certain, at this point, that that is to be the 

only route to breakthrough on fusion? 

Dr. ORBACH. No—— 

Mr. OLVER. And you were talking about, earlier here, this being 

the silver bullet maybe by the middle of the century. Well, that is 

almost 42 years away. We used to talk about it being 50 years 

away. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
366 

Dr. ORBACH. We will know if ITER works probably much sooner 

than that. It is about an 8-year construction and then, say, 10 

years of operations. We will know in about 15 years whether it 

works or not. 

The other areas you are thinking about—for example, inertial fusion—have not shown the ignition properties yet that magnetic 

confinement has. NIF, which is being built at Lawrence Livermore, 

will be the first opportunity to see a fuel pellet actually ignite. 

So the way I have looked at it—and it may not be the right 

way—is that their proof of principle will occur in 2010, 2011. We 

will see if they can actually get ignition. 

Magnetic confinement has gotten ignition. We did it at Princeton 

initially, years ago. And they are doing it at a place called JET in 

England. So the proof of principle for magnetic confinement, in my 

view, has been demonstrated. 

Mr. OLVER. Is ZETA pinch also a magnetic confinement? 

Dr. ORBACH. Yes, but it hasn’t reached the scale of ignition. 

ENERGY STORAGE

Mr. OLVER. Okay. All right, look, I have got to go on to something else here, or my time will have to wait for another round. 

On the battery issue, is the lithium ion battery—are you anticipating any of these $2 million to $5 million-type grants to go to 

some alternative to the lithium ion? Or are we convinced, at this 

point, that this is going to be our commitment as to what would 

be a battery going with hybrid vehicles? 

Dr. ORBACH. Oh, I can’t answer that question. It will depend on 

the competition. It certainly appears to be the best thing we have 

right now. 

Mr. OLVER. At the moment. 

Dr. ORBACH. At the moment. Whether it will continue to be remains to be seen. 

Mr. OLVER. There is some worry about closing doors to research. 

And these kinds of research areas, there might be something that 

would come in that would pose a theoretically reasonable approach 

to another battery that would be as good or better. 

Dr. ORBACH. Or a capacitor. 

ENERGY FRONTIER RESEARCH CENTERS

Mr. OLVER. Well, all right, that raises the other issue. In an earlier lifetime of mine, I was an electrochemist. And I was sitting 

here thinking to myself, we wrote those electrochemical reactions 

often with two electron transfers. And, yes, I realized as you were 

explaining that to us that, yes, we viewed those as occurring one 

at a time. Although, by the time the equation is written, you have 

two—I don’t remember any when it was necessary to write three 

or more into it. It usually was one or two. 

But you have now pointed out that—and I never thought of it 

that way—that in photosynthesis you have two electrons. Are any 

of these $2 millions to $5 millions going to be in the area of two 

electron transfer approaches to the—— 

Dr. ORBACH. I hope so. Again, I don’t know. I am nervous about 

speculating on what the actual proposals will be. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
367 

We very much hope that people around our country will apply in 

electrical energy storage. And we are trying to give, through our 

own research that we have already done, examples of areas which 

they might address. But it is really meant to be open. 

Mr. OLVER. Okay. Well, we will get some more information about 

what your intended areas are and how this program is supposed 

to work. 

Dr. ORBACH. Oh, yes. 

Mr. OLVER. You had mentioned that private-sector entities might 

compete. 

Dr. ORBACH. Oh, yes. 

Mr. OLVER. What kind of private-sector—what range of privatesector entities? 

Dr. ORBACH. It could be—— 

Mr. OLVER. Industrial laboratories? 

Dr. ORBACH. Oh, yes. It could be small start-up companies that 

have a research capability. In the pharmaceutical area you have 

got a lot of small companies that have superb people. 

We are not limiting it. And, I must say, this is through this committee that we have developed these approaches. 

Mr. OLVER. I had envisioned them mostly as university centers. 

But you are going to do 20 to 30, and those 20 to 30 will be funded with the next sequences over a several-year period of the same 

ones that have been funded, but with the caveat that the chairman 

had mentioned: If something really tanks, you are certainly not 

going to continue it. You keep monitoring them along the way. 

And then you might start another round of 20 to 30, with an additional $100 million per year, at some later time. But the intent 

is to do this 20 to 30 that you would first compete and fund those 

over a period of, say, 5 years. 

Dr. ORBACH. Exactly. 

Mr. OLVER. Okay. 

When you want to go on, I will stay around for another round. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Simpson. [Laughter.] 

Mr. RYAN. I get nervous when he gets that look on his face. 

ITER FUNDING

Mr. SIMPSON. I sit and listen to this, and it is just kind of—you 

know, I get kind of lost. 

Do you know why it is more important to brush your teeth before 

you eat rather than after? That is something I know about; I am 

a dentist. [Laughter.] 

No, I am just kidding. 

Let me ask you a question. If ITER is so important, and you 

seem to make a good case for it, why didn’t the president request 

funding for it in the supplemental? Have you had a problem convincing the administration, the White House, of its importance? 

Dr. ORBACH. We simply don’t know. I do not know, as of this moment, whether the administration will ask for supplemental funding for ITER. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Have you asked them to? 

Dr. ORBACH. We have certainly made it clear through the administration that we would welcome that. But it is really a presidential 

decision. And we do not have information. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
368 

PNNL CONTRACT

Mr. SIMPSON. Let me ask another couple. We talked about competition just a minute ago. Could you explain why your office recently canceled the competition for the contract at PNNL? 

Dr. ORBACH. Yes. We had sent out a draft RFP, and in that draft 

we said that we would not accept as part of a proposal, a bid, the 

issue of a use permit. We would not allow a use permit to be part 

of the contract. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Explain that, if you would, please. 

Dr. ORBACH. The current contract at PNNL—and it is only at 

PNNL—allows the contractor to use federal facilities for private 

ventures. They pay full cost, full cost recovery. But it means that 

they can work with private sector, also with the government sector, 

through the contractor to make use of federal facilities. 

And when we looked closely at it, we felt, first of all, that it was 

not necessary, and in some funny way it may even have been negative for tech transfer; that other laboratories that did not have a 

use permit were doing beautifully, working with the private sector. 

We just felt there were too many problems with it. 

In the event Congress, as part of the omnibus bill, passed a law 

that said that we had to continue the use permit, unless both parties—the contractor and the department—agreed to end it, under 

those circumstances you couldn’t get the competition to work anymore, so we canceled the competition. 

And we have been in conversation with the contractor. We can 

do that because there is no competition on the table. And we are 

still in the middle of that process. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Do any of the other labs have the use permit issue? 

Dr. ORBACH. No. 

CONTRACT COMPETITIONS

The current status of contract competitions for the remaining nine Office of 

Science national laboratories is: Contracts for Argonne and Thomas Jefferson were 

competed in FY 2006, and contracts for Ames and Fermi in FY 2007; the Berkeley 

contract was competed in FY 2005, and the Oak Ridge Contract in FY 2000. The 

Stanford contract expires on September 30, 2009 and the Brookhaven contract on 

January 4, 2010. The Princeton contract is currently in the process of being competed. 

Mr. SIMPSON. What is the status of contract competitions for the 

remaining nine Science labs? 

Dr. ORBACH. I don’t know if I can remember all of them. Can I 

answer that for the record? 

Mr. SIMPSON. Sure. 

Dr. ORBACH. Because I am worried that my memory may not be 

correct. 

We have made a commitment to this committee that we would 

complete the laboratory contracts. There may be an exception for 

specific reasons that will develop, but I would prefer not to talk 

about it. But I will provide that information for the record. 

Mr. SIMPSON. What is the length of contract that we are looking 

at? 

Dr. ORBACH. Well, typically a contract is for 5 years. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Right. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
369 

Dr. ORBACH. And our new contract structure, because of our appraisal process which we instituted about 2 years ago, allows a contractor under the new contracts to earn an extra year if they score 

above a certain plateau that we have set for performance. 

And so, in principle, assuming that the laboratory satisfies that 

grading system—and it is a grading system—they could have the 

contract for 20 years. So it is a 5-year contract, but if the performance is above this threshold level—it is quite a high threshold— 

then we would give them an extra year. And that extra year would 

accumulate out to a maximum total of 20. 

Mr. SIMPSON. When we rebid the INL contract, one of the things 

we wanted to do—and, ultimately, successfully did with the laboratory part of the contract—was have a 10-year contract. We felt like 

a 5-year contract wasn’t sufficient. But to have a 10-year contract 

with appropriate off-ramps for nonperformance. You are taking a 

different approach, with 5-year contracts with on-ramps for successful work that is done there. 

Do you have any idea which direction do you think is the best 

way to go? 

And our feeling was, quite frankly, that having seen it for years 

and having seen the different contractors come into the INL, that 

really what you have is 3 years of work with a 5-year contract. 

First year that they were coming in, they were new to the contract, 

they were getting their feet on the ground, getting things running. 

Then they worked for 3 years, and then the last year was to recompete for the lab. 

And so, consequently, you didn’t really get 5 years of work out 

of them. I don’t want to make that sound like they didn’t do anything those other 2 years. But it made it really difficult, and we 

felt like a 10-year contract was more appropriate. 

Dr. ORBACH. Well, that is why we went to that year-by-year. It 

is proactive, rather than reactive. 

Part of this depends on the appraisal process. 

And we believe our appraisal process is quite robust and gives 

us a very good handle—it is actually public. We put the report 

cards on the Web, and you can compare one lab with another. 

And so, if we didn’t have the appraisal process, we would have 

this issue. But with the appraisal process and this rather high 

threshold for extension, we felt that we would be better off that 

way. 

And you are quite right, if you just have a 5-year window, it is 

very difficult. 

But this way, a contractor that is really performing at a very 

high level would not have that problem, because there would always be 3 or more years out in front. 

CONTRACT COMPETITION FOR SCIENCE LABS

Mr. SIMPSON. Does the issue of third-party financing of buildings 

and so forth with some of these laboratories, do they come into the 

contract negotiation and extensions? 

Dr. ORBACH. I don’t know about the contract negotiation itself, 

but we have participated in third-party financing, for example, at 

PNNL, as part of the 300 Area. I don’t know if that is in the contract or not. Again, I can find out and respond back. But we are 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
370 

allowed, under our current contracts, to develop third-party financing arrangements. 

THIRD-PARTY FINANCIAL

Third-party financing of buildings is not part of the consideration in the contract 

negotiation and extension process. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Are you having trouble with OMB in doing that? 

Dr. ORBACH. We have to—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. We had a problem at the site that was trying to 

do a third-party financing, and OMB was a difficult customer. 

Dr. ORBACH. Yes, they are a difficult customer, but for good reasons. They are trying to make sure that this is in the government’s 

interest. And that is not so simple to prove. 

And, in fact, on the PNNL situation, as I indicated, there are two 

of the three buildings that will enable us to exit the 300 Area that 

will be third-party financed. 

And they were very difficult, but I think for the right reason. 

They wanted us to show that it was in the government’s interest 

to do this, rather than just build them. And they made us jump 

through hoops. 

Ultimately, they approved it. And I think that we were able to 

show that it was the right way to go. 

But I welcome that kind of supervision. I mean, it is the right 

thing. 

Mr. SIMPSON. And I don’t disagree with the supervision. Sometimes I wonder about the extent of their oversight and how restrictive they are getting, because, as you know, in most of our laboratories, we have aging facilities. We don’t have the infrastructure 

budget to rebuild a lot of these facilities. And, consequently, we try 

to turn to other sources of trying to finance some of these things. 

I mean, we have scientists at the INL in old garages and old grocery stores? These are the top-notch scientific laboratories that 

they should be. And if we can’t get the infrastructure needs 

through appropriations through Congress, other sources of financing through third parties is, to me, a viable alternative to do. 

Dr. ORBACH. I concur. And, actually, I visited INL and saw those 

facilities. They have to, nevertheless, be in the government’s interest to do that financing as opposed to direct appropriation. And it 

has worked. I mean, 2 years ago, or a year ago I guess, we got the 

green light and we have gone forward at PNNL. 

CHAIN OF COMMAND FOR LANSCE FACILITY

Mr. SIMPSON. Let me ask just one other series of questions. The 

LANSCE facility at Los Alamos is in a unique position. This is a 

major science asset, yet it resides physically in the middle of a 

weapons lab. 

What is the chain of command for reporting for this facility? 

Dr. ORBACH. This is CINT, are you referring to? 

Mr. SIMPSON. LANSCE. 

Dr. ORBACH. Oh, LANSCE. I am sorry. I misunderstood. 

LANSCE is a facility for not only our work, neutron diffraction 

through the Lujan Center, but also for weapons studies. And that 

is sponsored by NNSA. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
371 

And part of the stored beam in LANSCE is used by us for open 

science at the Lujan Center for neutron diffraction, which is a 

pulsed neutron source. 

Mr. SIMPSON. So what is the chain of command for reporting for 

that? 

Dr. ORBACH. That is right up through NNSA, for LANSCE, is 

right up through NNSA. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Given the limitation of your authority over Los Alamos imposed by the NNSA act, how do you ensure that this asset 

remains responsive to the science programs? 

Dr. ORBACH. I think it has been just the other way around. I 

think that our relationships with NNSA have been such that they 

want to see the Lujan Center succeed. And so they have been very, 

very supportive of the center and trying to refurbish LANSCE to 

provide beam to the center. We have not had any difficulty. 

Mr. SIMPSON. And how does the user community access facilities 

that are at weapons labs? And are there restrictions on university 

personnel and foreign-born nationals and other people for using it 

as a user facility? 

Dr. ORBACH. The answer is that we require all of our user facilities to be open. We do have restrictions— 

Mr. SIMPSON. How does that work at a weapons lab? 

Dr. ORBACH. People access a database and get access to the facility. 

Mr. SIMPSON. So you don’t see any restrictions? There are no 

problems with them—— 

Dr. ORBACH. There is a problem for countries that are determined to be terrorist-supporting. Citizens of those countries or individuals born in those countries need special access. 

And we have a process within the department where I and the 

other relevant agencies in the department review their role and 

make sure that it is not in conflict with government policy, and 

then they can also gain access. 

Mr. SIMPSON. So you don’t see any problem that has been imposed by having this at a weapons lab? 

Dr. ORBACH. Well, I think—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. Should we, in the future, be looking at—— 

Dr. ORBACH. Yes, that is a hard one for me to answer. I think, 

for a graduate student having to go through the process of gaining 

access, it can’t be very comfortable. But on the other hand, they do 

it. And so it seems to work pretty well. 

CINT—that is why I asked you about CINT—is the nano facility 

which is jointly located at Los Alamos and at Sandia. And there it 

is outside the fence. And what it is, is a vehicle for reaching in, but 

there is no security. It is outside. 

On the other hand, our combustion research facility, which is at 

Sandia in California, is behind a fence, but it is not a very tall 

fence. You have to get permission to go through, but once you are 

through, even though you are in between Sandia and Livermore, it 

is fine. It is open. And it is a completely open laboratory. 

So there is probably a certain amount of frustration for people, 

but we try to keep that to a minimum. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Ryan. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
372 

ENERGY FRONTIER RESEARCH CENTERS

Mr. RYAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for being here. I apologize for missing early. I have 

a committee the same exact time, every time that I have this committee, and I have to choose, unfortunately, pick my spots. 

A lot of this—I represent a district that is very similar to the 

chairman’s district. And I have a lot of economic issues, as does 

much of the industrial Midwest. And so I have an interest and my 

district has an interest, and I think the chairman, as well—I don’t 

think I am speaking out of line—an interest in converting the 

science into economic development somehow, whether it is through 

the medical field, whether it is through alternative energy, you 

know, however this works. 

And I know I am going to spend as much time as the good people 

of the 17th District of Ohio give me in Congress to try to make sure 

that we are commercializing, we are making sure that we are developing our science into jobs for Americans, new jobs, high-wage 

jobs. 

And we have had a huge discussion over the last few weeks. If 

you are alive and your brain is working in America, you have 

heard the word NAFTA and globalization and the effects that this 

has had on a lot of our communities. 

And so I just think it is imperative for us to figure out together 

and work together on how we make this work and how we convert 

our science into jobs and economic development. So some of my 

questions are going to focus on that. 

One point of interest here, the Energy Frontier Research Centers—and I hope you didn’t get too deep into this—can you talk to 

me a little bit about what your plan is for this additional money 

that you are requesting? Where would it go? 

I have a concern, as well as Mr. Visclosky, on this money not 

making its way toward small universities. And so I heard you say 

that that is where you have come from, so that is a comforting fact. 

And so can you just talk a little bit about the program? Would 

the money be used for all science? Would it be used for buildings, 

facilities, those kinds of things? 

Dr. ORBACH. It is not meant for facilities, and that would not be 

allowed. It is meant for people and for laboratory equipment as 

might be required. 

It is really meant for people in small institutions, I mean, not 

just limited to them, but you don’t need—like a basketball team, 

you don’t need more than five really good players to make a difference. 

And so, if you have a small institution—and like most small institutions, you don’t have many to go across the full spectrum, you 

put your money where you want to and try to make a difference. 

And most small institutions operate that way. 

So my guess is that there will be a mix. The small institutions 

in your district and any other district will be able to compete directly for this funding. 

Universities themselves have become very interested in tech 

transfer. And almost every university—small, medium, large—have 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
373 

a tech transfer policy. They like to see spin-offs. They may have industrial parks associated with the institution. 

Everyone wants what you have described, and so do we. 

So I would argue that these competitions would enable regions 

across our country to compete where people are hungry, want to 

really do something. 

And the energy sphere is a perfect place to start, because if you 

think it is bad now, it is only going to get worse. And we are seeing 

that literally day by day. 

And so this is a growth field, and I can’t think of a better area 

for young people to become involved in for the future of our country 

and, indeed, our globe. 

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

Mr. RYAN. Are there any recommendations, through your experience, on what we could do better with the tech transfer and with 

the commercialization of some of these? 

Dr. ORBACH. We actually have a program in the department for 

tech transfer. In fact, I am the tech transfer coordinator. And we 

are trying to make a more effective tech transfer process in the Department of Energy. The secretary just issued a policy statement 

on tech transfer, which is the first policy statement since 1991 from 

the department. 

But tech transfer depends on the institution, because they hold 

the patent rights, the licensing rights, to research that is conducted 

within their institutions. So at universities, for example, most 

every university, small or large, has an approach for licensing inventions that are created by its faculty, for example. 

And that is a university issue. And I think they are pretty impressive, actually, in that regard. 

So what I would suggest would be that, where institutions want 

to get involved in energy, that this is a real opportunity. 

And if they are not familiar with us, please come and talk with 

us. Our doors are open. We talk with everyone about the opportunities here. And we would welcome that kind of contact. 

Mr. RYAN. We will call your scheduler. 

Dr. ORBACH. Good. 

ENERGY FRONTIER RESEARCH CENTERS

Mr. RYAN. And we will make that happen. The proposal looks like it is $2 million to $5 million annually, as 

how it would break down. 

Mr. ORBACH. That is correct. 

Dr. RYAN. Is that enough? 

Dr. ORBACH. For a university, for example, it is a fair amount 

of cash. I mean, you are talking $2 million to $5 million. Most of 

the current centers that are out there are in the $1 million to $2 

million level. 

We have it up to $5 million because we wanted to leave that window open in case larger groups wanted to get together. Again, we 

don’t know what we are going to get, so we tried to give it a range, 

and we will see. 

Mr. RYAN. Is there a match required? 

Dr. ORBACH. No. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
374 

Mr. RYAN. No match? 

Dr. ORBACH. No match and no outreach. This is straight research. We are out to get energy. 

ISOTOPE PROGRAM

Mr. RYAN. I like that. I like that no match. 

I have another question with regard to nuclear medicine. One of 

the issues there is—where my district is between Cleveland and 

Pittsburgh. And there are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of 

millions of dollars in research between the Cleveland Clinic and 

Case Western Reserve and university hospitals and University of 

Pittsburgh Medical Center. 

And so what our goal is to try to figure out how cities like 

Youngstown and, kind of, the old Rust Belt cities plug into this research. 

And so I was just reading—and I don’t know a whole lot about 

this, and I was hoping you could enlighten me a little bit—with nuclear medicine and the medical isotope program, and there has 

been some switching of responsibilities there. 

Can you talk a little bit about what your plans are? And how 

much of a priority this is for you? And what would you see the future of this program being? 

Dr. ORBACH. This is a major issue for us. The department has 

proposed to switch the isotope program from nuclear energy to the 

Office of Science and into our nuclear physics program. And the 

reason for that is the research side of it. And so there will be about 

a $3 million add that we will focus on research with isotopes. 

We have established a working group with NIH, because we 

don’t want to be the ones that specify what the isotopes are for. 

And so we have a working group, as I said, right now, and I will 

meet with Dr. Zerhouni at some point. And then we will establish 

a workshop this summer for the community at large, people you 

are talking about. 

NIH and DOE Office of Science will have, I hope, worked out a 

relationship between us. We don’t want to do the medicine. That 

is NIH’s expertise. But on the other hand—— 

Mr. RYAN. We don’t want you to do the medicine. 

Dr. ORBACH. No, you don’t want a physicist doing medicine. 

But on the other hand, we know how to produce isotopes, and we 

know how to handle that process. 

And it may not just be from reactors. It may be from accelerators, as well. But we don’t know which isotopes the nuclear medicine community requires, because, again, there is a research issue 

here. And they are experimenting with different isotopes. 

And there are issues with delivery and lifetimes. 

The thing is really quite complicated. So we first want to get a 

relationship with NIH worked out. And then we are going to open 

it up and ask the community what it needs and wants, and ultimately establish a prioritization, because we certainly will never be 

able to produce enough isotopes for everyone. 

But we will, I hope, as a consequence of this, have the community in sync with our two agencies, in terms of the direction we 

need take. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
375 

Now, in parallel to this, we have another program which we call 

radiochemistry and instrumentation. That is in another program 

we have. And that is the one that has looked at things like PET 

scans and visualization in living creatures and sometimes humans. 

And those two have been separated. We want to bring them together, because they use isotopes, as well. And so, depending on 

what the community comes up with and what arrangements we 

can work out, we would like to really make a difference in this 

area. 

Right now, the United States depends on Canada for—I have had 

a technetium–99 examination, but the molybdenum–99 is produced 

at Chalk River. We depend on Belgium for isotopes. But because 

they have half-lives sometimes that are very short, we can’t make 

use of all of them. 

So we need to come up with a plan for the United States, in 

terms of our needs. 

Mr. RYAN. So there are no universities included now—— 

Dr. ORBACH. Actually, there are. 

Mr. RYAN. There are? 

Dr. ORBACH. The University of Missouri is a producer of isotopes 

through their nuclear reactor. And we do some at HFIR, at Oak 

Ridge, and I am afraid I don’t know all of them. But, no, universities are involved. 

Mr. RYAN. Okay. And then you will open that up and—— 

Dr. ORBACH. Absolutely. 

Mr. RYAN [continuing]. Include more? Okay, great. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

ISOTOPE PRODUCTION

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Doctor, if I could follow up on Mr. Ryan for a second, you mentioned radioisotopes. Is there a supportive environment for that radioisotope effort with the administration? 

Dr. ORBACH. Well, I hope so, yes. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. From a funding standpoint? 

Dr. ORBACH. Well, the funding from nuclear energy is being 

transferred. And there is an additional $3 million. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. And that will be enough for you? 

Dr. ORBACH. Well, but that is not all the funding, because if it 

is like technetium–99, for example, that is just a standard isotope 

that the community pays for. And so parts of this are reimbursed. 

The issue which is more tricky is research; that is, when an institution of the sort, for example, that Congressman Ryan has mentioned—these are research hospitals. They may want to experiment 

with a new isotope, and a new isotope can be very expensive to 

produce. 

Who is going to pay for it? 

And that has been a real problem with the medical community. 

And I don’t know the answer to that. And that is something we 

need to work out with the community. 

If we don’t have enough money, we will ask for enough, if it is 

appropriate, for the government to provide it in a subsequent budget. But I can’t answer that now, because I don’t know what the 

community will require. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
376 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. And it would be NIH’s role to determine what 

isotopes are necessary for what medical purposes? 

Dr. ORBACH. Precisely. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. From a research perspective, it would be your responsibility to research how best and most efficiently to then 

produce those isotopes? 

Dr. ORBACH. That is correct. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. And under the administration’s proposal, then, to 

move the production to your office, you would also then produce 

them? 

Dr. ORBACH. That is correct. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Is the production aspect of this—are you the 

right shop for that? 

Dr. ORBACH. Well, considering they use our facilities to produce 

them—HFIR is an Office of Science facility—— 

Mr. VISCLOSKY [continuing]. Using your facilities now—— 

Dr. ORBACH. Oh, yes. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY [continuing]. To produce it? 

Dr. ORBACH. We have a very close relationship with them. I am 

now the chief technical officer for nuclear in the department for the 

Office of Science. I can’t remember the acronym. But we have always worked closely together, because we have the facilities. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. So from your perspective, there would be a rationale—— 

Dr. ORBACH. Yes. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. And, of course, weatherization has nothing— 

well, it has nothing to do with this hearing right now. But one of 

the arguments about zeroing out weatherization under DOE is, 

well, that is not where it is supposed to be. And I am just wondering, is production of those isotopes in your shop where it should 

be? 

Dr. ORBACH. I believe so. We haven’t had the meeting yet with 

the community, so I am a little nervous about some sweeping generalization. But our nuclear physics program has the technical 

knowledge to handle production of isotopes. And we have a research base. 

And what has been missing is the research side of isotope production. And that is why the transfer was made. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. And you continue to do the research on the production aspect, not just—— 

Dr. ORBACH. Production—— 

Mr. VISCLOSKY [continuing]. Production, but how you can best do 

it, how you can improve the efficiencies? 

Dr. ORBACH. Absolutely. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Okay. 

Dr. ORBACH. And how we can be responsive to the medical community. 

CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH

Mr. VISCLOSKY. And I have a couple more, and then I will recognize Mr. Olver. 

But you—because I think almost everyone has asked about the 

Energy Frontier Research Centers. And while there has been a lot 

of give-and-take here this year and in past years about the adminVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:21 Jul 24, 2008 Jkt 043355 PO 00000 Frm 00376 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A355P2.XXX A355P2

yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
377 

istration following directives and earmarks and what have you, I 

would just point out this has been, I think, a very positive example 

of where you have two co-equal branches of government. 

And under Mr. Hobson’s leadership, when he was Chairman, 

pressing that we want to be as inclusive and broad as possible, because large institutions or those who have been favored in the past 

may not have all the good ideas. Small institutions may not have 

all the good ideas. And we ought to cast a reasonably wide net in 

a financially responsible fashion. 

And I really do think that you and the department, in this instance, took that to heart and have tried to design a program to 

do just that. And I think that type of give-and-take and collaboration that, if we saw a little bit more of it, the country would be a 

lot better off. 

So I would just make that observation. I do have some additional 

questions. 

We are also pleased with your decision to substantially increase 

funding for climate change modeling. However, we are concerned 

about the state of funding for the science on the ground needed to 

inform those modeling efforts, as well as the broader modeling 

needed to understand their wider impacts. 

Integrated assessment models which are used to try to understand the wider impacts of climate change, as well as the impacts 

of various climate policy and technology options, have been receiving flat or decreased funding. As we increase funding for modeling, 

shouldn’t we also be increasing our efforts to try to understand its 

impact and mitigation options on the ground? 

Dr. ORBACH. Yes, absolutely, and also to look into the inputs into 

those models from soils, from clouds and so on. We are having a 

workshop this month, on the 26th of March, precisely to respond 

to that question, namely, where should we put the money? There 

is an increase in our budget. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Do we need additional money—— 

Dr. ORBACH. Well, we have asked for additional funding for climate research. And what we want to do is to understand how best 

to use those funds, what fraction of it should be used for inputs, 

and what fraction should be used for modeling. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. So you have asked for more money for the input 

side, not just the modeling side? 

Dr. ORBACH. That is correct. We do not know the—I don’t want 

to say that I know the answer yet. We have put them into a basket. And what we are going to try to do is optimize how they interface with one another. 

And to do that, we are having an open workshop, as I said, toward the end of this month. We have the best people in the country 

coming. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Let me ask you this. You have asked for an increase and you are looking to see what that balance should be, as 

far as the input and the modeling. Would there be some efficacy 

if you had additional funds in that account? And if so, would you 

want to speculate as to what the range of that would be? 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
378 

CLIMATE RESEARCH FUNDING

Dr. ORBACH. Well, it would be awkward to speculate. I would 

prefer to wait for the workshop to see the nature of its results. 

You said something else that is very important, and that is, 

when you talked about climate, you also talked about adaptation 

and its consequences. 

And that is something that has not been built in. And one of my 

dreams is to build that in, that is, to integrate the human person 

response into a modeling and measurement structure. 

Right now, when we do climate modeling, we have an integration 

between the atmosphere and the ocean. We allow them to interface. 

And that integration then drives the climate predictions. 

But when it comes to the humans, we just ask, ‘‘Well, okay, if 

this happens, what do you do?’’ We never ask, ‘‘Well, maybe the humans would respond and do things differently if such-and-such 

took place,’’ in other words, to have an interactive model between 

human behavior and these physical climate issues. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Would that be part of the discussion in your 

workshops? 

Dr. ORBACH. It will be. Whether we have the capability of actually doing that remains to be seen. We need to work with the social 

science community and also our computational community to see if 

we can accomplish it. But that is where I would like to go. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Didn’t Isaac Asimov write a trilogy about that 

concept, the ‘‘Foundation’’ trilogy? 

Dr. ORBACH. Help me. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Okay, we will move on. [Laughter.] 

ITER FUNDING

One last thing, and then I will turn to Mr. Olver. If there is no 

funding for ITER, what are the other options? 

Dr. ORBACH. Oh, goodness. Well, we are, first of all, committed 

to remain part of the ITER organization for 10 years. And if there 

is no funding for ITER in 2009, it will be a dreadful setback. 

To be honest with you, I haven’t anticipated such a consequence 

because the consequence—to think of what might happen down the 

road if ITER works and we are not a part of it—we are talking 

about the energy future of the world and the United States is out 

of it. 

I was asked a question before about what is in it for the United 

States, for the fusion community. And if ITER works, then the first 

thing I would do is to try to get the community in the United 

States on a path towards a demonstration reactor, that is, to build 

a power reactor. 

That would be a demonstration—this is all in the out-years. But 

we would want to be the producer of it. And if we are not part of 

it and the rest of these other six parties are—you know, right now 

we are spending a lot of money to buy oil. Just imagine if we end 

up spending it to buy electricity. 

I just think that it would be so awful for our country, I haven’t 

really considered it. 

Mr. OLVER. I guess that almost requires me to weigh in a little 

bit here on that question, Mr. Chairman. We are committed to, if 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
379 

I remember correctly, something like 9 percent or 10 percent of the 

development of ITER. And so that 9 percent or 10 percent per year 

means that there is $2 billion or something like that for the development of the program. 

I have people in the science field who tell me the piddling 

amount that has gone into it year by year by year by year by year 

is a major part of why it is we have not reached that question of 

whether that silver bullet is actually there; that if we were to 

spend $1 billion or $2 billion, $1 billion a year for 15 years, or $2 

billion a year for 10 years, or something like that, then we would 

get there, then we would be most likely to get there, to actually 

achieve it. 

So, to me, not taking part in this one really does put us behind 

the eight-ball in a very severe kind of a way. I would just leave 

that. And that is not very well-articulated, perhaps. 

BIOFUEL RESEARCH

To go back to an earlier question by Mr. Pastor, who was talking 

about use of algae, growth of algae as a biofuel, as a bio-feedstock 

essentially, you then went beyond that and started talking about 

the creation of hydrogen from perhaps algae, but then you went on 

to bacterial. 

But it turns out, 40 years ago, when I decided to leave chemistry, 

I took a sabbatical, a year or two to run for political office. And the 

last sponsored research program that I was involved in was one— 

I was a junior collaborator in it—was a bacterial production of hydrogen, in which the Air Force Office of Scientific Research had 

some interest for some space purpose. 

Now, just let me ask you: Since you have raised it at that point 

and sort of took the use of algae as a feedstock to that, which was 

a little off that topic, does that suggest that there is still some 

hope? Would that be one of the areas that is among your group of 

areas that your $2 million to $5 million might end up working in? 

Dr. ORBACH. Absolutely. 

Mr. OLVER. Absolutely. 

Dr. ORBACH. And what has changed—— 

Mr. OLVER. That is very interesting. 

Dr. ORBACH [continuing]. Since you and I studied that has been 

genomics has the ability now to sequence and to modify. 

Mr. OLVER. Exactly. 

All right, the last one I wanted to touch on, on the three big centers, they are down for the development basically of cellulosic ethanol and other biofuels. Now, are you talking about ethanol, other 

alcohols, other biofuels containing oxygen or are you really talking 

about all kinds of biofuels? 

Dr. ORBACH. I am talking about gasoline. I am talking about diesel fuel. I am talking about all kinds of biofuels. 

Mr. OLVER. All right, then what I want to—I have a paper which 

I am going to give you. It is a group of scientists and engineers 

from the university that I abandoned 40 years ago, that have come 

back with at least a paper that they thought I would still understand, and asked me to try to make certain that we didn’t close 

some of those other potential routes. 

Dr. ORBACH. Is that UMass-Amherst? 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
380 

Mr. OLVER. Yes. 

Dr. ORBACH. I know the group. 

Mr. OLVER. You know the group—— 

Dr. ORBACH. And not only is that not—— 

Mr. OLVER [continuing]. George Huber and so forth? 

Dr. ORBACH. Yes, absolutely. In fact, I talk to Dimmesic, who is 

at Wisconsin, who was his advisor, thesis advisor, and asked him 

about—and they were the ones actually who have been developing 

the catalytic methods. And they produce gasoline. 

Mr. OLVER. Okay, you mentioned those. And I didn’t know 

whether you had—how far that had reached into your research protocols. 

Dr. ORBACH. Oh, it is very much a part of it. 

Mr. OLVER. Because they have the gasification to syngas and the 

pyrolysis mechanisms. There is a whole series of mechanisms 

where you can go directly to hydrocarbons, but it turns out that 

you go beyond the sequence that gets you to ethanol in the process, 

and then start rebuilding the molecules into your hydrocarbons. 

Dr. ORBACH. That is precisely it. You strip the oxygen from the 

sugars. 

Mr. OLVER. Right. 

Dr. ORBACH. You then create the linear molecules. It can have 

six carbons; it can have more. And then you do another catalysis 

to turn them into the cyclic compounds that produce gasoline. 

BIODIESEL RESEARCH

Mr. OLVER. So you have got fuel and biodiesel and gasoline-type 

things. And my first reaction was that the energy balances on this, 

carrying it all the way down and then rebuilding, would be unfavorable. But then the efficiencies of the various processes along the 

way, if they fit together, you can actually have a breakthrough 

there, quite significantly. 

Dr. ORBACH. I believe so. And what is so special about what they 

are doing at UMass and also at Wisconsin is the temperature. Normally you think of catalysis at very high temperatures and then 

you have got to put energy in. They got the temperature down to 

a couple hundred degrees Celsius, which is quite remarkable for a 

catalytic process, as you remember. 

And so there is a lot of hope here. First of all, they would certainly be welcome to compete for the Energy Frontier Research 

Centers, but we already are supporting research in catalysis for 

fuels on an individual project basis. 

Mr. OLVER. But this is already going on in your three big centers, your three big group centers? 

Dr. ORBACH. No, it is only going on in one of them. It is going 

on in the Wisconsin center. 

Mr. OLVER. I see. 

Dr. ORBACH. That is where Dimmesic is located. But that is what 

I meant when I said they are complementary. 

Mr. OLVER. For the $2 million to $5 million again, in part? 

Okay, I think I have finished, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very 

much. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Simpson, anything? 

Mr. Ryan. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
381 

HIGH-ENERGY PHYSICS

Doctor, two other areas, and then obviously we will have a large 

number of questions for the record. 

The 2008 omnibus bill did not provide funding for the NOVA activity and limited funding for the International Linear Collider and 

superconducting R.F. R&D activities in the high-energy physics 

program. These activities were included in the 2009 budget request. 

Have you formulated a plan for fiscal year 2008 that would enable these programs to retain capabilities that they would require 

to carry out activities that you have budgeted for 2009? 

And the second question I would have is, is there any consideration about asking for a reprogramming request relative to the program? 

Dr. ORBACH. Well, the answer to the first question is yes, but we 

want to put it in a context of the future of high-energy physics. 

This was a question that you addressed at the very beginning. 

With the 2008 appropriation and with CERN starting to come on, 

the large hadron collider—and actually, this year, they will get 

their first beam—we have asked a larger question. And so we have 

gone back to the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel—they call it 

HEPAP—and asked them to consider how they would use the 

budget that they have now and other budgets to prioritize what 

they do to give us maintenance of world leadership. 

That is, what should we be doing with the funding we have available, and hopefully additional funding, that would be in the best 

interests of high-energy physics, in terms of leadership? 

And that committee is meeting as we speak. It will issue, I believe, a preliminary report at the beginning of April. And then, at 

the full HEPAP meeting about a month later, the full committee 

will consider its recommendations. 

So we are addressing the issue that you raise. And we will have, 

I hope, a roadmap for the community that will give us a better fix 

on the directions we are to go. 

SUPERCOMPUTING RESEARCH

Mr. VISCLOSKY. It seems that some of the expertise and capabilities that we have developed in our civilian national labs in supercomputing might be of significant interest not only to other scientists, but also for commercial applications, like designing better 

engines. You had mentioned earlier the issue of coal and fossil 

fuels. 

I believe your scientific discovery through advanced computation 

and the Innovative and Novel Computational Impact on Theory 

and Experiment programs are aimed at taking advantage of such 

opportunities. Could you, in the time we have left, tell me a bit 

more about these programs and what kind of projects you are funding with it that would have commercial implications and applications? 

Dr. ORBACH. We have been very pleased with the response of the 

commercial sector, because this is new and they haven’t had experience with these kinds of computational platforms before. We have 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
382 

17 companies now that have competed for time on our leadership 

class facilities and been successful. 

We started with two. The year before last, we had four. Last 

year, we had 11. And now we have 17. And the reason for the increase has been the remarkable results that industry has achieved, 

not just big industries, but small, medium and large. 

What we do is, when an industry is interested, we start them off, 

if they haven’t had experience with supercomputers—because these 

are not simple to work with—we begin their programs at NERSC. 

That is our supercomputer at Berkeley. And we work with them to 

introduce them to the use of the computer and to develop codes 

that can then run on what we call our capability machines at Argonne and at Oak Ridge. 

We have had phenomenal success. Boeing has reduced the number of wind tunnel tests, which are very expensive. In fact, they 

have been so successful they have asked us for proprietary time on 

the Oak Ridge machine, and we worked out, as I answered before, 

a scheme for them to pay the full operating cost. 

Proctor & Gamble, I have been told, will no longer issue a new 

product without actually going through a simulation to see how it 

performs. Pratt & Whitney has come out with a new, more efficient 

jet engine, which we are told was a direct result of the simulations 

that they performed on these supercomputers. 

We are seeing more and more evidence of reducing time to market and virtual prototyping by industry on these machines. This is 

an approach that no other country is doing. We really have set out, 

in my view, a quite U.S.-like leadership here, where we bring industry in to our scientific facilities and give them access and work 

with them. 

Ultimately, some of these industries may buy their own supercomputers. This gives them a chance to see what they can do with 

them and then determine whether they want to invest in them. 

If that is the case—and I believe it is—we are going to generate 

a market, then, for the producers of these machines, for the vendors in the private sector. That would be the ideal. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Doctor, thank you very much. And I always do 

believe actions speak louder than words. And while you received an 

increase of $220 million in the omnibus, I would again note from 

my opening remarks that the House mark was $717 million, which 

I think is an indication of the belief that members of the panel 

have that you have tried your best in a number of areas. 

And one that I haven’t specifically addressed, but, again, there 

have been questions and comments about is trying to integrate 

basic science, as far as its application, and then, even most recently, the commercialization. 

I can still remember a meeting, both of which we attended in Mr. 

Hobson’s office, with a broad range of people, one, to integrate work 

on supercomputing and then to make sure there is some application, too. 

So I really do appreciate that, and certainly appreciate the members’ attendance and wish you well in this year of 2008. 

Thank you very much. 

Dr. ORBACH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Questions and answers for the record follow:] 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
383 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 728 here 43355B.014
384 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 729 here 43355B.015
385 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 730 here 43355B.016
386 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 731 here 43355B.017
387 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 732 here 43355B.018
388 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 733 here 43355B.019
389 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 734 here 43355B.020
390 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 735 here 43355B.021
391 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 736 here 43355B.022
392 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 737 here 43355B.023
393 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 738 here 43355B.024
394 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 739 here 43355B.025
395 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 740 here 43355B.026
396 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 741 here 43355B.027
397 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 742 here 43355B.028
398 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 743 here 43355B.029
399 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 744 here 43355B.030
400 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 745 here 43355B.031
401 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 746 here 43355B.032
402 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 747 here 43355B.033
403 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 748 here 43355B.034
404 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 749 here 43355B.035
405 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 750 here 43355B.036
406 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 751 here 43355B.037
407 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 752 here 43355B.038
408 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 753 here 43355B.039
409 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 754 here 43355B.040
410 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 755 here 43355B.041
411 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 756 here 43355B.042
412 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 757 here 43355B.043
413 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 758 here 43355B.044
414 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 759 here 43355B.045
415 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 760 here 43355B.046
416 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 761 here 43355B.047
417 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 762 here 43355B.048
418 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 763 here 43355B.049
419 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 764 here 43355B.050
420 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 765 here 43355B.051
421 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 766 here 43355B.052
422 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 767 here 43355B.053
423 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 768 here 43355B.054
424 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 769 here 43355B.055
425 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 770 here 43355B.056
426 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 771 here 43355B.057
427 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 772 here 43355B.058
428 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 773 here 43355B.059
429 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 774 here 43355B.060
430 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 775 here 43355B.061
431 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 776 here 43355B.062
432 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 777 here 43355B.063
433 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 778 here 43355B.064
434 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 779 here 43355B.065
435 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 780 here 43355B.066
436 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 781 here 43355B.067
437 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 782 here 43355B.068
438 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 783 here 43355B.069
439 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 784 here 43355B.070
440 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 785 here 43355B.071
441 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 786 here 43355B.072
442 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 787 here 43355B.073
443 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 788 here 43355B.074
444 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 789 here 43355B.075
445 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 790 here 43355B.076
446 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 791 here 43355B.077
447 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 792 here 43355B.078
448 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 793 here 43355B.079
449 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 794 here 43355B.080
450 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 795 here 43355B.081
451 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 796 here 43355B.082
452 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 797 here 43355B.083
453 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 798 here 43355B.084
454 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 799 here 43355B.085
455 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 800 here 43355B.086
456 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 801 here 43355B.087
457 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 802 here 43355B.088
458 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 803 here 43355B.089
459 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 804 here 43355B.090
460 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 805 here 43355B.091
461 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 806 here 43355B.092
462 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 807 here 43355B.093
463 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 808 here 43355B.094
464 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 809 here 43355B.095
465 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 810 here 43355B.096
466 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 811 here 43355B.097
467 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 812 here 43355B.098
468 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 813 here 43355B.099
469 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 814 here 43355B.100
470 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 815 here 43355B.101
471 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 816 here 43355B.102
472 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 817 here 43355B.103
473 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 818 here 43355B.104
474 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 819 here 43355B.105
475 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 820 here 43355B.106
476 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 821 here 43355B.107
477 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 822 here 43355B.108
478 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 823 here 43355B.109
479 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 824 here 43355B.110
480 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 825 here 43355B.111
481 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 826 here 43355B.112
482 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 827 here 43355B.113
483 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 828 here 43355B.114
484 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 829 here 43355B.115
485 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 830 here 43355B.116
486 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 831 here 43355B.117
487 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 832 here 43355B.118
488 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 833 here 43355B.119
489 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 834 here 43355B.120
490 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 835 here 43355B.121
491 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 836 here 43355B.122
492 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 837 here 43355B.123
493 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 838 here 43355B.124
494 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 839 here 43355B.125
495 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 840 here 43355B.126
496 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 841 here 43355B.127
497 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 842 here 43355B.128
498 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 843 here 43355B.129
499 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 844 here 43355B.130
500 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 845 here 43355B.131
501 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 846 here 43355B.132
502 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 847 here 43355B.133
503 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 848 here 43355B.134
504 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 849 here 43355B.135
505 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 850 here 43355B.136
506 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 851 here 43355B.137
507 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 852 here 43355B.138

yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
(509) 

TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 2008. 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—ENERGY SUPPLY AND 

CONSERVATION, FOSSIL ENERGY, ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY 

WITNESSES 

ALEXANDER KARSNER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY 

JAMES SLUTZ, ACTING PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, 

OFFICE OF FOSSIL ENERGY 

KEVIN KOLEVAR, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY 

C.H. ‘‘BUD’’ ALBRIGHT, JR., UNDER SECRETARY OF ENERGY 

CHAIRMAN VISCLOSKY’S OPENING STATEMENT

Mr. VISCLOSKY [presiding]. Good morning. The subcommittee will 

come to order. The Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development meets today to hear testimony on energy research and development programs at the Department of Energy. 

The rising price of gasoline is hitting the wallet of every American. In January 2003, the average retail price for a gallon of gasoline in the United States was $1.50, roughly equal to the real, inflation-adjusted price during much of the preceding half-century. 

Since then, the price of gasoline has risen sharply. It was last 

below $2 per gallon in February, 2005, and for much of 2007 prices 

topped $3 per gallon. Over the past 2 years, this subcommittee has 

provided $2.4 billion to support research, development and deployment of renewable energy and energy efficiency programs. 

Today, we have the Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Mr. Andy Karsner, to discuss his fiscal year 

2009 budget request. I will ask you, Mr. Karsner, how this investment in your programs will ease the price of energy for all Americans since the expenditures of these monies does not seem to have 

had a positive effect to date. 

Hardly a day goes by without a story on the future use of coal, 

concern over CO2 emissions, and whether utilities will go ahead 

with future coal plants. Mr. James Slutz, the Acting Principal Deputy for Fossil Energy, is here to defend the fiscal year 2009 fossil 

energy budget request, and I do hope our discussion today, Mr. 

Slutz, is in nominal dollars. 

Monitoring the electric grid capacity, surety and security are key 

to making electricity available to all of us. Assistant Secretary for 

Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mr. Kevin Kolevar, has 

the job where if you don’t see him, it is a good thing, because it 

means grid operations are working. We look forward to hearing 

about the fiscal year 2009 budget request for these programs. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
510 

And finally, we are pleased to have the Under Secretary of Energy, Mr. Bud Albright, for his first appearance before this subcommittee. Mr. Albright, welcome. We would like to hear from you 

about the programs under your jurisdiction, along with specific administration initiatives such as the retooling of FutureGen and the 

reoccurring initiative to expand the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. 

Gentlemen, welcome. Let me ask you to present a summary of 

your remarks. Your full written testimony will be entered into the 

record. I ask that you ensure that the hearing record, the questions 

for the record, and any supporting information requested by the 

subcommittee are cleared through the Department and the Office 

of Management and Budget, and delivered in final form to the subcommittee no later than 4 weeks from today, since we will potentially be under very tight time constraints as far as marking up our 

bill. 

All members who have additional questions for the record, please 

have them submitted to the subcommittee offices by 5:00 p.m. 

today. 

And now it is my pleasure to turn to my friend and colleague, 

Mr. Hobson, for any opening remarks he has. 

MR. HOBSON’S OPENING STATEMENT

Mr. HOBSON. Good morning, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Well, gentlemen, welcome to an unfortunate series of Energy Department hearings. I do hope we won’t hear another recounting 

this morning of how the Department is ignoring congressional direction in order to meet its own internal priorities. Some of you 

have been here before. Bud, it is good to see you again in this setting. This is my last hearing, and I guess some of your last hearings also—your first and last, I guess, Bud. I don’t know what that 

says. [Laughter.] 

Congress provided a significant increase for each of your programs over the President’s fiscal year 2008 request. Mr. Kolevar, 

your budget received nearly $14 million more than requested. Fossil energy received a $176 million increase from the request, and 

energy efficiency and renewable energy was the biggest winner, 

with an overall $486 million added to the request. 

I might have a question later about whether this is the right balance or not. Maybe more money should go to fossil energy since 

whether we are thinking about cutting carbon emissions or reducing reliance on foreign oil, we have to improve our coal plants. 

Of course, I think nuclear is going to be an increasingly important part of our generation, but I will talk about that at the nuclear energy hearing. I have serious questions about what this department has or has not done do to advance nuclear energy. Anyway, I hope we can talk more about the correct balance later. 

I am going to mention one other thing, and maybe this isn’t the 

right place to do it, but I am going to do it anyway. The other day 

I was in a hearing, a defense hearing. We were talking about the 

biggest problem in Afghanistan, and it is energy and the transmission lines. I said to the guy that when I was chairman, 3M 

came to us with a program that would help. If they could get some 

development of their product, they could increase the capacity of 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
511 

the power lines without restringing them. I said, why didn’t you go 

to DOE? And he said, well, they won’t talk to us. 

So we did an earmark for about 3 years. Then I read an epistle 

from the Department of Energy saying how wonderful this new 

program was and that 3M had this product. I thought, how ironic. 

DOE wouldn’t even talk to them in the beginning until we did one 

of those dreaded earmarks that the administration talks about so 

much. Now, there is a product out there and it may be of some use. 

So, we are going to try and go back and see if we can use it in Afghanistan to help with their energy problems. 

Once again, welcome to the subcommittee. I hope that the next 

few hours proceed smoothly and that each of you can give us good 

news about how you are implementing our direction, along with 

your own. I look forward to hearing your testimony, and then we 

will get into questions. 

Thank you for being here. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Secretary Albright. 

MR. ALBRIGHT’S OPENING STATEMENT

Mr. ALBRIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

committee. I am pleased to be here today to present the president’s 

fiscal year 2009 budget proposal for the Department of Energy. In 

keeping with your invitation, this testimony will focus on budget 

requests for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

the Office of Electricity, and the Office of Fossil Energy. The assistant secretary for each of the organizations is with us, as you know, 

and can give a more detailed statement concerning their budget request. 

First, though, let me put some context to the department’s overall budget request. In fiscal year 2009, the department will implement the Advanced Energy Initiative to accelerate the research and 

development of clean energy technologies and diversify our nation’s 

energy supply. These efforts will foster continued economic growth 

and promote a sustainable energy future. 

Our goal can be met by, one, accelerating the development of 

clean and renewable energy technologies that will dramatically increase the amount of reduced-emission energy produced in the 

United States; two, advancing energy-efficient technologies and 

practices that use less energy; and three, providing information 

from research, development and demonstration activities that can 

help stimulate private sector choices that will drive change in our 

energy system. 

Our energy portfolio benefits from the abundance of coal as a domestic energy source, and we remain committed to research and 

development to further advance coal’s clean and efficient use. The 

budget provides $407 million to research and $241 million to demonstrate advanced coal technologies. This money is almost entirely 

dedicated to cost-effective carbon capture and sequestration for 

coal-fired electricity plants. 

The department also continues to work with the Department of 

Treasury to administer a $1.65 billion in investment tax credits 

from the Energy Policy Act of 2005. That will accelerate the comVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:21 Jul 24, 2008 Jkt 043355 PO 00000 Frm 00511 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A355P2.XXX A355P2

yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
512 

mercial deployment of technologies central to carbon capture and 

storage. 

The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy is re- questing $1.255 billion for 2009, approximately $19 million higher 

than in 2008. This is to manage America’s investment in the research, development and deployment of DOE’s diverse energy efficiency and renewable energy applied science portfolio. These funds 

support a necessary, diverse and critical path of energy efficiency 

and renewable energy research that, partnered with public and private actions, can help the United States meet the energy challenges of the 21st century. 

As our nation’s energy capacity grows, we are faced with the 

challenge of ensuring more reliable electricity delivery. Because 

electricity is vital to nearly every aspect of life—from powering our 

electronics and heating our homes, to supporting commerce, transportation, finance, food and water systems, and also ensuring national security—any disruption of electricity can have a major consequence to the economy and to public health and safety. With an investment of $134 million in 2009, the department, 

through the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, 

will provide leadership in developing the next generation of electric 

delivery infrastructure systems that will enable reduced-emission 

energy choices, spur development of automated grid operations, 

and encourage strong market economics. 

In 2009, the Department of Energy continues to strengthen the 

framework built over the last 8 years to ensure our national energy 

security and reliability. Energy helps drive the global economy and 

has a significant impact on our quality of life and the health of our 

people and our environment. We must continue to develop and to 

use energy if we are to support and sustain a strong economy. We 

must also continue to find more efficient and diverse ways to power 

our world. 

I appreciate this opportunity to testify. This completes my opening statement, and I am happy at the appropriate time to answer 

any questions you have. 

[Statement of C.H. ‘‘Bud’’ Albright:] 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
513 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 863 here 43355B.139
514 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 864 here 43355B.140
515 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 865 here 43355B.141
516 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 866 here 43355B.142
517 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 867 here 43355B.143
518 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 868 here 43355B.144
519 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 869 here 43355B.145
520 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 870 here 43355B.146
521 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Karsner. 

MR. KARSNER’S OPENING STATEMENT

Mr. KARSNER. Good morning, Chairman Visclosky, Ranking 

Member Hobson, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the president’s fiscal year 2009 budget request for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. EERE’s fiscal year 2009 request of $1.255 billion, approximately $19 million higher than the fiscal year 2008 request, provides a 

balanced and diverse portfolio of solutions to address the energy 

and environmental challenges facing us today. The request will enable EERE to research, develop and deploy renewable energy technologies to dramatically increase the amount of clean energy produced in the United States; advance energy efficiency technologies 

and practices to sustainably decouple energy demand from economic growth; and strengthen commercialization and deployment 

to support rapid adoption by private industry of clean energy technologies. 

The need for clean energy solutions is abundantly clear, with the 

nation’s energy challenges plainly identified. Our efforts today and 

onward need to be about the implementation and scaling of solutions—well-identified solutions, multi-path solutions, parallel path 

solutions—trying what we must on a scale and a pace that is commensurate with the magnitude and urgency of the problem. 

On December 19, 2007, the president signed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, EISA, into law. The new mandates included in EISA are unprecedented in size, scope and timeframe. Together, we are taking great strides to move beyond problem identification and towards problem solving that will enhance 

our energy security, diversify our energy systems and reduce emissions that affect global climate change. 

EERE’s overall budget request reflects the funding needed to 

meet our energy challenges head-on. Advanced fuels in vehicles, renewable power, efficiency in buildings and industry, and technology 

deployment comprise EERE’s portfolio and multi-pronged approach 

to energy solutions. My written testimony, which I will submit for 

the record, includes a description of the priorities and specific funding requests in the EERE program areas. 

The achievement of EERE program goals could save consumers over $600 billion by the year 2030, and as much as $4 trillion by 

2050 cumulatively. Similarly, we expect that the portfolio will 

avoid six gigatons of carbon by 2030 and nearly 50 gigatons of carbon by 2050 cumulatively. With action plans, performance milestones, clearly articulated deliverables, and continued performance, 

EERE’s budget request will strengthen our dynamic partnerships 

with private industry and academia that have grown our nation’s 

economic well being. Our laboratory products and partnerships resulting in industry commercialization are at unprecedented levels 

and will bring clean energy technologies and sources to large-scale 

commercial viability in the very near future. 

This concludes my prepared statement, and I am happy, of 

course, to answer any questions the committee members may have. 

[Statement of Alexander Karsner:] 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
522 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 875 here 43355B.147
523 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 876 here 43355B.148
524 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 877 here 43355B.149
525 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 878 here 43355B.150
526 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 879 here 43355B.151
527 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 880 here 43355B.152
528 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 881 here 43355B.153
529 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 882 here 43355B.154
530 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 883 here 43355B.155
531 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 884 here 43355B.156
532 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 885 here 43355B.157
533 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Slutz. 

MR. JAMES SLUTZ, ACTING PRINCIPLE DEPUTY ASSISTANT

SECRETARY FOR FOSSIL ENERGY

Mr. SLUTZ. Thank you. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. [OFF MIKE] 

Mr. SLUTZ. I served as the deputy assistant secretary for oil and 

natural gas since June of 2002, and then I moved in managing the 

Office of Fossil Energy in late October of last year, early November. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. [OFF MIKE] [Laughter.] 

Mr. SLUTZ. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, it is a 

pleasure for me to appear before you today to present the Office of 

Fossil Energy’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2009. FE’s budget 

request of $1.127 billion for fiscal year 2009 is one of the largest 

fossil energy requests made by this administration. These funds 

will allow FE to fulfill its mission to create public benefits by enhancing U.S. economic, environmental and energy security. 

Achieving this mission means developing technological capabilities that can dramatically reduce carbon emissions to achieve nearzero atmospheric emission power production, thereby meeting the 

president’s priority of expanding our climate change options with 

high-efficiency power plants to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, 

and the near-zero emission power plant known as FutureGen that 

will link coal generation with carbon sequestration. 

FE is also responsible for the management and operation of the 

nation’s petroleum reserves, most notably the strategic petroleum 

reserve, which provides strategic and energy security against disruptions in oil supplies with an emergency stockpile of crude oil. 

More specifically, the proposed fiscal year 2009 coal budget request 

of $648 million focuses on technology allowing the United States to 

maintain its technological lead in coal use in a way that will not 

raise climate concerns. This is the largest budget request for coal 

research, development and demonstration in over 25 years. The budget includes $406 million for coal R&D, including in- house research and development, $85 million for the clean coal 

power initiative, and $156 million for the new approach to the 

FutureGen program. The fiscal year 2009 request demonstrates the 

administration’s continuing commitment to domestically produced 

energy from coal. The $344 million fiscal year 2009 budget request for the strategic petroleum reserve, an $84 million increase over fiscal year 2008 approved funding, will allow for expansion activities at two existing 

storage sites and the development of a new site in fiscal year 2009. 

This expansion is in accordance with the provision in EPACT for 

an expansion of reserve capacity from 727 million to 1 billion barrels of oil, and with the president’s recommendation and pending 

legislation to further increase the reserve’s capacity to 1.5 billion 

barrels of oil. 

Fossil energy research and development is directed at electric 

power generation from coal, our most abundant and lowest-cost domestic fossil fuel. This research supports many presidential initiatives and priorities, including the coal research initiative, hydrogen 

fuel initiative, climate change technology program, and FutureGen. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
534 

I will highlight a few of the R&D program components, beginning 

with FutureGen. 

FutureGen promotes advanced, full-scale integration of integrated gasification combined cycle, or IGCC, and carbon capture 

and storage, or CCS; and technology to produce electric power from 

coal with near-zero atmospheric emissions. FutureGen is being restructured in a way that accelerates the commercial integration of 

CCS technologies and IGCC. 

The new approach proposed multiple commercial-scale demonstration power plants in place of the originally planned single research and development facility. Each plant would produce electricity and sequester an estimated annual 1 million metric tons of 

carbon dioxide. FutureGen receives an $81.7 million increase in 

funding over last year in the fiscal year 2009 budget proposal. 

The clean coal power initiative, or CCPI, is a cooperative costshare program between the government and industry to demonstrate advanced coal-based power generation technologies. The 

budget request of $85 million for CCPI in fiscal year 2009 will complete the third round of project solicitations, proposal evaluations, 

and project selection of advanced technology systems. The fiscal year 2009 budget request of $149 million for carbon sequestration—one of the key components of our program—is a significant increase over the nearly $119 million for fiscal year 2008. 

The increase should help develop economical ways to separate and 

permanently sequester greenhouse gas emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels. 

Consistent with recent budget requests, the petroleum and oil 

technology and natural gas technology research and development 

programs are proposed for termination in fiscal year 2009. The fiscal year 2009 budget request of $344 million for the strategic petroleum reserve includes $158 million for preparations to reach the 1 

billion barrel storage capacity and increase draw-down capability 

from 4.4 million barrels a day to more than 6 million barrels a day, 

as mandated by EPACT. We are also requesting $13.5 million, 

which is aimed at the expansion above that to the 1.5 billion goal. 

That concludes a very brief overview of fossil energy’s wide-ranging R&D and petroleum reserve management responsibilities. I 

would like to emphasize that by reevaluating, refining and refocusing our programs and funding the most cost-effective and beneficial projects, the fiscal year 2009 budget submission meets the 

nation’s critical need for energy, environmental and national security. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I would be 

happy to answer any questions. 

[Statement of James Slutz:] 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
535 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 892 here 43355B.158
536 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 893 here 43355B.159
537 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 894 here 43355B.160
538 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 895 here 43355B.161
539 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 896 here 43355B.162
540 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 897 here 43355B.163
541 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 898 here 43355B.164
542 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 899 here 43355B.165
543 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 900 here 43355B.166
544 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Kolevar. 

MR. KOLEVAR’S OPENING STATEMENT

Mr. KOLEVAR. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Hobson, and 

members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify 

on the president’s fiscal year 2009 budget request for the Office of 

Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability. 

Our office’s mission is to lead national efforts to modernize the 

electricity delivery system, enhance the security and reliability of 

America’s energy infrastructure, and facilitate recovery from disruptions to energy supply. These functions are vital to the Department of Energy’s strategic goal of protecting our national and economic security by promoting a diverse supply and delivery of reliable, affordable and environmentally responsible energy. The president’s 2009 budget requests $134 million for OE, a 17 

percent increase from the fiscal year 2008 request. This includes 

$100.2 million for research and development activities, $14.1 million for operations and analysis activities, and $19.7 million for 

program direction. 

Today, the availability of and access to electricity is something 

that can be easy to take for granted. While more than a few people 

cannot describe what it is or where it comes from, electricity is 

vital to nearly every aspect of our lives, from powering our electronics and heating our homes, to supporting transportation, finance, food and water systems, and national security. 

The Energy Information Administration has estimated that by 

the year 2030, U.S. electricity consumption will be almost 25 percent higher than it was in 2009. This indicates a growing economy, 

but it also promises a significant amount of new demand on the 

electricity infrastructure, an infrastructure that is already stressed 

and aging. This means that we need to focus our attention on reliability. 

Climate change is also affecting electric industry investments. 

Uncertainty on climate change legislation and policy is limiting investment in generation from fossil fuels—coal in particular—and is 

stimulating investment in renewables such as wind. However, 

intermittent resources such as renewables require energy storage 

or other balancing technologies, advanced communications, and sophisticated modeling to maximize penetration without affecting the 

reliability and efficiency of our electric system. 

OE’s 2009 budget request reflects a commitment to ensuring this 

reliability by supporting the research of breakthrough technologies 

such as those associated with the Smart Grid and Energy Storage. 

With $5 million dedicated solely to Smart Grid development, a $6.6 

million increase in the 2009 request for energy storage, and more 

than $88 million dedicated to other R&D work, the president’s 

budget request reaffirms the effort to ensure increased reliability 

through research and development. 

Modernizing the grid through technical innovation, however, represents just one side of the effort needed to tackle electricity reliability problems. Building the elaborate network of wires and other 

facilities needed to deliver energy to consumers reliably and safely 

is perhaps one of our greatest challenges today. This is especially 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
545 

true since renewable energy promises to become a substantial generation source. Since sources of renewable energy are often found 

in remote locations, we simply have to develop the capacity to deliver it to load centers. Basically, if we want to use more renewable 

energy, we need more wires. 

Accordingly, in 2009 this office will continue work to implement 

the major electricity infrastructure provisions of the Energy Policy 

Act of 2005. Consistent with the law, we will produce the second 

national transmission congestion study by August of next year. We 

will begin scoping for the designation of energy transport corridors 

in the eastern states, and we will implement the department’s responsibilities to coordinate federal authorization for the siting of 

transmission facilities. 

However, energy security and reliability will not be solved solely 

through the modernization and expansion of our energy infrastructure. We also need to ensure energy delivery by keeping it secure 

and responding quickly when it is disrupted. In 2009, we will work 

to identify system-wide vulnerabilities and power and fuels at key 

domestic and select foreign energy facilities, and develop plans to 

secure and reconstitute those assets. 

Finally, we will help to develop tools and mitigation solutions to 

help energy sector owners and operators improve resiliency and implement best and effective practices and provide solutions to state 

and local governments to address energy supply and infrastructure 

challenges, and to exercise those response plans. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe OE’s work is critical to our nation’s energy future, and the increase in the president’s budget request reflects this. Federal investment in the research, development and 

deployment of new technology, combined with innovative policies 

and infrastructure investment, is essential to improving grid performance and ensuring our energy security, economic competitiveness, and environmental well being. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I look forward to 

taking the committee’s questions. 

[Mr. Kolevar’s written statement follows:] 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
546 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 906 here 43355B.167
547 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 907 here 43355B.168
548 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 908 here 43355B.169
549 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 909 here 43355B.170
550 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 910 here 43355B.171
551 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Gentlemen, thank you very much. 

I am going to recognize Mr. Hobson in just 1 second. But for the 

record, I would point out that Mr. Slutz is on one end of the table 

and Mr. Kolevar is on the other. I don’t know if body language 

means anything, but I recognize from your resumes that Mr. Slutz 

is an Ohio State graduate. 

Mr. SLUTZ. I am. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Which makes Mr. Hobson pleased. And Mr. 

Kolevar is a Michigan graduate. I just want to make note that they 

did not sit next to each other during your testimony. [Laughter.] 

At the beginning, I also want to acknowledge that we received 

a very nice gift from Mr. Simpson when he came in and that is a 

Boise State University pen, because he wanted me to have at least 

one pen from a winning football program. [Laughter.] 

Mr. HOBSON. And I asked him if they were accredited yet. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I will now recognize Mr. Hobson. 

CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Karsner, when the secretary testified before 

this subcommittee last week, we confronted him on the department’s failure to follow congressional direction. You are now about 

to share that experience. Between the House report and the conference report accompanying the 2008 Omnibus, we provided over 

a dozen directives to your office. I won’t embarrass you by asking 

you to identify each of those directives, but I do have a set of related questions. 

Do you view report language as binding on your office or merely 

advisory and something you can ignore at your discretion? 

Mr. KARSNER. Well, congressman—— 

Mr. HOBSON. You can answer yes or no. I don’t care. 

Mr. KARSNER. It seems a legal question for general counsel. I will 

tell you my personal feeling is that the Congress makes the rules 

and we implement and enforce them. I don’t know how to comment 

on the report language itself. 

Mr. HOBSON. Do you believe you are complying 100 percent with 

the directive Congress has given your office? 

Mr. KARSNER. That is our objective. 

Mr. HOBSON. Please provide for the record a report identifying 

all the directives to your office contained in the separate House and 

Senate reports for 2008, as well as those contained in the explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act 

for 2008, and document the status of your compliance with those 

directives. I would like the same reports back from Mr. Kolevar’s 

office and from Fossil Energy. 

Mr. KARSNER. Yes, sir. 

[Insert for the record] 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
552 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 913 here 43355B.172
553 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 914 here 43355B.173
554 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 915 here 43355B.174
555 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 916 here 43355B.175
556 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 917 here 43355B.176
557 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 918 here 43355B.177
558 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 919 here 43355B.178
559 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 920 here 43355B.179
560 

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Karsner, one of the specific directions given to 

your office was to take all remaining funding from the National 

Academy of Science phase III study on prospective benefits of 

DOE’s applied energy R&D programs and use those remaining 

funds for the global energy assessment. How much funding remained from the phase III study as of the date of enactment of the 

2008 Omnibus, and what is the status of transferring those funds 

to global energy assessment? 

Mr. KARSNER. I apologize, sir. I don’t have those facts on hand, 

but I will pursue them and report back to you for the record and 

brief you as well, if you would like. 

GLOBAL ENERGY ASSESSMENT

Currently, $497,000 remains from the Phase 3 study. EERE and EIA are working 

toward placing a task order with the Global Energy Assessment (GEA) Council 

through the Department’s existing contract for services with the National Academies. The contract action requires a mutually agreed upon workplan from GEA, 

which must include specific goals, deliverables, schedules, and milestones to ensure 

effective and legal use of the taxpayer dollars. Members of my staff met with GEA 

Council Representatives in October 2007 and March 2008 to move this project forward. 

Mr. HOBSON. I believe you will find that your office has not complied extremely well with this. 

For the EERE and OE and FE programs, please provide this subcommittee a detailed report documenting the execution status for 

all the earmarked projects contained in the explanatory statement 

accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act of fiscal year 

2008. Because Under Secretary Albright is also responsible for the 

Office of Nuclear Energy, I would like him to make sure that we 

have the execution report for all nuclear energy earmarks as well. 

If you have not provided funding yet, identify the contacts made to 

date and when you anticipate providing the funding to the recipients. 

Now, this isn’t a typical question for the record where your response is run through multiple layers at DOE headquarters, and 

at the infamous—I don’t know what to call it—OMB dark energy, 

black box where things get in there and they never come back. It 

takes months to get back. I think those status reports on the 2008 

earmarks could be delivered back to us not later than 1 week from 

today, because I don’t think that is a very difficult thing to do. 

It is only a status report. OMB doesn’t have to make decisions 

on what is a status or not a status, and DOE doesn’t either. It is 

either there, done, or not done. So I would hope the chairman 

would encourage, and we would encourage all of you to be—if we 

have problems, this is a way that we can begin to fix them, and 

figure out where we all are. Do we all understand where we are? 

Does anybody have any problems? 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. No, sir. And let me volunteer to take the lead to 

make sure that we can get you the information that we have. 

Mr. HOBSON. I would like to suggest that I will recommend to 

the chairman that this will not be the last hearing if we don’t get 

this stuff. You may be back again, which I am not sure you guys 

want to do. But this is important to the committee and the committee’s work, so I hope people will respond accordingly. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
561 

[Insert for the record] 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
562 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 924 here 43355B.180
563 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 925 here 43355B.181
564 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 926 here 43355B.182
565 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 927 here 43355B.183
566 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 928 here 43355B.184
567 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 929 here 43355B.185
568 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 930 here 43355B.186
569 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 931 here 43355B.187
570 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 932 here 43355B.188
571 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 933 here 43355B.189
572 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 934 here 43355B.190
573 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 935 here 43355B.191
574 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 936 here 43355B.192
575 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 937 here 43355B.193
576 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 938 here 43355B.194
577 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 939 here 43355B.195
578 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 940 here 43355B.196
579 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 941 here 43355B.197
580 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 942 here 43355B.198
581 

Thank you all. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Thank you, Mr. Hobson. 

Mr. Israel. 

Mr. ISRAEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Karsner, I want to ask you some questions about better manufacturing technology research and development. Mr. Hobson 

began in his opening statement by talking about some energy problems we have in Afghanistan that have military implications. 

There is another military implication we have to our own lack of 

coherence on energy policy, and that is that we have Striker combat vehicles on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq that get five 

to seven miles per gallon, because we haven’t advanced battery 

technologies and automotives technologies to the point where we 

can actually have military tactical vehicles in-theater that don’t 

rely on our adversaries to sell us the fuel to propel those vehicles. 

At our hearing a few weeks ago, we heard from the director of 

transportation at Argonne National Laboratory. He suggested that 

we should think about making a very significant investment in battery manufacturing. He said that we are supreme in battery materials and chemistry, but we lack manufacturing and prototype capabilities. 

He also said that we haven’t accomplished much if we are going 

to transfer our dependence on imported oil for an addiction to foreign batteries, because many other countries in the world have 

made quantum leaps on battery manufacturing research, development and prototype and manufacturing. 

So two questions. One is, why is there such a reluctance by U.S. 

companies to commit to U.S. domestic manufacturing of lithium ion 

batteries? That is number one. And number two, what can your office in DOE do to promote domestic manufacturing of advanced 

batteries? 

Mr. KARSNER. Thank you, congressman. Let me say for the 

record that I agree in the entirety with the remarks of the gentleman from Argonne National Laboratory in that respect. The 

principal vehicle for commercialization that Congress has given us 

that is meant to be a very powerful tool going forward, cross-cutting the entire portfolio, is the Energy Policy Act Title 17 loan 

guarantee program, of which manufacturing facilities for commercialization of technologies like battery storage should be able to 

avail themselves. 

So that is to say, offering debt instrument guarantees up to 80 

percent of a new project cost should help attract manufacturing in 

this sector to our shores. That statement could be true of anything, 

of solar panels, of wind turbines, or water heaters, but certainly of 

the high priority, as you heard from Assistant Secretary Kolevar, 

of the need for storage technologies, either in transportation or in 

generation. 

If we view these things as a strategic commodity in the way that 

we viewed integrated circuits and microchips in the 1990s, we will 

be able to salvage this industry for the United States. But it is unfortunately the case today that we do the heavy lifting of the advanced research and development, and these things get deployed, 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
582 

but they don’t get deployed domestically. They get deployed among 

our competitors, and then we have intermittent tax policy to re-import them. 

Your question specifically is what could we do better to cultivate 

a better investment environment. 

Mr. ISRAEL. Because the loan guarantee program doesn’t appear 

to be working. 

Mr. KARSNER. It is in the process of being stood up. 

Mr. ISRAEL. Okay. 

Mr. KARSNER. But when it manifests, it should serve that purpose. 

But number one, it won’t be the loan guarantees alone that are 

sufficient. You will need a predictable policy environment and a 

predictable marketplace. That means that the battery suppliers are 

looking for reliable off-take purchasers of their products, and they 

are finding that either through government assistance or through 

industry, even in France, let alone in China, India, Japan, Korea 

and the other places where the industry is thriving. 

So we are trying to work closely with the vehicle manufacturers 

here who have their own balance sheet difficulties and challenges 

right now, to offer some assurance to battery sub-suppliers. To that 

end, we are making new relationships with the battery sub-suppliers, the Advanced Battery Consortium, to integrate them more 

closely into FreedomCAR for exactly that purpose. 

LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM

Mr. ISRAEL. When will the loan guarantee program actually be 

stood up? 

Mr. KARSNER. Of course, the loan guarantee program is not managed in my office. 

Mr. ISRAEL. Where is it managed? 

Mr. KARSNER. But all of us contribute to what we believe would 

be the appropriate available technologies to—— 

Mr. ISRAEL. So forgive my ignorance, but maybe Secretary 

Albright can answer. Who has responsibility, where is the accountability for the loan guarantee program? Who is standing it up and 

when is it going to be stood up? 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. It is in the process of being stood up. Currently, 

the initial solicitation received over 100 requests for loans. We have 

narrowed it down to 16 possible loans and are in the process of 

winnowing those to determine which will receive the loan guarantees. We are also in the process of hiring a very capable and competent staff, with extensive background in finance. We have not finalized the schedule, but we are working on the schedule for announcing solicitations throughout this year. 

Mr. ISRAEL. Can you provide the subcommittee with a more precise timetable? Give us a little more precise sense of when we can 

expect to go from being stood up to stood up? 

TIMELINE FOR THE LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM OFFICE

With respect to the Loan Guarantee Program Office (LGPO), significant progress 

has been made over this past year. A year ago this week, two very experienced individuals were detailed from the U.S. Treasury Department to help lead the effort of 

evaluating a total of 143 pre-applicants seeking an invitation to submit full applications for loan guarantees. The 143 pre-applicants resulted from the initial solicitaVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:21 Jul 24, 2008 Jkt 043355 PO 00000 Frm 00582 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A355P2.XXX A355P2

yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
583 

tion of the program which officially closed on December 31, 2006. Supported by contractors over the course of last summer, the pre-applicants underwent a rigorous 

technical and financial review in accordance with criteria set forth from the LGPO 

Credit Review Board (CRB), the governing board of the program. On August 3, 

2007, David G. Frantz was named to serve as the Director of the Department of 

Energy’s (DOE) Loan Guarantee program. Mr. Frantz reports directly to DOE’s 

Chief Financial Officer. 

The final regulations for the Loan Guarantee Program were issued on October 4, 

2007 along with the selection of 16 pre-applicants from the first solicitation in 2006 

to be invited to submit a full application. Since then, a remarkable amount of work 

has been accomplished. The staff has grown from one permanent employee to nine 

permanent employees, including investment officers with 10 to 20 years of worldwide project financing experience, predominantly in the heavy infrastructure, utility, and energy sectors as well as significant experience working in the U.S. government in conformity with the requirements of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 

(FCRA). The LGPO has also recruited additional highly qualified staff, is in the 

process of finalizing a credit subsidy model, as required by FCRA, and has instituted comprehensive policies and procedures to initiate the application and due diligence process. The LGPO is in the process of preparing to receive its first applications from the 16 selectees in early April 2008. The LGPO is also working with the 

Office of Finance and Accounting and the Office of Corporate Information Systems 

to develop accounting and processing systems that will allow the office to monitor 

and manage the loans for which guarantees are issued over the life of the projects. 

Although no due date has been set for application submission, in the next few 

weeks, the LGPO expects to receive its first application submission from one of the 

16 pre-applicants and to begin the due diligence necessary to assess the technical 

and financial soundness of the project in order to issue a loan guarantee. Simultaneously, the office is moving forward with its next solicitation by preparing a draft 

solicitation implementation plan to be submitted to Congress sometime during the 

month of April. 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. I can. As soon as we have something more definitive from the board, I will be happy to give you that. I don’t want 

to misstate when we will announce, but I can—— 

Mr. ISRAEL. Something more final from the board? 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. Yes, we have a board of directors that manages 

the loan guarantee program. We are currently trying to determine 

when we realistically can put solicitations out and in what areas. 

That has not been finalized. 

VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY

Mr. ISRAEL. Okay. My understanding is that Toyota actually has 

Panasonic making their batteries. Have you heard that? Is that accurate? 

Mr. KARSNER. That is correct. I will be visiting, in fact, those 

companies this week in Japan. I am hoping to get greater collaboration. We generally have been siloed in our competitive posture 

with the Japanese for almost 20 years. Together, the two countries 

are about 80 percent of global energy R&D, so we are looking to 

see if we can have a more collaborative relationship. 

Mr. ISRAEL. Just one final question, if I have the time. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Before you do, I just want to follow up on that. 

It just seems as though this is a broken record. We had an oversight hearing a year ago about energy policy. It was noted that a 

lot of the investment that taxpayers have made through the Department of Energy on vehicle technology were used by domestic 

auto companies to put more horsepower in the cars, but not more 

mileage. And now that Toyota, who apparently has their own battery supply, is as large as GM, and GM is under financial duress. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
584 

What assurance do we have—you know, before it was high performance versus mileage. Now, the Japanese figured out, hey, you 

have to have a battery supply; we are looking around and we are 

looking at a federal loan program. What assurance do we have that 

the monies Congress is going to appropriate to you, that the auto 

companies are going to use for their intended purpose and use 

them wisely? It just seems like for a generation, it is just a broken 

record. 

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, that was my last question. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Oh, I am sorry. [Laughter.] 

Mr. KARSNER. It is probably better suited to either the CEOs or 

a specialist at business schools, but you can’t ultimately protect 

business leaders from themselves. Some will win and some will fail. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. But the taxpayers—why spend the money if they 

are not going to use it? 

Mr. KARSNER. I am hopeful that the new Energy Independence 

and Security Act and the movement of the CAFE standards for the 

first time since CAFE was implemented will force that discussion 

out and deliver the technologies more readily, because frankly it is 

a compliance issue at this juncture. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I apologize. I thought you were moving on. 

Mr. ISRAEL. Thank you for asking—— 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Okay. 

Mr. Wamp. 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We get into a lot of process discussions here, and I want to kind 

of leap out of even the budget request and talk on a more macro 

level. Last week throughout the Tennessee Valley Authority region, 

TVA’s board rightly held a series of hearings on ways that consumers can reduce their cost on energy. I would like to know, as 

the cosponsor of the House resolution, and resolutions don’t mean 

much, but Brian Baird and I co-authored a House resolution that 

encouraged taxpayers when they receive their rebate from the 

stimulus package that they would invest those rebate dollars into 

efficient and effective ways to save energy, from weatherization to 

just new energy technologies, a host of things. 

I just want to know, Mr. Secretary, outside of the bureaucracy 

and the running of the budgets and the spending money here and 

there, what is the Department of Energy doing to try to bring consumers to a better place on fuel, on electricity utilization—across 

the board? Because I think that just the money and the programs 

and the spending is not enough. That is the frustration that we all 

have, every one of us here, at this pain that we are in right now 

on energy costs and what to do about it. It is the topic du jour 

when I am at home. 

I think it is very encouraging to see a major utility like TVA actually talking to their customers about ways to improve the bottom 

line, and things that you can invest in. We signed onto this resolution because if people are going to have, you know, $300 to $1,800 

more in their pockets here in 8 weeks—well, first I would like them 

to pay down debt, but that doesn’t really help the economy. Investing in new energy investments does help the economy and it helps 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
585 

them, and it helps our country in terms of independence. It is a 

freedom issue. What is DOE doing there, outside of your offices in 

Washington, D.C.? 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. Is that to me? 

Mr. WAMP. Yes, sir, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. We have on our website an efficiency section to 

suggest things that can be done. We also suggest that utilities and 

others help educate the public. I think your point is a very good 

one because we know that on energy efficiency matters in the 

home—insulation, caulking, CFLs, fluorescent light bulbs and other 

means of conserving and being more efficient in energy use—you 

have about a $2.50 return for every $1 you spend. 

So not only would this money go into the economy and help the economy and purchase products, but the $300 to $800 that the consumers are going to receive would get a one-and-a-half times return on the money they spend. So it would be good all the way 

around. 

I think our job is to help educate the public better, as TVA is 

doing. A lot of utility companies have free energy audits that they 

are willing to do, certainly for businesses, and I think some will do 

for homes as well—help analyze them. 

Mr. WAMP. I will jump over to Andy, then. In your advocacy to 

utilities, are there ever utilities—have you called a meeting? Have 

you encouraged them all to do this kind of thing? 

And then on fuel with consumers, at what point is the administration going to say, yes, we do have a big problem and one of the 

solutions is that consumers look at ways to conserve and save. 

Mr. KARSNER. Thank you, congressman. And thank you for your 

leadership in the realm of efficiency in general and all you do every 

day when we are not even having hearings. 

I think you have got it right in the sense that the federal government sitting up here cannot reach every consumer and motivate 

the end and the outcome we see either macroeconomically or even 

at the home level. So the question is, what will we do at the point 

of sale? And who are the parties of the relationship at the point 

of sale? 

Kevin and I, our two offices, the Office of Electricity that has primary responsibility for utilities, and us with efficiency, have 

worked together with EPA and put under the same tent for the 

first time all the utilities in this country—public and private—all 

the public regulators at the state level who actually have the jurisdictional responsibility for those utilities, and formed a national action plan for energy efficiency with principles that would prioritize 

efficiency. 

And for the first time, instead of saying it is just good, it is virtuous, we should educate you on it, we are quantifying it and trying to come up with schemes to profit and motivate the sector to 

win from it. So we think the more utilities that can be incentivized 

to profit from quantifying efficiency gain as a resource, the more 

we would penetrate and be able to use those tax credits that the 

consumers will have it in their face, with advertising and education 

at the point of sale, and say I want to buy these things. 

Now, we also do the standard things and have expanded more 

than ever before—modernization and expansion of ENERGY STAR 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
586 

for the first time since the program came over to DOE, availing 

more products, water heaters for the first time being listed, moving 

on to LED lighting, et cetera. So we are putting out a lot more 

choice, a lot more availability. We are in the consumer’s face as 

never before with the choices, but we need the people locally to be 

able to profit and motivate and build their businesses around gaining efficiency from that. 

COORDINATION OF EERE AND SCIENCE PROGRAMS

Mr. WAMP. One other question for you, Andy. Dr. Orbach comes 

in here the day after tomorrow, and through the Office of Science 

we have requests for bio-energy investments and you have the biohydrogen program, the bio-refinery, biomass, bio-ethanol, these research centers. How does the Office of Science and your office coordinate these programs? And how are they complementary with 

each other? And how do you make sure that we are not duplicative 

in these budget requests? 

Mr. KARSNER. That is a great question. It is particularly poignant coming from Tennessee where Oak Ridge has a big applied 

science responsibility on cellulosic bio-refining, and is also one of 

the Bioenergy Research Centers. 

Mr. WAMP. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KARSNER. Generally, Ray and I talk about the pipeline between us, basic and applied science, having a weld and trying to 

make that weld seamless and frictionless in terms of the throughput. Bearing that in mind, we have a responsibility under a timeframe and a stretch goal and now a legal mandate to reduce and 

displace 15 percent of our gasoline supply through alternative 

sources within a decade. That is going to take some redundancy in 

effort, some parallel paths. There is not going to be a single path 

that will be the best, given that time compression. 

So we are going to make investments right now in scaling cellulosic facilities that enable process integration in the marketplace. 

Right now, today, we are breaking ground on them and testing 

them to come down the cost curve, because we don’t know what the 

price point for gasoline will be over the course of that decade. Ray 

is working on longer-term advanced genomics, how to break down 

lignocellulosic walls. 

And if the basic science laps the current state of applied science, 

that is okay. Great. We have made a good investment in those 

things. 

Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Andy. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I am going to recognize Mr. Olver in a second. 

If I could follow up on Mr. Wamp’s line of questions as far as 

people talking to each other. 

DARPA

Mr. Karsner, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, 

DARPA, posted a broad agency announcement last November for 

the production of biofuels from cellulosic and algae feedstocks. This 

is intended to find a surrogate for petroleum-based military jet 

fuel. I believe in his opening remarks, Mr. Hobson alluded to that. 

As I understand it, current commercial processes for producing bioVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:21 Jul 24, 2008 Jkt 043355 PO 00000 Frm 00586 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A355P2.XXX A355P2

yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
587 

diesel yield a fuel that is unsuitable for military applications which 

require higher energy intensity. 

Is DOE aware of this research sponsored by DARPA? Are you cooperating with them? 

Mr. KARSNER. The answer to both of those questions is yes, sir, 

we are. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. How are you cooperating with them? 

Mr. KARSNER. As you noted, they are working very specifically 

towards their fuel needs. They are the largest consumer of fuel in 

the world, and primarily on distillates and JP–8. So they are looking at lipid-based fuels akin to biodiesels. Predominantly, our program is based on alcohol-based fuels for lightweight vehicles in the 

transportation sector. Where we have a nexus is working with 

them on codes and standards and acceptability to remove the barriers of those lipid-based fuels. 

This is an area where we wouldn’t want redundancy in program, 

but constant communication and comparative notes. They have a 

metric to get under $3 for JP–8 and distillates. Our goal is to use 

some of their work and get it into the dieselization of vehicle manufacturing. So we are working with ASTM and other standards organizations to ensure higher blend rates and removal of barriers of 

the fuels that they—— 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Have there been any positive results because of 

that communication and cooperation to date that you could supply 

for the record so we could say, okay, you have been talking to each 

other? Do you have something to show for it? 

Mr. KARSNER. Yes. I would like to report back to you for the 

record on that. I think we would be able to demonstrate some 

movement and progress on the codes and standards and things 

that are enabling pathways for those fuels to arrive. 

DARPA RESULTS

The Department of Energy is working cooperatively with the Department of Defense (DOD) on biofuels development. The Biomass Research and Development 

Board, co-chaired by DOE and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, coordinates federal activities to promote use of biobased fuels and products. DOD is also a member 

of the Board. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) participated in biweekly meetings of the Biomass Conversion Interagency Working Group 

that reports to the Board. The Working Group is managing the development of a 

comprehensive, integrated federal research, development and demonstration biofuels 

conversion plan with a target delivery by October 2008. 

DARPA focuses on developing JP8, military jet fuel, from cellulosic or algal feedstocks, with a goal of demonstrating scaleable and commercially viable processes at 

affordable costs (less than $3 per gallon). DOE is collaborating with DARPA and the 

American Society for Testing and Materials International in technical committees 

to develop standards for fuels, including JP8, which will enable targeted development activities and ensure fungibility of alternative fuel based JP8 formulations. 

DOE is also documenting material properties on thermochemically derived fuels 

from biomass feedstocks that can be used as a replacement for distillates and JP8 

fuels. These alternative fuels, such as Fisher Tropsch liquids, will be produced from 

DOE validation programs in sufficient quantities that can be evaluated for a DOD 

application. DOE-funded National Laboratories such as Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, together with private 

industry partners, have also submitted proposals to a DARPA broad agency announcement, BAA08–07, to develop JP8 from agricultural or aqua-cultural feedstocks. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
588 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Okay. I appreciate the fact that there is communication. I would like to see some discernible positive results of 

some of that, too. 

Mr. KARSNER. Absolutely. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Olver? 

Mr. OLVER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to address a few questions to Mr. Karsner. 

EERE FY 2009 BUDGET REQUEST

I notice that the budget for energy efficiency and renewable energy is down for the 2009 request by $467 million under the 2008 

enacted number. But I also notice that is actually up by roughly 

$19 million or something like that over the request for 2008. Now, 

I have been trying to figure out what has been happening here. 

You have had the budget since December 24, when I guess it was 

signed, so it is now 21⁄2 months after that. Let me just understand. 

I am trying to sort out what this budget is made of. It looks to me 

that several of the accounts that are basically internal to the department and its operations. Those look like the program support, 

the program direction, the facilities and infrastructure, and the federal energy management program. Would that be roughly correct? 

The other programs are from hydrogen technology down through 

building technologies and industrial technologies. I am reading 

down this list of items, plus weatherization, would be money that 

goes out in contracts and grants and contracts and R&D contracts 

to be done by contractors. Would that be roughly correct? 

Mr. KARSNER. Roughly correct. Roughly correct. I wouldn’t say 

there is a firm wall, for example, for the Federal Energy Management Program. It has a lot of contractors and stimulants on the efficiency side. But I think your generalizations are roughly correct. 

FY 2008 OBLIGATED FUNDS

Mr. OLVER. Well, if that is the case, for instance since we are out 

now 21⁄2 months, I am wondering what amount of those contracted 

monies are out? How much of that is obligated? What is the rate 

of obligation? And do you expect to obligate? Could you show us, 

for instance, what the obligation rate at this point is and what you 

intend to obligate before the end of the year? 

Mr. KARSNER. Yes, sir. I do think we could report back to you 

on that. 

Mr. OLVER. You think you could report back. All right. 

OBLIGATED FUNDS

Approximately $917.2 million has been obligated as of May 2008 for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Programs. EERE’s current rate of obligation 

is $114.7 million (12.5 percent) per month. EERE has obligated 53.3 percent of the 

approximately $1.72 billion in total FY 2008 appropriated funds. As EERE historically has higher monthly obligations in the last months of the fiscal year, EERE anticipates obligating the remaining FY 2008 funds before September 30, 2008. 

FACILITY INFRASTRUCTURE

For instance, in facilities and infrastructure, let me ask a little 

bit more specifically. That is one where the 2008 allowance, the 

2008 enacted number, is up by almost $70 million over the request, 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
589 

which was $7 million. And you are going back to a request of about 

$14 million. How much of that has gone out? Do you have any 

sense of what the intent is on that, since there were clear intents 

on the part of Congress in coming up with that appropriation? 

Mr. KARSNER. And we are fulfilling that intent very specifically, 

that is, new facility infrastructure at our applied lab, the National 

Renewable Energy Lab in Golden, Colorado, and very specifically 

that it is going to a systems integration facility. So because the appropriations actually arrived in January, the mark in December, as 

you noted, I believe that is in the early stages of soliciting design, 

et cetera. But that speaks for that amount of money. It has begun 

to catalyze in process. 

But to answer your question much more specifically as to the 

milestones and metrics at which it will be dispersed, I would have 

to report back to you. 

NEW FACILITY INFRASTRUCTURE AT NREL 

Approximately $69.3 million in FY 2008 funding for NREL equipment and construction is expected to be obligated by June 2008. 

The intent of Congress is that $54.5 million is to be used for the 1) Energy Systems Integration Facility (ESIF); 2) approximately $7.9 million is to be used for 

equipment in the Science and Technology Facility (S&TF) and the Solar Energy Research Facility (SERF); and 3) approximately $6.8 million is to be used for the 

South Table Mountain Site Infrastructure project. All funds will be obligated by 

June 2008. 

The milestones and metrics for funds to be dispersed for the ESIF ($54.5 million 

in FY 2008) are scheduled as: request for proposal July 2008; award design November 2008; award construction May 2009; award equipment November 2009; construction complete March 2010; and equipment complete December 2011. 

The milestones and metrics for funds to be dispersed for the equipment for the 

S&TF and SERF (approximately $7.9 million in FY 2008) are scheduled as: request 

for proposal August 2008; award design December 2008; award equipment purchase 

contract August 2009; and install equipment February 2010. 

The milestones and metrics for funds to be dispersed for the South Table Mountain Site Infrastructure project (approximately $6.8 million in FY 2008) are scheduled as follows: request for proposal July 2008; award design December 2008; award 

construction June 2009; and construction complete September 2010. 

Mr. OLVER. Okay. But generally, you are saying you are actually 

going to fulfill that? 

Mr. KARSNER. Absolutely. 

WEATHERIZATION

Mr. OLVER. Let me follow, then, on weatherization. For instance, 

the request in 2008 was $204 million. The appropriation on our 

part for the 2008 fiscal year was $282 million, a $78 million increase. But your request for 2009 has now been dropped to $58 million, which is a drop of $223 million below the enacted number for 

2008. 

I am curious. I am now zeroing in. I gave you the general question first as to what was going to be going out. I am zeroing in on 

that one. Are you intending to actually get those $282 million out 

by the end of this year? 

Mr. KARSNER. Yes sir. 

Mr. OLVER. You are? 

Mr. KARSNER. Absolutely. 

Mr. OLVER. And then you basically, the program goes over the 

cliff. It has been there as a request in 2008 of $204 million. You 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
590 

are dropping that request to $58 million. That is an enormous drop 

in request for a program which has been up there year after year, 

and certainly saves a lot of people a lot of money. People who are 

low-income folk and can use that weatherization to help them with 

their budgets. That is a major negative, the major negative in the 

difference between your two budgets in 2008 and your request for 

2009. 

Mr. KARSNER. That is correct. 

Mr. OLVER. What do you have to say for that policy of essentially 

dropping weatherization off the cliff? 

Mr. KARSNER. What do I have to say for it? What I would say 

for it is that weatherization assistance, income-related assistance 

for people below the poverty line is a good and worthwhile objective 

for a great and generous nation. So it is not a question of whether 

you do it, but how you do it, how effectively you do it, where it belongs in the budget, and how effectively you are achieving your objectives. 

After almost 3 decades, we have weatherized about 5.5 million 

homes, out of the 27 million annually eligible. It is clear that those 

lines are not going to dynamically move based on the status quo 

pursuit of weatherization where it is lodged, competing on rate of 

return inside the nation’s energy R&D applied science portfolio 

that is committed at a mission level to reducing climate change 

emissions within a decade, and to energy security. 

It is a very awkward place for an income-assistance program, 

and year after year this discussion takes place because on the 

metrics of rate of return, it cannot compete with the rate of return 

of all the other things that Congress has us investing in. 

HYDROGEN TECHNOLOGY

Mr. OLVER. However, it is true that the request on the part of 

the administration the previous year was over $200 million. So it 

is a very great unitary change in policy between 2008 and 2009. 

That is what I was trying to focus upon, even though we added 

more money. 

Again, I think my time is up. Well, okay. I think I will go on to 

one other one. 

The one other one that I wanted to raise was the hydrogen technology program. You are dropping that one off a cliff. I really want 

to know, not quite as high a cliff as the weatherization, but you 

have dropped that one by $64 million below the enacted from last 

year. And the enacted from last year is only a couple million apart 

from what your request was last year. So it is not a policy difference that we have been trying to impose, as certainly is true 

with the facilities and infrastructure and the weatherization program. 

But what are you dropping out of the hydrogen? Can you describe for me what is being left out that you have been doing in 

2008 and before? 

Mr. KARSNER. Yes, sir. The optics are a little bit deceiving in hydrogen when you talk about $64 million, because actually it is 

roughly half that amount that the hydrogen budget is going down. 

Mr. OLVER. Where is the rest of it hidden? 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
591 

Mr. KARSNER. The rest of it is moving over to the Vehicle Technologies Program, because it deals with things like education, codes 

and standards, learning demonstration, that really cross all vehicle 

platforms. In other words, we don’t want education to be only about 

hydrogen. We want it to be about all alternative fuel sources. 

Mr. OLVER. Okay. 

Mr. KARSNER. So that rightfully moves over and leaves the hydrogen program with an exclusive focus on research and development for hydrogen fuel cells, to move down the cost curve more 

rapidly. What we have done this year in readjusting the hydrogen 

portfolio is to eliminate our investment in production and delivery 

R&D, which is funded elsewhere across the department, particularly in the Office of Basic Science, where they are moving to have 

direct sunlight conversion to hydrogen, microbial and bio-conversion to hydrogen. There is a nuclear-to-hydrogen conversion program. 

We used extra money to amplify those areas on the hydrogen 

posture plan critical path, namely focus on the PEM-fuel cells, 

bringing the cost point closer to our target of $30 per kilowatt, and 

the more intractable program we have had with hydrogen storage, 

which is the key impediment to being able to get to a fuller transportation economy. 

So those two areas went up, and hydrogen production and delivery, at least in my portfolio, but not elsewhere across the department, went down, largely because the question of renewable 

sources converting to hydrogen is substantially a commercial one, 

one that we think should be pursued through the loan guarantees. 

We have worked on electrolysis. There is not a major mystery to 

it. We do it at NREL every day. 

So converting from existing renewable sources through electrolysis is something that we want to see more robustly in the commercialization camp, and we want to see the other focuses on production more in the basic and other programs. 

Mr. OLVER. I would suggest that what we are talking about ties 

into what Mr. Israel was saying earlier about battery technology. 

The storage issue is one where if we had a really good battery system that served within the vehicular use of hydrogen, then we 

would have made an enormous advance. I am not sure that we are 

going to make that, but I would support his comments about what 

are we doing and are we doing enough about R&D in the battery 

technology field. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Thank you. 

Mrs. Emerson. 

RENEWABLE ALTERNATIVE ENERGY PROJECTS

Mrs. EMERSON. Thank you, Chairman. 

And welcome to you all. Thank you for being here. 

Let me just ask a question. We have the Department of Energy, 

the Department of Agriculture, Department of Interior, Department of Defense—how many other departments are actually working on renewable alternative energy projects? 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
592 

Mr. KARSNER. I would be surprised if almost every agency in the 

government didn’t have some sort of play on energy. It is so crosscutting at this juncture. 

Mrs. EMERSON. So do you all ever get together and talk to each 

other? 

Mr. KARSNER. Yes, we do. In fact, I would say although we have 

a long way to go, that we have never had a more robust interagency process at a higher level. We are better in some areas than 

others. Biofuels and the things that feed into the Energy Independence and Security Act, that have been prioritized in the recent legislation, have caused us to get together not less than once monthly 

at the level of presidential appointees and higher for the Biomass 

R&D Board. 

That involves the National Science Foundation, Agriculture, 

Transportation, EPA, OMB, OSTP, et cetera. We would like to do 

the same thing for permitting renewable energy across federal 

lands, with siding permitting, grid integration issues, something 

we work on with Kevin. And we can get much better, but we recognize that problem of stovepiping and trying to overcome it. 

Mrs. EMERSON. So are you all working at complementary purposes or cross-purposes in some areas? It seems to me that if we 

are going to spend the money that we are spending that everybody 

should be working in a complementary fashion so that we can actually leverage that money. 

Mr. KARSNER. Congresswoman, I think you are right on. That 

has to be the driver of the agenda, that fundamentally how do we 

rationalize the core strengths and history of these institutions to 

put their best foot forward, without excessive redundancy, but parallel competitiveness where applicable. 

Mrs. EMERSON. And do you not feel that that is happening at the 

moment, with the exception of perhaps that one area that you mentioned? 

Mr. KARSNER. I chronically feel like it is something we can be 

better at, but I do think that there is enormous engagement at the 

moment. We just hosted the Washington International Renewable 

Energy Conference, involved the Department of Commerce from 

the standpoint of export and trade of renewables, and the Department of Agriculture actually took the lead with the Department of 

State on that. Obviously, the Department of Energy was indispensable. We presented to the world a very ecumenical approach to 

U.S. government equities in renewable energy that demonstrated 

exactly that concept. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Except that once you have egos involved, everybody wants their little bit of turf. Sometimes that is okay, and 

sometimes it works to the disadvantage of the public. People are 

so intent on having their little piece, and they are not willing to 

give it up perhaps for the greater good, so that we are actually trying to be more efficient, and to move these technologies forward 

much faster than we are right now. 

So it is a little bit frustrating, particularly when you have your 

constituents quite rightfully so up in arms about the cost of gasoline. And when you live in a rural district like mine, quite frankly 

we are over $3, which is shocking, and people drive ordinarily 45 

minutes to an hour to work every day. And that is on highways, 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
593 

so you know how much gas they are having to use on a weekly 

basis. 

I then got another batch of letters yesterday from some high 

school students, all of whom have part-time jobs. They have their 

own cars. They have to pay their own gas. And they are making 

minimum wage. Sure, they are living at home, but still it is very, 

very troublesome to me. 

So once a month is great, but hopefully we have a strategic plan 

in place among all of the agencies so that we are actually going toward the same goal, so to speak. 

Mr. KARSNER. That is right. And we are producing a strategic 

plan that I think will be up in front of Congress shortly. But the 

bottom line that you are pointing to, the problem is that we have 

institutions and bureaucracies in this country that were set up to 

fight a Cold War, and we haven’t adapted to 21st century challenges driven by energy, whether they are economic things that affect people at home, whether they are macroeconomic things like 

our global security. 

So we are fighting this challenge that we have, both environmentally and security and the pocketbook issues, through these 

pockets of government and good will. So it is going to take your 

kind of thinking to reform that. 

FUTUREGEN PROJECT

Mrs. EMERSON. It is kind of back to basics—easy, common sense 

stuff for all of us. But I still worry about the turf issue. 

But thank you. I appreciate it. I know you all are working hard 

and doing your best, but it is just interesting. I have to go over to 

my ag subcommittee where we are talking about the same exact 

thing. I am going to ask them the same question, if we haven’t finished that before I get there. 

Let me ask a question, if I could. I don’t remember if it was you, 

Secretary Albright. In your testimony, you were talking about the 

need on climate change technologies, and we are spending a lot of 

money to try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and capture carbon, et cetera, et cetera. 

So that brings me to the whole issue of the FutureGen project. 

I realize we had a discussion with Secretary Bodman about that. 

But I guess what I want to ask is, it seems to me—and I know the 

chairman may have some more specific questions—but it seems to 

me that if we are intent on trying to capture as much carbon or 

sequester as much carbon as possible, and the FutureGen project 

actually was at a 90 percent capture rate, so now we are just going 

to kind of throw that one away and we are going to do these other 

projects that may not be as advanced in the sequestration of carbon, at least the percentages might not be as great. 

And then we are delaying again because we are not going to finish that project out totally, and we are going to start all these other 

ones, so we are just postponing and postponing. I just don’t get it. 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. The administration remains committed to the 

goals of FutureGen and to FutureGen as a project and as a concept. 

The concept was and remains to generate electricity with coal at 

a significantly reduced carbon dioxide footprint. We remain committed to FutureGen. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
594 

The project that we embarked on with the Alliance started out 

as a $950 million project. It had grown to $1.8 billion. Frankly, no 

one believed that that project could be built for $1.8 billion, and 

please remember it was a research project. 

FUTUREGEN PROJECT COST

Mrs. EMERSON. Right. Have your costs at the Department of Energy also doubled? 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. The costs—and I am not trying to point fingers 

here at all—the costs were due to costs that were beyond—I guess 

costs are always in someone’s control—but they were market-driven costs. The cost of engineering went up. The cost of steel went 

up. The cost of everything—— 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Why does everybody always blame the steel industry for the failures at the Department. I am serious about that. 

Every witness comes in here and claims—— 

Mrs. EMERSON. It is China who is buying all of the steel. 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. Well, the cost of everything went up. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Sorry to interrupt. 

Mrs. EMERSON. That is fine, Peter. 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. The cost of everything has gone up and it is just 

the cost of production, the cost of the various ores, whatever they 

may be, from steel to uranium. All prices went up. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Okay, so the cost of the whole project has doubled. Has it also doubled your portion at the Department of Energy? Has that cost also doubled as well? 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. The portion we were going to bear, yes. We were 

going to bear 74 percent of the cost on the taxpayers, with 26 percent being borne by the Alliance and its members. Again, we remain committed to the goal and we believed that the costs were 

going to certainly go above $2 billion to perhaps $3 billion. This 

threatened to eat up a huge portion of our coal research budget. 

Once we recognized that and once we believed that coming back 

to Congress with a $3 billion to $4 billion project would cause its 

cancellation, not unlike some other projects that have been cancelled. We didn’t want to see that. We sat down with the Alliance, 

starting in April of last year, to try and renegotiate this. We took 

our concerns to them, and frankly I think they understood and 

shared some of these concerns. 

We negotiated over the cost. We talked about technology and how 

could we change the project. Negotiations went back and forth, but 

we just weren’t getting where we needed to go. I asked that we 

look at the market generally. The market had changed, and one of 

the things that got my attention was that when we started this 

program, nobody was building IGCC plants in the private sector. 

Now, we have had 30-some-odd IGCC plants discussed. I have 

forgotten how many, but at least five or six have sought permitting. Most have been turned down because they didn’t have the 

carbon capture and sequestration element to the plants. One has 

just been approved in West Virginia this week or last week. I asked 

our group at one of our labs, ‘‘Does this represent an opportunity? 

Can the private sector bear the cost of building the plant, and can 

we focus on the portion that is keeping the plants from being cerVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:21 Jul 24, 2008 Jkt 043355 PO 00000 Frm 00594 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A355P2.XXX A355P2

yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
595 

tified, and save money and focus on the technology that was necessary, that being the carbon capture and sequestration’’? 

They came back and said, ‘‘We believe we will do a number of 

things. One, we will save a lot of money for the taxpayers. We will 

focus on the cost component of this, which the private sector has 

been reluctant to bear. Plus, we will be able to put electricity onto 

the grid for actual operation, actual use, as opposed to in a more 

purely research environment.’’ 

We believe this is a better use of taxpayer money and we believe 

it is something that is sustainable, that can be replicated at other 

plants, and we hope will give us an opportunity to demonstrate this 

with different types of coal, different facilities, and multiple settings, as opposed to a single research center. 

Mrs. EMERSON. It is just kind of peculiar because you said April, 

and I think our Illinois colleagues who talked to us about this all 

the time, said they didn’t get notice until November because the 

costs really until that EIS statement was done or something in November. 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. We did try to keep this in-house and discuss it 

among the partners. It was easy to run the numbers to see costs 

rising, but we did try to keep the negotiations at the table. 

REPI PROGRAM

Mrs. EMERSON. Okay. I need to switch course. Thank you. I need 

to switch. I just have really a quick question, then I have to go over 

to ag. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. 

It is a question with regard to REPI. In a rural district, I have 

so many different utilities, I can’t even count them all. But we also 

have a lot of people who took advantage of the REPI program. I 

guess you eliminated it in this budget, the renewable energy production initiative. So I have a lot of folks who relied on some assistance there. It provided a lot of value for my guys. Why did you all 

zero that out? Was that an OMB thing because the cost-benefit 

ratio didn’t pan out or something? 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. I would be happy to stumble around and try and 

answer that. Andy can give you a better answer. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Whoever wants to. 

Mr. KARSNER. Maybe a better answer, but I don’t think it will 

be more satisfying. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Just tell me the real reason. 

Mr. KARSNER. Well, the real truth of the REPI program is that 

it doesn’t serve the purpose for which it is intended, which is to be 

an incentive to public power companies to produce renewable energy. It does not provide that incentive. It has been a small static 

amount, formulaically distributed across public power companies 

after the investment was already made. 

So it wasn’t an incentive to make the investment. It is almost a 

retro-rebate. We are not adverse to the idea that public power 

ought to be incentivized, but that mechanism—very old, moving 

along the budget line as it has—does not serve that purpose. 

ELECTRICITY RATES

Mrs. EMERSON. Okay. I understand. I appreciate that. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
596 

Let me ask you a question, and this has to do with electricity 

rates. We have a small—well, it is actually not small—a company 

in Missouri, but it is not one of the big guys either—whose rates 

are, they have told their commercial customers that their rates are 

going up 74 percent since last year. And I find that shocking, and 

it certainly does not help economic development in little bitty communities that are served by this particular company. 

Two of the things that they cited as causes for this, which to me 

are hard to understand, one is because they have switched over 

and they are actually using some wind sources now, and also increased costs from the federal government for hydropower. I just 

want you to tell me whether or not they are just blowing smoke, 

or whether that is true. 

Mr. KARSNER. I don’t know the precise case. I would be happy 

to look into it. It sounds like blowing smoke to me. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Yes. 

Mr. KARSNER. In fact, both those sources would be cost stabilization sources. 

Mrs. EMERSON. I would think so. 

Mr. KARSNER. And both ultimately are less volatile and do not 

have a fuel through-put cost. So typically you see wind where it is 

newly installed under a long-term contract reducing cost as it is 

doing in Texas today and giving it a more predictable profile for 

the longer term. But we would be happy to look into that. 

Mrs. EMERSON. I just appreciate your making that comment on 

the record for me to pass along when I have to deal with this next 

week. 

Mr. KARSNER. Sure. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Thank you. 

Mr. KARSNER. Anytime. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Calvert. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

CARBON SEQUESTRATION

It seems to me, and I am new on this committee so I apologize 

when I ask questions that I would like to get an answer for, the 

technology to sequester carbon. We have invested quite a bit of 

money in that over the last number of years. Maybe a short answer—how far along are we, realistically, to sequester carbon? And 

is it a long-term solution? Realistically, is there a capacity to store 

this carbon, to do it efficiently and effectively throughout the 

United States? 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. The technology exists to capture, we believe. It 

has not been used on a coal-fired plant, at large-scale, but we hope 

to do it in the future. The sequestering of the carbon, we are in the 

research stage. We believe it is feasible, it certainly has been done 

at labs. If indeed it works, it has multiple benefits because you can 

use it to extract oil, gas and other energy sources. We believe that 

it is going to work. 

Mr. CALVERT. Will the cost of the sequester per kilowatt—at 

what point does it become uncompetitive with other energy 

sources? 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
597 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. It is going to cost more. Capturing and sequestering carbon will, in all likelihood, knowing what we know today, 

add costs. 

COST OF CARBON SEQUESTRATION VS. COST OF NUCLEAR POWER

Mr. CALVERT. Relative to nuclear power, at a cost per kilowatt, 

at what we know today on sequestering carbon, is carbon going to 

be noncompetitive with nuclear based upon what we know today 

about the cost of that technology? 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. I don’t know. Jim, maybe, can give us some better 

estimates on costs, but the fact of the matter is whatever the cost, 

if we are going to demand that we reduce our carbon dioxide emissions to the degrees that policy decisions are driving those reductions, we are going to have to capture that carbon. We simply can’t 

build enough nuclear to meet our energy demands. 

If we continue with our CO2 reduction demands, I don’t know— 

absent some breakthrough technology—I don’t know that there are 

a lot of other options. I don’t know the exact qualitative cost comparisons as we currently stand. 

Jim? 

Mr. SLUTZ. No. I think at this stage, there are many different 

studies out there with different ranges, but fundamentally you 

start with a concept of energy demand in the future, and we are 

going to need coal, we are going to need nuclear, we are going to 

need natural gas, we are going to need renewables. We are going 

to need them all. So if you are going to use coal, then a fundamental enabler in a world where we are dealing with mitigating 

climate effects, then we have to deal with managing the carbon, 

and sequestration is seen as the most likely and viable because the 

volume of CO2 produced from coal is very large. It is a very bigscale issue to solve. 

Your question of do we have capacity in the United States to sequester carbon? The answer is yes. We have done the significant 

work of analyzing what the capability around the country is. Our 

research program is very geared toward—we have seven regional 

partnerships, and the strategy in that is that we have to be able 

to demonstrate at-scale sequestration in various geologic settings 

around the country. 

The only area, just from a geology standpoint, that doesn’t lend 

itself to sequestration in any way is New England just because of 

the geology. The rest of the country has a significant opportunity 

with sedimentary works and basins, so there is potential there. 

OTHER COUNTRIES CARBON SEQUETRATION RESEARCH

Mr. CALVERT. Are any of our competitors—say, the Chinese, and 

I know they put up a coal-power plant, a number of them every 

month—are they doing any studies at all in China right now on sequestering carbon? 

Mr. SLUTZ. Well, they actually are. 

Mr. CALVERT. Have they done anything? 

Mr. SLUTZ. Well, just earlier this week, they announced a joint 

venture with Australia, for instance, on a power plant and some 

capture capability. It is not near of the scale of the work that we 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
598 

do, but they are very engaged in some of the international dialogues on carbon capture. 

ETHANOL

Mr. CALVERT. Another issue, on ethanol, especially corn-based ethanol. The state of California, we are paying north of $3.50 a gallon for gasoline right now, the highest in the country, I think. And 

there is some frustration about air quality issues, especially in 

Southern California. There are those who say that actually cornbased ethanol adds to the problem, and doesn’t resolve the problem. It is not as efficient an oxygenate as others. 

So we keep looking to cellulosic ethanol that is coming online. 

Again, realistically, has there been any realistic breakthroughs as 

of yet? I know you keep looking at that silver bullet as a way of 

getting away from corn-based ethanol. Is there anything on the horizon that seems promising in the short term? 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. We believe that there is. A lot of research is going 

on into the biogenetic composition of plants and the non-food parts 

of plants to break down the cells. The most costly part of cellulosic 

ethanol, the biggest energy hog, is in the initial breaking of the cell 

structure of the plants. 

Mr. CALVERT. I guess the question is, we have invested a lot of 

money in research in this. Are we any further along than we were 

5 years ago? 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. I think we are much, much further along. Again, 

that is Andy’s purview and he knows this inside and out. 

Mr. CALVERT. All right, Andy. How far away are we from a realistic technology for cellulosic ethanol? 

Mr. KARSNER. Our objective is to have plants at commercial scale 

and commercial production by 2012. We are well on the way to 

those metrics and milestones. You asked about 5 years ago. The 

cost of cellulosic ethanol production 5 years ago was in excess of 

$6. Today, our price point is approximately $2.10. We have a cost 

metric goal of $1.31, indexed what was then when we began the 

program the cost of conventional corn-based ethanol. 

We think that with the movement in oil prices, the metrics obviously move closer in time. So I would say you have every reason 

to be confident that it is imminent and inevitable that we will have 

cellulosic-scale commercial production in this country within a 

timeframe that makes a reasonable impact. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. If I might just add one thing Andy left out, is that 

we do hope to have it as a commercial basis, but cost-competitive 

commercial basis. 

ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION INITIAL CORRIDOR DESIGNATION HEARINGS

Mr. CALVERT. Okay. One last question on transmission. In California, we don’t produce our own power per se. We bring it in, so 

transmission is extremely important to us. As I understand it, on 

March 6, DOE issued a notice denying further hearings on initial 

corridor designations. This decision, much like the first one designating corridors to begin with, is not likely to be popular with 

many of us here in the House. So please explain the consequences 

of this latest decision and what are the next steps? 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
599 

Mr. KOLEVAR. The department’s order last week denying rehearing is an administrative action. After the Secretary of Energy announced the corridor designation in early October, the department 

entered under the auspices of the Federal Power Act, a 60-day period of rehearing wherein parties could contact the department and 

write in and object or if they want to support—and some did—our 

decision for a variety of reasons. 

We extended that rehearing period in early December for the 

purpose of considering all of the comments that we had received. 

After considering all of these comments, we determined that by and 

large they raised the same issues that were brought to our attention during the period that immediately followed the draft corridor 

designation in April of 2007. 

So we are confident that the decision that the department made 

is consistent with the law, and we hope will have an appreciable 

impact on the ability to help secure more resources to feed growing 

electricity needs. So this was really an administrative action. Folks 

that had given comment to the department during the draft period 

and that gave comment to the department during this period of rehearing now have the opportunity, now have the standing to go 

into court and challenge the department’s decision. I am certain 

that is happening probably as we speak. We expect a number of 

parties to go to into circuit court and challenge the department’s 

decision. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Simpson. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

I always find these discussions interesting. I keep writing down 

things that you say that I want to ask you about. 

COAL

Mr. Secretary, you said we can’t build enough nuclear Plan B to 

meet our demands. Is that a political or a technical comment? 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. Depending on how you define ‘‘political,’’ it is 

probably a little of both. Siting these plants, building them, getting 

acceptance within the timeframe necessary to meet our energy 

needs, I can’t conceive of the ability to build enough nuclear. We 

currently have about 20 percent of our electricity generated from 

nuclear, over 50 percent from coal. It is cheaper, easier, faster to 

build a coal plant; cheaper, easier, faster to build a natural gas 

plant. 

Technically, we can get there. There is probably not a technical 

reason. There may be some reasons getting the components for nuclear plants if we were to build that many. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I don’t say this critically. I realize that we are 50 

percent coal and we are going to rely on coal for production of electricity well into the future and stuff. But this whole discussion that 

we are concerned about greenhouse gases because we know we 

have to reduce our carbon footprint, so we are looking at ways to 

produce electricity from coal with less carbon footprint, sequestration and so forth. 

Do we know the long-term impact of sequestration on underground geology? Have we done long-term studies on the impact of 

sequestration on underground geology and so forth? 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
600 

Mr. SLUTZ. Obviously, we are collecting a lot of information from 

some of the—you know, our experience on sequestration in saline 

aquifers is limited to small-scale. We are now moving into largerscale studies. Those will give us empirical data that we can use to 

model. We have a lot of information in geology, so our geological 

models are good. But again, we still need to do work in those areas, 

and there is uncertainty in that long term. 

An area where there is very long-term information is on CO2

being used as a method to enhance oil recovery for decades. So we 

have real good information on that. Again, so it is a matter of 

translating that information, that we know, to things that we don’t 

know. So there is still work to do, but we do have a good path forward on that research. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Back to the original discussion, the thing that I 

find interesting is that we all know that we are going to have to 

reduce the carbon footprint, and we all know that a majority of our 

electricity is produced by hydrocarbon energy now. And yet when 

I look at the budget, we are actually putting more in coal research 

than we are in nuclear research, which makes me wonder why. 

If you are really going to reduce your footprint, you are going to 

have to reduce your reliance on those sources of energy and get 

into renewables, wind, solar, other types of things which present 

their own problems to some degree. Are we doing anything about 

the hazardous waste that is actually produced by batteries that we 

talked about earlier, or by solar panels, in both disposal of them 

and the building of those types of things? I mean, they produce 

hazardous waste that oftentimes is more hazardous than anything 

nuclear. Are we doing things in research on how to deal with those 

hazardous wastes? 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. We are. We are researching all of that. I think 

one of the things that we are learning is that we shouldn’t rely on 

any one source of energy to generate electricity, and be so dependent on coal, or in the case of transportation—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. What do our long-term studies look like? In 20 

years, what do we expect the percentage of our electricity produced 

by coal to be? Increased? Decreased? 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. About the same is what we think in 20 years. I 

think if you look out 50 years, the hope—and it is hard to look out 

50 years. I have a hard time understanding the past, let alone explaining the future. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I have a hard time understanding tomorrow. 

[Laughter.] 

EFFICIENCY OF COAL PLANTS

Mr. ALBRIGHT. If you look out 50 years, you start to see things 

change a bit. I think there is a lot of research that needs to go on 

with coal. How to burn coal more effectively and efficiently, and to 

sequester the carbon. We are at around 40 percent efficiency now, 

which is high-efficiency for a coal plant, very high efficiency. If we 

can increase that efficiency, we burn less and generate more. 

Mr. SIMPSON. What is the efficiency? 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. The efficiency of a coal plant? 

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
601 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. It is about 40 percent now, for a very good coal 

plant. 

EFFICIENCY OF WIND POWER

Mr. SIMPSON. What is the efficiency of wind power? 

Mr. KARSNER. The efficiency of wind power is a function of the 

site that is chosen. So it really depends on what the price is locally. 

Generally speaking, people don’t like to develop today at less than 

about 35 percent. But I just visited a site in Hawaii that was in 

excess of 50 percent. So the higher the efficiency, the more revenue 

and people are very motivated to invest high in efficiency in wind. 

NUCLEAR ENERGY

Mr. ALBRIGHT. If I may, I think the question you want me to answer is, why aren’t we spending more time and effort on nuclear. 

I think we are. I don’t believe that in current technology nuclear 

requires the kind of research that coal does. We have done a lot 

of research on nuclear. We have built nuclear plants. We know how 

to do it very safely, very efficiently. It is emission-free. 

We continue to have some technical problems, some political 

problems with what to do with the waste. But as far as the technology for nuclear, there are four or five very well accepted designs 

for plants, three that are highly commercially viable, that are being 

built around the world. Most of Europe has built a lot of nuclear. 

Japan has built a lot of nuclear and they are doing it very safely 

and effectively. 

We hope to build more. I believe we are looking at a nuclear renaissance. One of the things our loan guarantee program is focused 

on is trying to expand our nuclear production. We haven’t built a 

plant in over 30 years, and that is a shame. 

Mr. SIMPSON. It is a shame. But the one thing that gets me 

about the federal government, or about our energy portfolio of what 

we are looking at in the future, is that if John Kennedy had not 

said in 1960 that we were going to land a man on the moon by the 

end of the decade, we probably wouldn’t have done it. He set a goal 

out there. 

And we are sitting here and we are saying we have to reduce our 

carbon footprint. Global warming is a problem. I don’t see us building a whole lot more dams around this country, but maybe making 

some of them more efficient and a few things like that. And yes, 

we are going to increase solar and we are going to increase wind 

power and geothermal and those kind of things, but we all know 

it is not going to meet the baseload that is necessary in the future. 

Why aren’t we setting out a picture that says by the year 2525, 

we expect 25 percent of our energy produced by a clean technology, 

nuclear power? And by the year 2035, we expect 35 percent of it 

to be produced by that to give us a goal and a vision of what we 

are going to be doing in the future. Because right now, I don’t see 

that. All I see is the same, well, coal is 50 percent now and it will 

be 50 percent in the future. We have to find a way to reduce the 

carbons. 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. The president has laid out a vision of just that. 

We are focusing a lot of our budget on that hope and on that promise. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
602 

Mr. SIMPSON. Which would tell me that we would be putting 

more of the research dollars into those things that we expect to be 

the future, rather than those things we expect to be decreasing in 

the future. 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. One of the things that we were very, very disappointed in was the cutting of our ITER research facility, which 

would be we believe the next generation of nuclear development. 

That was cut substantially after our begging that it not be cut. We 

are in a world partnership to do basic research through this facility. 

Mr. HOBSON. If I could interject something for a minute. We have 

had 8 years of this administration. There hasn’t been construction 

started on one new plant. How many licenses have been applied 

for? And how many licenses have been issued in the last 8 years? 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. I think the answer to that is certainly issued, 

zero. Applied for, there are a number that have—— 

Mr. HOBSON. But the number is a handful. The number by now 

was supposed to be in the double digits. This is the most disappointing thing. I said this to the secretary. The most disappointing thing is that this department has not really done it 

when it comes to nuclear energy, and I worry about what happens 

in the next administration on nuclear energy. 

I am sorry to take your time. 

EFFECT OF ASH PRODUCED BY COAL FACILITIES

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I just have some small questions I 

would like to ask here. 

Mr. Slutz, studies since 1970 have found that radiation exposure 

to people living around coal facilities is equal to or higher—and oftentimes higher—than those living near nuclear facilities. It turns 

out that fly ash from coal plants is the culprit. It contains high 

amounts of radioactive uranium and thorium. How is this ash from 

coal facilities disposed of? 

Mr. SLUTZ. I am sorry? How is the ash disposed of? 

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes. 

Mr. SLUTZ. In coal facilities? 

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes, the ash produced by coal facilities. 

Mr. SLUTZ. Yes. I am not a coal expert on that. Our research 

portfolio is not in that area, but we can get back with you. I know 

by being in the industry, I know it is disposed of in a variety of 

ways, depending on the location. 

DISPOSAL OF COAL ASH

Coal combustion byproducts including bottom ash, boiler slag, fly ash, and flue 

gas desulfurization solids are regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as non-hazardous materials under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act. This is based on years of extensive analysis and characterization 

by the EPA and state regulatory agencies of these materials, including radioactivity. 

The most recent survey results from the American Coal Ash Association, indicate 

that about 125 million tons of coal combustion byproducts were generated by 2006, 

of which more than 54 million tons (>43%) were put to beneficial use. The remaining 71 million tons were disposed of as non-hazardous materials in landfills. 2006 

was the latest in seven consecutive years of increasing beneficial use of coal byproducts, including use as a key ingredient in the manufacturing of concrete, wallboard, 

and other building materials. The increasing use of coal combustion byproducts is 

indicative that they can be safely used in commerce. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
603 

Mr. SIMPSON. It seems that this radioactive waste at the federal 

level falls between the responsibility of the NRC and the Environmental Protection Agency. Does it need to be regulated? If so, 

whose responsibility is it for regulation? 

Mr. SLUTZ. The Department of Energy, I know, is not involved 

in that regulatory decision, so I think it would be best directed at 

those other agencies, but we can follow up. 

REGULATIONS OF COAL ASH DISPOSAL

Fly ash and other combustion byproducts from coal fired power plants have an 

extremely low level of radioactivity. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) has consistently found that the levels of radioactivity and trace metals in 

these materials are well below threshold levels for drinking water. A series of regulatory determinations by the EPA—most recently in 2000—have exempted all coal 

combustion byproducts from Federal regulation under RCRA Subtitle C governing 

hazardous wastes—that is, they are considered non-hazardous materials in terms of 

their disposal and reuse. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Okay. Potentially, this subcommittee deals with 

cleanup of nuclear waste all over the country. It is where an awful 

lot of our budget goes and it is a problem and something has to 

be done. Are we creating a disposal and cleanup problem in the future for coal ash that is around the country and is going to create 

major cleanup problems such as we have with the nuclear industry 

currently? 

Mr. SLUTZ. Again, we are not focused on the coal ash issue. We 

do on issues that when you look at some of the liability issues regarding, those kind of questions on carbon sequestration, that is 

exactly what our program is geared to understand that so we don’t 

end up with a problem. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, as I said, I don’t ask these questions because 

I am opposed to coal or I am opposed to removals or anything else. 

In fact, I am very supportive of them and I realize they are going 

to be part of our future. But we have to understand that there are 

implications by the increased use of coal technology, by the increased use of solar, by the increased use of batteries and other 

types of things, that we are going to have to deal with in the future. 

I hope that the department and people within the federal government are thinking about what this is going to be in 20 years or 50 

years, and what is this committee doing at that point in time, 

which by then maybe I will retire, what are they going to be dealing with in trying to clean some of this up. 

So I appreciate your testimony today and I look forward to working with you on these issues. Certainly, I don’t have the answers, 

and you guys are the experts. So maybe we can sit down and talk 

about this one of these days. I appreciate it. Thank you. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I am going to recognize Mr. Rehberg in just one 

moment, but I would want to follow on on the issue of research, 

and indicate that the subcommittee has certainly shown strong 

support for research under the GenIV program as far as looking 

ahead to that long-term future. 

Secondly, for the record, because Mr. Simpson has talked about 

a number of waste issues we deal with on the nuclear side and you 

talked about coal ash. We have had a lot of discussion about battery development, but there are waste streams that we are spendVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:21 Jul 24, 2008 Jkt 043355 PO 00000 Frm 00603 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A355P2.XXX A355P2

yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
604 

ing billions of dollars every year through this subcommittee cleaning up. 

Mr. Karsner, would you be most appropriate for this? If you 

could for the record indicate what the department is doing as far 

as looking at what do we do with the waste stream? How do you 

recycle those? Not long ago, I could always take my flashlight batteries to a transfer station, and now they won’t accept them. And 

so I assume they are in a solid waste dump now. 

RECYCLING BATTERY WASTE STREAMS

The Department of Energy is not involved in the recycling of standard consumer 

alkaline batteries, but can speak to the recycling of hybrid vehicle batteries. Today, 

nearly all batteries for hybrid vehicles are produced abroad and any waste streams 

generated during manufacturing are managed in those countries. Waste streams resulting from batteries manufactured in the U.S. and any future growth in domestic 

battery manufacturing will be managed by our strong environmental regulations. 

Most hybrid vehicles manufactured to date are still on the road. Therefore, recycling of hybrid batteries has not been an issue. In the future, when these vehicles 

are retired in large numbers and new battery chemistries come on-line, the recycling 

infrastructure currently in place for both lithium ion and nickel metal hydride batteries will need to gradually expand. Because of the high value materials contained 

in these batteries and the mature auto dismantling/salvage industry, hybrid vehicle 

batteries will be recycled. In addition, recycling and disposal issues are considered 

in DOE’s battery development program. 

The final thing I would mention because the Secretary mentioned 

the lack of funding for EDER, our job would have been easier last 

year if the President had not been adamant that he would not sign 

a bill with one more penny than he asked for. This year looking 

ahead, if the President hadn’t cut his proposal for funding water 

in this country by over $1 billion, so I just want to make sure that 

is clear. 

Also, I do want to thank Mr. Rehberg for the jelly-bellies that are 

the original gourmet jelly bean. That is the second gift from the 

right-hand side of the dais. 

Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chairman, do you have to report this as a gift? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Rehberg. 

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, you might notice that I have my 

side of the dais eating jerky that you have provided—protein—and 

I have your side eating sugars. We will get back in the majority 

one way or the other. [Laughter.] 

You could have said our side needs to lose weight and your side 

doesn’t. [Laughter.] 

FUTUREGEN ALLIANCE

Gentlemen, the department entered into a partnership with the 

FutureGen Alliance. The partnership was 74–26. The department 

woke up one day and said, oh my gosh, we are behind schedule. 

Is the Alliance responsible for you being behind schedule? You are 

the senior partner. You control the schedule. You do the permitting. You do the siting. 

Who is at fault here? 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. We could point fingers all day, I guess. We were 

supposed to be partners. I am sure we bear some of the blame for 

delays. I am sure they bear some of the blame for delays. I would 

like to clarify one thing. We were not in charge of siting. That was 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
605 

the Alliance’s exclusive job. We were not in on their site selection. 

Specifically, we did not know until the time they announced. 

Mr. REHBERG. Were there regulatory impediments to the site selection? Did they have to work with state legislators and state governments to get the permitting done before they could pick the 

site? 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. They did. 

Mr. REHBERG. Here is what I am getting at. It seems like you 

are not a particularly good partner. The best example of that is, I 

have been touting this project all over America and I don’t have a 

dog in the fight because Montana, for one reason or another, wasn’t 

smart enough to put in a proposal. It turns out they were pretty 

smart because a deal is not a deal with this administration. 

And so what I have been touting is the fact that isn’t it great 

that there is a public-private partnership. There is an alliance put 

together with a 501(c)(3) that says we as companies are going to 

put in money that we don’t want to make a profit off of in this 

501(c)(3), and we are going to share this technology with anyone 

and everyone. And then we go out and we talk to foreign countries 

who are not required to be partners with us, ask them for money, 

and then pull the plug. 

So I guess my next question is, have any of those countries—because I went to China and I went to South Korea and talked to 

their governments and said you need to be a part of this alliance; 

you need to be a part of this partnership; this is real. The federal 

government is putting in a big share of it and companies in America, if you were going to be part of the global change of our environment, you need to be a part of it. And they said that they would. 

Did any of them make pledges or financial donations to this effort? 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. There were some pledges made. I don’t know if 

there were ever any checks actually written. We have been in contact with the international community on the new direction. There 

has been very positive feedback. I would like to say one of the reasons we started negotiations in April in trying to renegotiate this 

contract is we were seeking to avoid exercising a clause in the 

agreement that would allow the government in June of 2008 to 

make a decision whether to go forward with the program. 

The Alliance was allowed at any point to terminate their participation. The government was allowed only at given intervals, given 

points in time, and June of 2008 was out next one. 

Mr. REHBERG. Are you aware of any foreign countries then saying, well, thanks for the deal, but now that you have changed the 

rules, we are not interested in doing business with you anymore? 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. No, sir, I am not aware of that. 

Mr. REHBERG. Okay. You say the administration made the decision to pull the plug because of escalating costs. A number of us 

are involved in the construction industry, so we are well aware of 

costs. What has the alliance done to cause that cost increase? 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. As I said earlier, I don’t think there was any mismanagement. I don’t think there were any problems that drove the 

costs. 

Mr. REHBERG. Other than steel. 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. I beg your pardon? 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
606 

Mr. REHBERG. Other than steel. 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. I learned the error of my ways on that. [Laughter.] 

Mr. REHBERG. Then the question becomes, if you made the decision to cancel the project based upon escalating costs, how can the 

administration with a straight face come in and support the continuation of a MOX facility that has exactly the same problem? 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. For a number of reasons. One, the MOX facility 

doesn’t currently have the kind of alternatives that we have with 

FutureGen. 

Mr. REHBERG. Okay. Then I guess I would ask, do you expect 

under your reconfigured new management plan that the various facilities or companies that are going to come in and want to do business with you are going to set up the same kind of a 501(c)(3) 

where they are going to be willing to share the technology with foreign countries? 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. We hope the technology—— 

Mr. REHBERG. You hope? You have no knowledge. Again, read 

The Wall Street Journal because there are countries that are now 

saying because of your decision, we don’t want to do business with 

America. We can get you that article if you want. 

I also quote my former chairman, Mr. Hobson, and if I am misquoting I know you will correct me, but one of the reasons as I 

traveled through France with the chairman learning about was 

happening in Europe as far as the nuclear industry, was that there 

were not all these differing technologies out there; that they recognized one technology and kind of got in behind it as a country of 

companies. The difficulty in America is that there were competing 

technologies. 

As a result, I carried that forward to FutureGen and suggested, 

isn’t it great that we have the alliance of companies working with 

the government, to have a technology that can be duplicable or 

replicable around the country. And you have just blown that entire 

theory right to smithereens. 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. I hope not, congressman. And let me say—— 

FUTUREGEN ALLIANCE

Mr. REHBERG. Well, you are experimenting at a time when we 

need to get these facilities in place. In relation to what Mr. Calvert 

said, we can’t get a plant built. You can’t anyhow. You have proven 

that. But we can’t in Montana because our governor says, yes, we 

would love to have a new coal-fired generating plant in Highwood, 

Montana, but you can’t build it until you have sequestration proven. 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. That is exactly what we are trying to do. That is 

the portion that we are focusing on. 

Mr. REHBERG. But by changing directions within the administration, you have set us back a minimum of 5 and probably 10 or 15 

years. 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. We have advanced the goal. We have advanced 

the time because we do not believe that the other project was economically sustainable. We believe that Congress would have cut 

the funds off, just as they did with the super-collider in Texas, and 

you would be left with a hole in the ground. You would be left with 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
607 

the people of Mattoon, Illinois with no jobs, with lots of responsibilities financial and otherwise, expectations raised, with the inability 

to go forward. I specifically did not think that was the right choice. 

Let me say, this was a tough decision. I have made a lot of decisions throughout my career and obviously personal life. This was 

as hard as they get. There is not cut-and-dried answer. 

Mr. REHBERG. Well, unfortunately I find it a little disingenuous 

you blame the alliance at all for not coming to the table and sitting 

down and trying to cut a deal with you, because I wouldn’t. I hope 

they have learned their lesson that they ought not do business with 

you in the future, but they have to because you are the agency they 

have to work with. The true guide will be whether these foreign 

countries are willing to do business with you anymore, and I frankly think they won’t. 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. Congressman, a good friend of mine likes to use 

the expression that even the thinnest pancake has two sides. I can 

assure you that there are two sides to this debate and discussion. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Ryan? 

Mr. RYAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

SEQUESTRATION

I am going to bounce around a little bit. First, with just a couple 

of comments on the sequestration. This is something that we have 

an opportunity in Ohio, along the Ohio River, with economic impact 

in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, a major regional coal-to-liquid facility, but the sequestration again is vital. 

So as we hear all these debates on TV about the downside of 

globalization, the downside of NAFTA in areas like mine and probably several others members—I know Gary, Indiana as well—who 

have suffered from globalization. This is a real opportunity for us 

to use our geographic location to try to stimulate our local economy 

and this is a key component of it. So I just want to support what 

my colleagues have said. 

BATTERY R&D

I know the issue of batteries has been brought up here as well. 

I want to ask a question with regard to that. Some of the products 

that are brought in to make these batteries, that obviously we don’t 

have in supply here in the U.S. What factor does that play in the 

development of the lithium battery? 

Mr. KARSNER. At this juncture, not a significant factor because 

we don’t have a significant manufacturing industry. But to the extent that we emphasize the need to build one, and I hope that we 

do, largely the submaterials, the materials that would be supplied 

come from nations that are more friendly and aligned with our interests than other dependencies that we have. Countries like Chile 

and Argentina are principal suppliers of lithium, by way of example. 

So on a commoditized basis in a global world, getting access to 

lithium, if we were to cultivate a robust industry here at home, the 

access to lithium would not be the priority problem, tradable with 

friends and allies. The bigger problem is the race to create that industry that has some demand on it because the longer we wait to 

do it, and the more robust our competitors are, the more they will 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
608 

have priority call on those global resources, and these things will 

be going to Japan and China and Korea, and we will be a secondhand customer. 

Mr. RYAN. Do you think we are doing enough on the governmental side to encourage development of this product? 

Mr. KARSNER. We are—— 

Mr. RYAN. What are we investing? Are we investing? 

Mr. KARSNER. We are invested predominantly in the long-term 

research and development of the product to make it more durable. 

Mr. RYAN. How much? 

Mr. KARSNER. I could get you the exact figure, but approximately 

$50 million from our portfolio. There is a robust storage investment 

from the basic science portfolio. So the answer is yes, we are doing 

an enormous amount, a world-leading amount in terms of the research and development of it. We are probably not fulfilling our interest for the commercialization, deployment and manufacturing 

piece of it. 

Mr. RYAN. What do we need to do to encourage that? 

Mr. KARSNER. Well, we have tools on the books. We discussed 

earlier—— 

Mr. RYAN. I am sorry I missed it. I had another hearing. 

Mr. KARSNER [continuing]. That loan guarantees were specifically developed for commercialization of technologies such as these, 

that could avoid, sequester and reduce greenhouse gases. Our portfolio will be eligible for approximately $10 billion of those loan 

guarantees as they stand up, and we will be advising the loan 

guarantee program that storage is a priority area. 

Mr. RYAN. For the battery component? 

Mr. KARSNER. For both batteries for transportation and storage 

for the grid. 

Mr. RYAN. So you think that will stimulate the commercialization 

and speed it up? What is your projection? How long? 

Mr. KARSNER. There is simply no question that in a global world, 

as you have characterized it, we have to be in a competitive position to make a favorable investment environment for a market with 

too few players that possess this technology; too few investment 

dollars; and ultimately a captive market—in other words, the automotive industry. 

So what are we doing on the private sector side to ensure that 

we have a good, reliable, long-term customer with healthy balance 

sheets in the automotive sector that can take off these batteries reliably? And what are we doing as a government—local, state and 

national—to assure that it is more attractive to get your returns 

in the United States? 

On both those counts, today we are not in as competitive a position as the Europeans or the Asians. So I think the things that we 

have in statute are powerful, and as we stand them up, hopefully 

they will be favorable, but the irony we have today is as leading 

investors in the R&D, many of these companies are American and 

are more quickly seeking their commercialization deployment opportunities in other investment environments abroad. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
609 

WIND POWER

Mr. RYAN. Just to switch gears a little bit. I know we have—and 

you mentioned Hawaii where there are the high-wind areas for 

wind power. There are a lot of areas in the country that have moderate wind power. Are we designating any resources or earmarking—that is not a popular word anymore—but earmarking 

any money for development of these moderate windmills or windmills that would develop some power in some moderate wind 

areas? 

Mr. KARSNER. That has been an interesting dialogue—even in 

our shop, in our national laboratories—among those who favor increasing the focus on the capacity to harness lower wind speeds. To 

some degree, we have tried to move our wind program to be far 

more relevant to the marketplace. You know, wind is the fastestgrowing source of energy and new capacity additions, not just in 

our country, but worldwide. 

So we have to say, who is the customer that is moving it? It is 

not the federal research scientist and what we would like to do, or 

a select community project with a low wind speed resource. The 

customer is the developer that is deploying these at larger rates 

and scales every year. That customer in the marketplace is finding 

more rational ways to harness the high wind speeds, which yield 

a far lower and more competitive price for the wind based on all 

the R&D that we have invested over 30 years. 

So our strategy has been more about size and scale and co-location with the already available good resource, selected by the private sector, and then giving them pathways to the marketplace 

through our work with Kevin’s shop in the Office of Electricity. We 

need, as he put in his testimony, wires. It is a transmission discussion. How do we get the high yielding wind spaces into the urban 

load centers? 

There is a market for lower speeds, but it is very small and incremental relative to these national objectives of wind taking increasingly large parts of an emission-free portfolio. 

DESALINATION

Mr. RYAN. Thank you. 

Finally, if we are going to try all the bases, desalination. What 

are you guys doing with regard to investment into the research for 

desalination? 

Mr. KARSNER. Regrettably, not a great deal. 

Mr. RYAN. That answers it, I think. [Laughter.] 

Mr. KARSNER. Yes, not a great deal. Because desalinization is so 

energy intensive, we do some of the front-end power consumption, 

which would be where our nexus would be to desalinization. But 

desalinization technology itself, reverse osmosis and conversion are 

not in our portfolio. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Fattah. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

EISA ENERGY EFFICIENCY BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM

The Energy Independence and Security Act that was just passed 

by the Congress had as part of it an energy efficiency block grant 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
610 

program authorized $2 billion to help local communities focus in on 

energy efficiency and conservation efforts. 

I would be interested in how you view—how that program, in 

your mind, should be rolled out or implemented. What should be 

the appropriate first steps along that road? 

Mr. KARSNER. Well, yes, sir. I mean, obviously, the timing presents far too much of a challenge for the 2009 budget request. But 

I think the onus of your question is how would you rationally begin 

a dialogue to say this should be stood up correctly in the first place 

when it is budgeted. 

And I think that that is probably a dialogue with the appropriate 

associations and representatives of counties and cities and those 

councils. I think you would want to be careful to optimize that volume of money which is, as it is described in statute, another 

formulaic grant program. 

You would want to be able to guide that to useful metrics that 

are measurable and serve the purpose on the first day that such 

a program were funded. But as I said, as the EISA was signed in 

mid-December, it did not factor into our thinking. 

Mr. FATTAH. You said that if the Congress decides to make some 

down payment in this regard to begin this program, you think that 

one of the steps is to work with the stakeholders involved. But 

from the department’s viewpoint, your sense of the utility of an incremental beginning in this regard, in terms of which of the various priorities would you think would be the appropriate focus? 

Mr. KARSNER. Well, I mean, I think that is the problem. That is 

the challenge with formulaic grant programs managed through the 

federal government in general. Fundamentally, we are an ATM 

machine when we have that type of statute. So you fund us, we 

apply the formula, and we distribute it without many milestones 

or metrics or enforcement. 

So for us to add the value of best practices and reconciling the 

history and experience of the department, our national labs and 

what we could bring to bear, there would need to be some sort of 

a stimulus response mechanism and interrelationship. 

This is precisely the discussion we have on the formulaic grants. 

It is how to make them more agile and, to some degree, get some 

competitiveness amongst the stakeholders to apply best practices 

that we can then reconcile and convene the stakeholders to so that 

the whole moves up. 

Mr. FATTAH. If we decide to proceed in some form on this program, are you confident that the process that you would prefer 

could be short-streamed in a way in which we could get some utility in this regard? 

Mr. KARSNER. If the will of Congress were to move forward on 

that, I would be happy to have all of our resources at disposal to 

convene with your office or other interested parties to say, Is there 

a way to optimize federal best practices involved with that? 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Serrano. 

Mr. SERRANO. I apologize for the fact that I join you at this time, 

but I was chairing my own hearing down the hallway with the 

Consumer Product Safety Commission. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
611 

WEATHERIZATION

I understand that Mr. Olver, gentlemen, touched on the issue of 

weatherization, and I wanted just to follow up. Even if you assume 

that the weatherization program is an awkward fit in DOE, this 

budget does not propose moving it to another agency. It simply proposes eliminating it. 

When you combine that with the proposed decrease in LIHEAP 

in the HHS budget, one has to wonder how low-income Americans 

are supposed to pay their energy bills next winter. It seems like 

the administration simply has no interest in helping those who 

need the most help. 

Now, I have to tell you that I have taken a bit of heat—and that 

is a terrible pun—in my congressional district for accepting an 

agreement with CITGO that, as you know, is providing a lot of 

home heating oil at a 40 percent discount. Many people see it as 

some sort of incredible propaganda move by President Chavez from 

Venezuela. 

But I say that because my district is a living example of what 

happens when folks have trouble paying their bill at the end of the 

year. And what can you tell us? I mean, is there an indifference 

to this issue? Is there a desire, perhaps, to remedy this later on? 

To tell us that it doesn’t fit within DOE may be a technical answer, 

but it certainly doesn’t help Mr. Smith’s problems next winter. 

Mr. KARSNER. Congressman, I think you are asking precisely the 

right question, and one that is asked all too rarely. How do you fix 

this problem? Because this has been a yo-yo question year after 

year after year, based on the metrics of competing this particular 

program against all the other programs with higher returns. 

So the question about a consolidation of income-related federal 

weatherization assistance is the important question, and it is a 

statutory question, because the provisions for this particular program, unlike many others, are embedded in the law from which it 

has arisen. 

Therefore, it does require a hands-on approach by Congress 

across multiple committees to determine how a consolidation would 

best occur to more effectively deliver without having to compete it 

in this particular portfolio where, as you point out, it is, in fact, 

awkward. 

We would be happy to consult with that in any way. We have 

offered HHS and across all agencies any technical assistance, any 

technology provisions, those core strengths of the department, to 

continue in perpetuity to assure that they are getting what our 

strength is, the technology focus. But in terms of the delivery 

mechanism, that is a statutory fix, and it requires multiple committees to consult, and probably on both sides—probably on the 

Senate and the House side. I am not an expert in such things. 

But our focus would be just as you outlined it—how do you make 

this an effective and efficient delivery mechanism not just for the 

88,000 homes that get it each year, but for the 27 million homes 

that are eligible for it each year? 

So we have that delta. We are not fixing it. We are doing policy 

by placebo when we talk about it each year as to how it competes 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
612 

in this portfolio. We would be happy to work with your office if you 

think a consolidation move is in the interest. 

Mr. SERRANO. I appreciate that. At the expense of having to repeat yourself because of my earlier lack of presence in the committee, why is it an awkward fit within DOE? 

Mr. KARSNER. Well, I think there are multiple reasons, you 

know. The first and obvious thing to say is we have been asked 

several times in this committee about redundancy across the federal government and how to be more streamlined and efficient in 

our delivery. 

Now, I understand the stakeholders in this are quite passionate, 

and they are doing good work, and I understand why they would 

want to hedge their bets across multiple pots and pools of money 

and keep it that way. But the first thing that is obviously asked 

by those people who command or review the budgets across the 

whole federal government is why do we have this in multiple 

places. 

So the second thing would be to say what is the right place relative to mission. It stands that this is the only income-related assistance program in all of the Department of Energy’s scientific, research, development and deployment portfolio. So it completely 

stands out in a way that we formulaically apply it and never get 

to any substantial percentage of those who are available for the 

help. 

Mr. SERRANO. Well, I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that these gentlemen—you know, they have made the offer to work with us—that 

we could do that, because there are a whole host of issues in this 

country that still have not been resolved and that make us look 

bad in view of the wealth of our society, and one of them is that 

there are still folks in—a significant number of people who just 

don’t know how they are going to pay their heating bill next year. 

And I am not talking necessarily about the ones who will be hit 

by the economic downturn. That is going to be everybody in this 

room to a different extent. We are talking about folks that were 

never really able to get a handle on this issue. 

Under weatherization, the government stepped in, and was able 

to do something. However, now it seems like more and more we are 

either consolidating or eliminating programs, and creating a serious problem. So I certainly stand ready to work on this, and I know 

that you will, too, Mr. Chairman. And I thank you. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Rehberg. 

Mr. REHBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Very seldom do you have an out-and-out victory over the bureaucracy. Andy, thank you. Friday was his executive assistant’s 

last day, and yesterday was her first day with me. So I stole her 

from you. 

Mr. KARSNER. I cursed the day. 

Mr. REHBERG. Yes, curse—you should have paid her more. 

Mr. KARSNER. Yes. [Laughter.] 

Or had her work less hours in preparation for the committee. 

Mr. REHBERG. Yes, something like that. [Laughter.] 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
613 

TRIBAL GRANT OPPORTUNITIES

And I know all about you. And my question is for you. It is a 

very quick one, and that is the Karok tribe in northern California 

was a successful grantee and entered into a partnership with your 

department for a First Steps grant. It was a pretty exciting opportunity for them, because they came up with a plan, and the plan 

was a small hydro and solar project, and there were, lo and behold, 

that partnership kind of ended as well. 

I have gone back to my prior discussion. And can you explain 

why now Wally Herger has to come in for an earmark, one of those 

dastardly things—and if we do what you are reading in the paper 

today it is not going to happen. Again, why do we enter into partnerships with the department when the rug is kind of pulled out 

from under us, especially in something as exciting, I think, as the 

First Steps grant program? 

Mr. KARSNER. Does that fall under the tribal program? 

Mr. REHBERG. Yes, it is tribal. 

Mr. KARSNER. And I will report back for the record on that specific tribe and grant opportunity. 

But in general, the tribal program is not unlike Mr. Serrano’s 

questions on the weatherization, where incrementalism and very 

selected choice opportunities to the few who could interconnect 

with the federal government has been the guidance, instead of a 

more holistic national and measurable vision of saying these are all 

the tribal communities in need, these are all of their resources, this 

is the timeframe it takes to fix the problem. 

And so that has been the difficulty. It is not that there is not virtue in the small amount of money that we give to the tribal programs or have over our history. And it is not that it doesn’t do good 

work when it connects. It is that we need—— 

Mr. REHBERG. But isn’t there kind of an inherent believed expectation of some kind of a follow-through on the part of the department when they enter into it? I mean, you know, this is time. This 

is effort. This is commitment. 

Mr. KARSNER. Well, I mean, I can’t speak to that one opportunity, and there may be that, and I will revert to that. But in general, those grants have their own definition of time. And so it 

should be understood when those grants are received whether 

there is a multiyear mortgage or whether it is a one-off opportunity. And so, I mean, that is almost an explicit contractual relationship. 

Mr. REHBERG. Okay. If you could report back on that one specifically. 

Mr. KARSNER. Yes, sir. 

TRIBAL GRANT OPPORTUNITIES

In FY 2007, the Karuk Tribe of California applied for and was competitively 

awarded $98,120 under DOE’s Tribal Energy Program’s Funding Opportunity Announcement ‘‘First Steps Toward Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency on Tribal 

Lands’’ to conduct an ‘‘Energy Analysis and Conservation on Karuk Trust Lands.’’ 

The project started on September 30, 2007 and is scheduled to be completed by December 31, 2008. The agreement with the Karuk Tribe was for the ‘‘First Steps’’ 

project only, with no DOE contractual obligation for future funding except through 

a future competitive process. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
614 

Also in FY 2007, and for several prior years, DOE’s Tribal Energy Program had 

issued a Funding Opportunity Announcement seeking feasibility studies from the 

Federally recognized Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations for renewable energy 

and energy efficiency projects. In FY 2008, DOE’s Tribal Energy Program did not 

seek either ‘‘First Steps’’ nor feasibility studies project proposals from the Tribal 

community. Rather, the Tribal Energy Program has been refocused to (1) provide 

highly cost-shared financial support toward deploying renewable energy and energy 

efficiency systems ‘‘in the ground’’ in Alaska and the lower 48 states within 18 to 

24 months and (2) develop model financial solutions, legal frameworks, and Tribal 

training to spur broader project development. The goal is to provide the knowledge, 

technical assistance and legal templates to spur greater project development 

through a more holistic national strategy for the Tribal community, rather than continue awards for feasibility studies to a limited number of applicants that result in 

very few actual projects. 

Mr. REHBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

FUTUREGEN PROGRAM

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Secretary, we have had a number of questions on the 

FutureGen program, and I would also have a number of them. 

Could you, for us, describe your restructuring plan in a bit more 

detail? When do you expect, for example, the first clean coal plant 

to actually begin operations? 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. We have put a request for information out to the 

public. We got in excess of 50 responses. We are analyzing the information that we got back. We will meet with interested parties 

who responded and those who didn’t respond. We will be open to 

the public to get more information. 

We hope to make a selection by the end of 2008 as to where— 

selecting the companies to build these facilities. I don’t know exactly what the timeframe will be on completion of those. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Do you have a ballpark year? 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. Ballpark would be 2015. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. And what is going to be the federal cost share 

as to how the Program is going to be run? 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. The way we are structuring this is the government, the federal government, is trying to structure it so that we 

pay the carbon capture and sequestration element of this. They 

build the plant. We pay for the portion that the private sector was 

unwilling to pay for, and that is the carbon capture and sequestration. 

FUTUREGEN COST-SHARE

Mr. VISCLOSKY. So it will be 100 percent on the plant on the private side and 100 percent on the—— 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. Well, the plants will be eligible. It will be no additional federal involvement. They are already eligible for certain 

loan guarantees, tax credits, et cetera, potentially. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Okay. Tax credits would be tax policy, and loan 

guarantees, I understand what those are about. Will there be any 

other federal monies they would be eligible for for the plants themselves that would be from programs under this committee’s jurisdiction? 

Mr. SLUTZ. We don’t anticipate that. The plant would serve as 

a cost-share component against the CCS, so it would meet the demVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:21 Jul 24, 2008 Jkt 043355 PO 00000 Frm 00614 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A355P2.XXX A355P2

yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
615 

onstration—the overall project would need to meet the demonstration requirements of at least a 50 percent cost share. 

That is one of the challenges as we, or challenge/opportunities as 

we work through all the comments that we have received from industry, and many positive comments, is how to structure that cost 

share so it is—so we can get the most competitive and optimal 

bids, you know, when we get to the request for funding proposals 

stage. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Under the demonstration, it is supposed to be 

50–50, depending on each plant being somewhat unique and each 

of the capture and sequestration being somewhat unique. Is there 

a requirement in your solicitation that it be 50–50, or you are looking to be as close to 50–50 as possible? Is there a range as far as 

the cost share? 

Mr. SLUTZ. The total value of the project would be—because part 

of it gets very technical in the details of what qualifies for various 

cost share. But I can kind of sketch out what we would envision 

as a potential proposal based on plants that industry has proposed—is it would be probably in the range of a 600-megawatt 

power plant, which would cost somewhere in the probably $2.5 billion-plus range. 

We would be paying for the carbon capture and storage demonstrated on one 300-megawatt train of that power plant. And that 

would be—and we are working within the budget of $1.3 billion 

that was allocated for the FutureGen project. 

We would anticipate being able to do multiple plants. Does that 

give you framework? And part of that is trying to understand—we 

have some estimates on cost, but because of the nature of where 

this is, those are fairly preliminary, and we need that feedback 

from industry. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I understand there is some give here, but the 

concern I would have, and I think all of the members would, is that 

the proposal of FutureGen originally was 74–26, 76–24—— 

Mr. SLUTZ. I think 74 government, 26 industry. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. And we would want to know as we proceed here, 

given the comments that a number of members have made about 

the first go-around here, is to make sure we know what the values 

are on both sides of this transaction. If you could for the record, 

I would appreciate that very much. 

FUTUREGEN COST SHARE

Under the original FutureGen approach, the Department was responsible for 74 

percent of the total project cost, and industry was responsible for 26 percent. the 

restructured approach to FutureGen will limit the Department’s expense to the incremental cost of carbon capture and storage (CCS). The allowable CCS-related 

costs will be defined when a new Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) is released in summer 2008. The costs incurred will vary based on the nature and extent 

of the proposals received, yet the Department will limit its cost contributions to only 

the CCS portion of the power plant, and to a maximum of 50% of the total project 

cost. 

You will be getting solicitations—and I assume that also will be 

site-specific as far as the solicitations you receive. They will be for 

specific sites. Who picks the sites? That is my question. 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. Private sector. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
616 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. So that will be similar to the original FutureGen 

program where—— 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. It will be. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY [continuing]. The alliance picked the—— 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. It will be, except these will be commercially sited 

plants for commercial purposes. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. So part of their response to your solicitation is 

okay, we want to participate, we will build a plant, and we will 

build a plant in Montana. 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. Correct. Correct. [Laughter.] 

INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED CYCLE

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Right? I mean, that is the right answer. 

The restructuring does seem to follow many of the suggestions 

made by the MIT report on coal published last year, in particular 

to build multiple clean coal demonstrations. 

One observation—and Mr. Slutz probably this would be directed 

to you, that you did not take from the report—was not to pick winners when it comes to the power plant technology. What was the 

rationale in demanding that plants use integrated gasification combined cycle technology? 

Mr. SLUTZ. You are talking about in our request for information? 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Yes. 

Mr. SLUTZ. The program is written around, and we think the integrated gasification combined cycle has a clear role. We actually 

expanded when we requested, did the RFI, and again, we are 

still—understand that that closed last week, so the stack of, you 

know, comments, we are integrating through quite an extensive 

comment program. 

But we did ask for a broader input on whether that was the right 

path, should we consider other paths. And so we are analyzing 

those. Just from the state of the technology, we think there is 

clearly a lot of interest and a lot of opportunity in IGCC. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. So it is not a given that it will be IGCC technology at each Plant. Is that still somewhat in question, if I understand your answer? 

Mr. SLUTZ. We have received comments from industry around 

that issue, and we are working through those comments. That will 

be worked through before we go out with the formal request for 

proposal. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. So what is your answer? 

Mr. SLUTZ. We haven’t made a decision on that yet, but it is 

skewed toward IGCC. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Secretary? 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. We tried to leave it as open as we could. We 

wanted the private sector to give us information. If they have a 

better way to do this, we wanted to hear from them as to what they 

believe is a better way. We believe, given what we know, that 

IGCC is likely the technology that will be—— 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. So it is most likely we—— 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. Most likely. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY [continuing]. Might see that, but it is not a certainty. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
617 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. We did not try to lock the private sector into what 

the government says you must do. We tried to leave it as open as 

possible. They have massive amounts of information and technological and commercial expertise, some of which we have, some of 

which we don’t have. 

The commercial application is what we are really looking for 

here, and that is a huge part of the difference between the research 

facility and commercial application. We are trying to get to the end 

point. 

Whereas the earlier research, the commercial ventures, would 

have been able to pick and choose what they wanted out of this research facility, we are now saying we will pay for a large portion 

of this; you tell us what you want to do, what is commercially feasible. 

UNDERGROUND STORAGE OF CARBON DIOXIDE

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Okay. The underground storage of carbon dioxide 

emissions will be a key component of the proposed projects. And in 

particular, the Department intends to provide support for building 

and operation of a storage system. 

The Department is also supporting several such large-scale tests 

of underground storage as part of the regional carbon sequestration 

partnerships over the next few years. It would seem as though it 

is a duplication. And what is the rationale of the Department for 

supporting both large-scale tests and the carbon storage of 

FutureGen plants? 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. We have announced that we will have seven carbon sequestration partnerships around the country. We hope that 

each of those will demonstrate the unique needs of various geographic areas. 

Specific testing will go on at those unique geographic areas. 

There is nothing that precludes the FutureGen project from collaborating with the seven partnerships. We hope that we will learn 

from both the sequestration partnerships and from FutureGen. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. In a sense, what is your coordination role? Do 

you propose FutureGen be filling in less speculative sites? Would 

that be the right question? 

Mr. SLUTZ. I think—sorry. 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. No, no, go ahead. 

Mr. SLUTZ. Really, you have to look at—— 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I just want to make sure we are not doing 

two—— 

Mr. SLUTZ. No, no, no, but you—— 

Mr. VISCLOSKY [continuing]. Tracks that never meet. 

Mr. SLUTZ. It is a very good question. And because as we look, 

the whole coal—it is not just the partnerships and that, but how 

do you integrate the whole coal research portfolio, what you do, and 

then the higher level, how do you research the Department’s portfolio. But the sequestration partnerships are under way right now. 

They have completed small-scale tests. We have actually approved 

four of them to move forward with large-scale tests. 

We actually have some detailed—and they are doing data acquisition in the first year of that. The other three will be moving forward, we anticipate, later this year. But those are on a scale that 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
618 

we will begin those very soon, okay? And we need to get that information very quickly. 

One thing that is very—FutureGen integrates that all together, 

and you have to have that integration. And remember, we will be 

working the next few years on getting the—you know, we make the 

selections later this year. But we are looking at 2015 for a commercially operating FutureGen, the first of the FutureGen plants if 

they were starting from ground zero versus ones already on the 

drawing board. So from a time scale, the partnerships are working 

now. We will bring in significant information that will be used to 

set the regulatory structure. And then these FutureGen plants will 

come in after that with the integrated system. So it really is a complementary system. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. So you would build on the knowledge you want 

to gain from the partnership in a sense, although a lot of this will 

be concurrent as well as you proceed. 

Mr. SLUTZ. Yes. They will be operating concurrently, but for instance, injection in the large-scope partnerships are probably a 

year away. You are looking several years before you get the 

FutureGen plant operating on an integrated scale. 

FUTUREGEN SITE SELECTION

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Okay. A substantial amount of time, money and 

effort have gone into the site selection process for FutureGen and, 

in particular, to environmental impact assessments at the final 

four sites considered. 

And in particular, the site at Mattoon, Illinois. Are there any 

plans by the Department to try to make sure that these efforts 

don’t go to waste? For example, has the Department pursued coordination of the efforts made at those sites with the regional partnership program? 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. We have put in our requests for information, and 

we will continue to work on having companies look specifically at 

those areas that have done the kind of work that was done in 

Mattoon. We have encouraged both in writing in the RFI and also 

just verbally, to try and pay particular attention to those areas. I 

think they have addressed the liability. 

There are studies that have been done on the suitability of the 

sites, that should perhaps not be directly on a one-for-one basis. 

They can’t just flip it and apply it to a new project. But they should 

save significant amounts of time and engineering effort that would 

have to go into a site. 

That is kind of a long answer to saying yes, we have worked and 

we will continue to work with the private sector. We believe that 

that work that has been done on those sites will not go for naught. 

But again, that is going to be left to the private sector to make that 

determination. 

OFFICE OF FOSSIL ENERGY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Gentlemen, one thing—and Mr. Rehberg is here, 

and Mr. Serrano—we have, I guess, one vote. And apparently we 

have to be out of here at 1:15 p.m., which I just found out about. 

But I have just scratched the surface, and as a courtesy I have 

waited to last. So if I could continue for a few more minutes on fosVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:21 Jul 24, 2008 Jkt 043355 PO 00000 Frm 00618 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A355P2.XXX A355P2

yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
619 

sil, I will run to vote, and if we could just come back as quickly 

as possible, and squeeze as much as we can, I would really appreciate that. 

FOSSIL ENERGY

Mr. Secretary, I do notice that the Department does not seem, 

as far as their appointments to the Fossil Energy program—a serious commitment. There is today no Assistant Secretary. And with 

all due respect to Mr. Slutz, who is acting, there is no permanent 

Principal Deputy for Fossil Energy. And those are two of the top 

positions. 

With the lack of permanent personnel at these top two positions, 

what are we to infer as far as the administration’s commitment to 

fossil? 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. I am not sure what you should infer. I can tell 

you what you should not infer that there is a lack of commitment. 

I think the budget certainly shows that, if nothing else. 

Let me take a second to compliment Jim on the work he has 

done. He has been willing to serve in this position and has done 

an exemplary job of leading the team, working very, very hard on 

some of the most difficult and vexing issues. 

As you know, we had a nominee for assistant secretary who withdrew his name just a few weeks ago. We are trying to see what we 

do in light of that. There is no lack of commitment. There is no lack 

of time, energy and effort that is going into ensuring that we are 

fully staffed in that shop. It is just the cold reality of this stage in 

the administration it is hard to get people to fill positions for a 

few—— 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Slutz. 

Mr. SLUTZ. I am going to do the best job I can. 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. He is doing a great job. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. That all we can do, you know? 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. He is doing a great job. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY [continuing]. A struggle every day. 

But along that same line, the Office of Fossil Energy is a federal 

steward for underground geological storage of carbon dioxide and 

is expected to be critical to our efforts to avoid global warming. I 

am told that the underground storage may be critical for management of carbon dioxide emissions not only for coal-fired plants but 

also to store emissions from a range of sources, including ethanol 

plants and future natural gas power plants. 

But I was looking at the organizational chart and I do not 

know—and I stand to be corrected—if it is a man or a woman who 

is the Director of the Office of Sequestration for—I shouldn’t say 

that. The person who runs the program reports to the Office of Sequestration and Hydrogen Clean Coal Fuels, is that correct? 

Mr. SLUTZ. Are you looking at an ACL chart? 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. No. 

Mr. SLUTZ. I am sorry. I am not sure what chart—Dr. Victor 

Der—oh, Lowell Miller. And Lowell works for Victor Der. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Okay. And so Mr. Miller is in charge. He is in 

charge. 

Mr. SLUTZ. Of the sequestration—— 

Mr. VISCLOSKY [continuing]. Of sequestration. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
620 

Mr. SLUTZ. He is a Director. And then our Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Clean Coal Program is—— 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Okay, and then that reports to—— 

Mr. SLUTZ. And he reports to me. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Reports to you. Okay. 

Mr. SLUTZ. And then that is implemented out to the National 

Energy Technology Laboratory. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Okay. 

I am going to defer on fossil for a moment here and get to 

biofuel, Mr. Karsner, if I could. 

You know, I think let’s run and we will be right back. 

[Recess.] 

CO2 EMISSIONS FROM BIOFUELS

Mr. VISCLOSKY. The Committee will come to order, and I do appreciate, gentlemen, your patience with us here. 

BIOFUEL

Mr. Karsner, a key challenge to increasing biofuel production is 

making biofuels cost competitive with petroleum-based transportation fuels, so we have had a fair amount of conversations about 

them today. 

FEEDSTOCKS AND CO2 EMISSIONS

I have a couple of questions . When you compare feedstocks, will 

some produce more or less CO2 than others, taking into consideration the full production life cycle? 

And I don’t want to be rude, but obviously we have got a couple—and they told us literally we have got like 21 minutes here. 

It is not my idea, let me tell you. 

Mr. KARSNER. The question is that—— 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. But in all of these, if you would want to expand 

for the record, I would deeply appreciate that, if you could. 

Mr. KARSNER. Okay. We will do that. That is a complex question. 

The short answer is yes, different feedstocks will have different life 

cycle characteristics and greenhouse gas emission profiles. 

All of them, depending on the energy intensity of the production 

and conversion, are going to be a greenhouse gas reduction relative 

to the conventional carbon-based fossil fuels or the petroleum fuels 

that they are displacing. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Okay. And if I could, as far as the matrix—how 

the Department, when they are doing research, and depending how 

things develop, deciding which road to go down—how do you balance your choices between feedstocks that may produce significant 

energy, but yield significant CO2 emissions with those that may 

produce less energy but have less CO2 emissions? 

Because as you had mentioned a couple times, and I agree with 

you, you know, this is a national security problem. This is an economic problem. This is environmental. How does the department 

think about these things? 

Mr. KARSNER. To some degree, we still remain somewhat agnostic on the feedstock itself. Of course, the Department’s historic core 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
621 

strength is in the conversion technology, the conversion platform, 

rather than the inputs. 

As we get closer to the targets for commercialization and our 

funding of these commercialization plants, we have to be into feedstock inputs. But in all cases, those feedstocks and these conversions yield a better climate change profile than what they are displacing. So there is a lot of analysis right now on the sustainability, on the climate change profile, of the various forms of 

biofuels. 

It is important to put it in context against what it is displacing, 

first off. And then both conversion technologies and feedstocks progressively yield different profiles. What we want to do is to be as 

diverse in our investments as possible so—— 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. At the front end. 

Mr. KARSNER. At the front end, so different regions, different 

feedstocks, as many different feedstocks as we can accommodate 

and understand the attributes of, which right now is fairly rudimentary. In other words, running sweet sorghum, or switchgrass, 

or urban green waste or agricultural waste—we are in a learning 

process right now. 

But all different regions of the country have biomass that is capable of being utilized for cellulosic conversion, and so our challenge is thinking of our energy sources on a far more distributed 

basis than the concentrated base we have today in the Gulf region 

or Alaska, and then piped everywhere. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Is the emphasis on the substitution? And is CO2

secondary? 

Mr. KARSNER. I think that it is fair to say that the emphasis is 

on breaking the addiction to oil and displacing oil first and foremost, and that we know, no matter what, depending on the energy 

intensity in, that the environmental profile should be better. So it 

is all about, then, improving that environmental profile as we improve the process. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. You are agnostic at the beginning. For example, 

we funded these programs in 2007 and 2008. From what you have 

learned in just, say, 2007 to beginning of 2008, although we are almost halfway through the year now, and recognizing you develop 

your budgets much earlier, let me go back to 2005, 2006. 

Has that changed? Has your funding signature changed as far as 

how you are approaching feedstock for the 2009 request? As you 

have learned, has that adjusted where you are putting—— 

Mr. KARSNER. I think it is fair to say we have progressively gotten far more into feedstocks than we were 24 months ago. We don’t 

want needless overlap with the USDA, and so we do a joint funding, joint program with them on several aspects of it. We have 

moved far more into sustainability, space of direct and indirect 

land use of the feedstocks, the impacts of nitrates and phosphates 

in water runoff, et cetera. Those are inevitable things that will increase our focus. 

The bundling, the handling, the single versus double pass harvesters, we have to focus on the feedstock equation as we get closer 

to commercialization on the conversion platforms. We had one of 

our cellulosic winners in yesterday who identified, not like many 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
622 

other places in the sector, feedstock management as being his number one commercial risk. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Okay. 

STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE

Secretary, we have not talked a lot about the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, but essentially, the capacity right now is about 727 

million barrels. The proposal is to go up to 1.5 billion, as I understand it. 

With the price of oil hitting $100 a barrel, and apparently Guy 

Caruso, the head of the Energy Information Administration, indicated last week in testimony that this was likely to be the high, 

although I don’t think anybody is speaking of a certainty here, 

what is the rationale for the expansion beyond the authorized levels now? 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. Well, the president has determined that we need, 

for strategic reasons, a 90-day supply of oil. That would be about 

a 1.5 billion fill. At the current fill, I think we have about a 57- 

, 53-, somewhere in that range, day supply. Get to a million, we 

will be at about a 60-day supply. 

As to Mr. Caruso’s comments, I hope he didn’t try to predict that this is the all-time high. I thought that at $60, and then at $70, 

and then at $80. But we do know that historically prices have gone 

up during switch-over periods and during the summer. 

Due to reduced efficiencies in the burn of the fuel, you need more 

oil in the summer time for an equal amount of energy. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. But as far as the facility and then the purchase 

of the oil, What is the estimated overall cost to get to 1.5 billion? 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. I will be happy to try and get that for you. I don’t 

know. 

Do you know that? 

Mr. SLUTZ. Well, you know, I can give it to you in round numbers, and then we can—but to move to the billion level, the total 

cost of it is around $5 billion. Then to move to the 1.5, it is another 

$5 billion cost. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would understand that it is—oh, you were talking about construction? 

Mr. SLUTZ. Construction costs. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Construction. Okay. 

Mr. SLUTZ. That does not include acquisition of the oil. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Okay. I am told that that potentially could be 45, 

55—and of course, obviously, it is completely dependent upon what 

the price is, too. 

Offering some context for my question, if you would, assume $10 

billion in construction costs, which is not an inconsequential sum 

of money, and then the add-on for the oil—Mr. Karsner’s budget for 

this year is $1.7 billion, give or take, and the request is a bit over 

$1.2 billion, $1.3 billion. 

If we invested that—I will throw out—say $50 billion over the 

next 19 years in renewable technologies and alternative fuels and 

conservation, could we make up that 750 million barrels? I mean, 

I am dividing 1.7 into $50 billion and thinking, I am getting a lot 

of renewable research and conservation and other efforts. Could I 

just replace those barrels without building the—— 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
623 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. I think we probably need to do both. Certainly, 

again, the president has made a determination that our strategic 

interest is served by having a 90-day supply, and that is what we 

are building toward. I don’t think that is coming at the expense of 

our advancement of renewable and efficiency technology that we 

are working on. 

I might add that when we do our purchases for the fills, we do 

make an economic analysis of whether or not, given the price at the 

time, given the contracts that we can possibly get, we make the 

purchase. We have not made the last two purchases because we 

didn’t feel that they were economically viable. Now, again, that is 

not to look 6 months down the road, but it is to say given what 

we know today. 

HIGH TEMPERATURE SUPERCONDUCTIVITY PROGRAM

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Kolevar, I do not want to ignore you, because 

my son just got back from his visit to Ann Arbor 2 weeks ago, so 

I don’t want to leave you in the lurch. Sorry about that day. 

Mr. KOLEVAR. Good choice. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. The high temperature superconductivity program 

has focused on high-performance conductor wires with 100 times 

capacity than conventional copper wires. Would you explain some 

of the new attributes? And are the new conductor wires available 

on the markets? And if not, when will they be deployed? 

Mr. KOLEVAR. Right, so you have two different wires in the marketplace. You have 1G wire. You have 2G wire. The superconducting lines are really flat tape, superconducting materials 

sandwiched between metals—silver in the case of 1G wire, nickel 

in the case of 2G wire. 

And while we have 1G wire in demonstration now, I think we are 

looking at I believe Albany, the Albany project, coming up is a 2G 

wire cable demonstration. We think 2G ultimately holds the prospect of much lower costs, if not because of the further advancements in materials research, if for no other reason than the cost 

difference in precious metals that go into the wire itself. But we 

have seen significant progress on the wire side in the high temperature superconductivity program. 

When I first came into this job 3 years ago, I considered the HTS 

program to be about a mid- to perhaps a long-range type of R&D 

program. And I have revised it upwards in the last couple of years 

based on the penetration that we are starting to see. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. The new wires, if you would, have an attribute 

of being able to move more electricity, and is it more efficiently? 

Do you lose less power on those wires as well, then, or—— 

Mr. KOLEVAR. I would have to go back and look. I am not aware 

that you lose power in the 2G lines. My understanding is that the 

attributes principally are greater capacity to move it and, just as 

important, a much potentially less expensive wire. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. And you don’t have to go through the process of 

having to find new corridors, because you are essentially rewiring 

existing corridors, as I understand it. 

Mr. KOLEVAR. Yes. Really, when you are talking about HTS 

wires, I think you are talking mostly about some transmission, but 

a lot of urban distribution. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
624 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Okay. 

Mr. KOLEVAR. So in cities like New York City and other large cities where you are utilizing, say, underground pipelines. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Okay. I am corrected. 

Mr. Olver had a couple of comments. 

Mr. OLVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

SUPERCONDUCTIVITY

You started on the superconductivity. And, Mr. Kolevar, you are 

talking about the wires. Well, that gets you back into resistance, 

because the superconductivity isn’t going to be maintained in these 

cheaper wires. Superconductivity does have the opportunity, I 

think, to reduce a huge amount of long-range loss, transmission 

loss, and ought to have some—I don’t know enough about this as 

I ought to, so I am not sure whether I am really on target here. 

But I was going to ask you how much of your relatively small 

budget—it is only $134 million or so—goes into the issue of superconductivity, because I think there is a major opportunity in transmission loss, which is very, very significant in our major lines. 

Mr. KOLEVAR. For fiscal year 2009, we propose $28.3 million in 

R&D for the—— 

Mr. OLVER. In the superconductivity portion. 

Mr. KOLEVAR. And I will say that there are certainly going to be 

transmission size applications for high temperature superconducting wire in the future. Most of the work that we are seeing 

now is smaller scale. The longest lines that we are really looking 

to put in place right now, with 300 meters or so in Albany and 

longer in New Orleans. And given the cost of coolant along those 

lines, I think long-distance transmission for HTS is something that 

is far off in the future. But that should in no way diminish the significance of this application in an urban setting to really allow for 

much more effective flows of electricity. 

OFFICE OF FOSSIL ENERGY

Mr. OLVER. Okay. I wanted to give something to Mr. Slutz over 

there. 

You don’t have fusion in your bailiwick. Maybe you are quite 

happy not to have fusion in your bailiwick. But there is a nuclear 

process which I think is in the science program because it has 

never quite reached the development level, whereas everything else 

that you guys talk about is basically research and development. 

Your proposed budget is a couple hundred million dollars above 

what it has been, and there are at least a body of people who think 

that if one were to spend perhaps $1 billion a year, per year, for, 

a period of years, we might finally break through. 

There remains that holy grail, essentially, because both the volume and the intensity of the waste that you produce in fusion, at 

least as best we know about it, is so much less than it is in the 

case of fission nuclear processes. 

So there may be some place in the future to ramp upward the 

amount that is being expensed so—at the level it has been, you expend a couple hundred million dollars a year, as has been the case 

now for a lot of years, and you make very little progress along the 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
625 

way. It needs a certain, really, scale to that research program to 

get there, I think. 

CELLULOSIC ETHANOL

A third comment that I wanted to make, on the cellulosic ethanol, I have had scientists come to me and say, please do not close 

avenues that are available. We have operated on corn ethanol, and 

we are now moving toward cellulosic ethanol, and both of those depend upon the breakdown to the ethanol, which in corn is relatively easy, but still takes a lot of energy. 

In the case of cellulosic, either you are working on a sequence of 

biological events that get you down to the ethanol, or there are 

those who now think they have a closure of that to just one or two 

steps that get you down to that point. One or two steps, if they 

prove to be relatively effective, would seem to be a good deal better 

than going the other, but there are others. 

This group of scientists I speak of has come in saying we can 

take the very same feedstock that is being talked about for cellulosic ethanol and break it down in sort of a Fischer-Tropsch process, and get it down to carbon monoxide and hydrogen, and then 

start putting the compounds back together to get hydrocarbons 

again. 

And that one is one that—you had made the comment earlier— 

that we should not foreclose routes of research. And that is one 

that I think ought to be at least considered if, and I don’t know 

whether you have any money in that kind of an approach. 

Mr. KARSNER. Yes, sir. I think that approach is being pursued 

widely amongst many of the people that we work with and affiliate, 

particularly through the basic science program and the—— 

Mr. OLVER. Through the basic science, not through the development side yet. It is out in the basic science side. 

Mr. KARSNER. Well, I think that is right. We haven’t seen a commercially scalable process integration proposal of the type that you 

are talking about. That dialogue has really just begun over the last 

12 months to 24 months. 

People like Jay Keasling and people like Dumesic over at University of Wisconsin think it is very promising, and it certainly would 

be the case that the department is not at all foreclosed on that. The 

Secretary is actually quite fond of that particular scheme and pathway. 

To some extent, it is sort of first past the post. We don’t want 

to choose any one of these things. We want to cultivate the conditions where the first one that succeeds is allowed to succeed. But 

if you have folks you would like to refer to us and have that conversation—applied science program—our door is really quite open. 

We do not have—— 

Mr. OLVER. In the applied science, in the applied science. 

Mr. KARSNER. That is correct. 

Mr. OLVER. That is a different section from what you have in 

your responsibility. 

Mr. KARSNER. We handle the biofuels. It is applied science in use 

perspective. We work closely with the basic sciences which operate 

the three—— 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
626 

Mr. OLVER. So that argument could come under you because it 

starts with biofuel stocks—— 

Mr. KARSNER. Yes. 

Mr. OLVER [continuing]. And goes down and then reconstitutes, 

which strikes—think that that would take more energy than just 

coming down the several steps along the way. But if there are more 

efficient steps coming down all the way, and then building up, it 

might be that it might prove to be marginally the better way to go. 

Mr. KARSNER. The question is not the process itself. It is what 

is the relative maturity of the process compared to all other processes. We are open to all these things, and work with them at the 

appropriate place in the RD&D pipeline where they exist. So if 

they are ready to build out today, which I do not think is the case 

with that particular process, that is closer to our shop. 

If they are just at the beginning of studying on how to string together alcanes to hydrocarbons from cellulosic or green sources, 

that is more resident in Dr. Orbach’s shop. But we will find a home 

for it if it is a viable process. And we are certainly not foreclosing 

on that. Of course, every cellulosic developer that comes to us says 

his thing is better than the next guy. 

You know, our deal is in the national interest to cultivate the 

right policy conditions, market conditions, and have multiple bets 

in parallel to see which one is first past the post. 

Mr. OLVER. I think we are at time up, but if I can have 1 more 

minute? 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. One. 

HYDROGEN ECONOMY

Mr. OLVER. I want to just go back to the hydrogen economy again 

for a moment, because there has been much said about it, and my 

guess is that you all understand that in the process of developing 

a hydrogen economy, why I suggested that a battery breakthrough 

would be very important. 

But in a hydrogen economy, whether you make hydrogen by 

starting with coal or natural gas and blasting it with heat and 

pressure and water and so forth, you get hydrogen, but you use a 

hell of a lot of energy. And the amount of energy that you use is 

greater than what you are going to get out by then using the hydrogen in any mechanism we know. 

Well, the same thing is basically true if you are going to do it 

with nuclear power, at least—nuclear power, however the nuclear 

power happens to come. 

You are going to use a lot of energy to break down that, even if 

it is basically just an electrolysis to hydrogen, in which case the 

transmission and the storage and so forth becomes really key. So 

you are never in these processes going to get more energy out when 

you finally work with the hydrogen fuel cell at the end and put hydrogen in it in order to run a vehicle. 

It may be important to do it and valuable to do it, simply because you are changing the direction that it is—you are changing 

the—you are getting away from the CO2 issue if you can make the 

hydrogen by some mechanism other than using coal and other hydrocarbon kinds of mechanisms. But you are not going to get away 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
627 

from the fact that you will be using more energy than you will get 

out of the process in the long run. I believe that is correct. 

Mr. KARSNER. In the law of thermodynamics, each conversion 

loses energy, so it is correct in that sense. And just viewing hydrogen much more so as a carrier of energy rather than the source of 

energy is sort of important to our concept ultimately. 

So you are right. It is competition with plug-ins and batteries. 

We pursue them both. It is a race between the efficacy of protons 

versus electrons in carrying our energy to displace oil. But thought 

about in the appropriate context, each of those can find an appropriate mix in the marketplace. 

Mr. OLVER. Okay. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I never learned that law in law school at Notre 

Dame. [Laughter.] 

Mr. KARSNER. They taught it at Michigan. [Laughter.] 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I am sure they taught it—and Ohio, let’s just 

say, and South Carolina. I will go down the road with you, okay? 

Following up on the hydrogen, though, we have some very specific questions we would ask for the record as far as how the monies that are being transferred, and you had an earlier interchange 

with Mr. Olver, are being redistributed. And if you could answer 

that for the record. 

Mr. KARSNER. Yes, sir. 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM INVESTMENT

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Also, I do make note of the fact that the snacks 

have now gone and the members have gone, so there must be some 

correlation. 

I would, again, want to thank Mr. Hobson, because when he became Chairman 5 years ago they arrived on the scene, and it has 

helped attendance. 

I also would be remiss, and I do believe if he was here he would 

join me, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Hobson and I have been very perturbed 

at most of our hearings this year about the lack of follow-through 

or the complete ignoring of not congressional direction but the law 

that was signed by the President that was passed by the Congress. 

In this case, I want to thank you because there was a direction 

in the law passed by Congress, signed by the President, that we 

were having a very difficult time with, and you were very responsive and very cooperative and have done everything possible to 

make sure the law is implemented. And I certainly appreciate that 

very much. 

And I just want you to know fair is fair, and in this case, you 

went out of your way, and I appreciate that very much. 

I would just ask in the end, and everybody is getting real nervous here now, to get us off—just one last question. And I am not 

trying to be facetious, Mr. Karsner, but to almost get back to my 

original point, we are spending a lot of money. 

And there are a complex number of reasons why gasoline is 

whatever it is today. If I am that average constituent waiting on 

tables at a diner, working in a mill or, as Ms. Emerson said, driving 45 minutes each way in the country, it is killing them. 

What can we tell the American people we are going to get out 

of this investment the next year as far as some immediate—we all 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
628 

are paid to look down the road. What about the next 12 months? 

What are you working on that we can say something is going to 

start turning a corner? 

Mr. KARSNER. I wish I could tell you that there was an easy fix. 

I have to answer that for my own family when I visit with them. 

And there isn’t an easy fix. We have been postured toward longterm transformational technologies. 

We have moved more than ever, I think it is fair to say, under 

this secretary toward commercialization and deployment in an intelligent way that views the scale of the problem and the rate of 

deployment relevant to the problems as a guiding metric. That has 

not always been the case. 

The bottom line for all the technologies that are in these portfolios is to compete today. We can no longer compete them exclusively on first cost, the cost you see when you first buy a widget, 

the cost you see when you first buy a fuel. 

It has got to be on the life cycle, total cost of ownership. And 

until we impress that as the competitive metric in our society, and 

stop doing things at builder’s grade, or stop viewing our investments in clean energy technologies or new transmission, as only 

the investment on the day we make them, then we won’t get to deployment. But the loan guarantees are meant to do that. $38 billion are 

meant to push this stuff out the door. Banks, investors, are capitalizing in this way. And of course, we want to continue to work with 

your leadership, Mr. Chairman, to come up with the mechanisms 

that adapt our institution toward more rapid commercialization. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Gentlemen, do continue your hard work. 

And, Mr. Secretary, if you could also stay in close touch with us 

as far as the permutations and progress on FutureGen. 

Mr. KARSNER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. And again, thank you very much for your cooperation, and thank you for your time and patience. 

[Questions and Answers for the record follow:] 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
629 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1056 here 43355B.199
630 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1057 here 43355B.200
631 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1058 here 43355B.201
632 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1059 here 43355B.202
633 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1060 here 43355B.203
634 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1061 here 43355B.204
635 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1062 here 43355B.205
636 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1063 here 43355B.206
637 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1064 here 43355B.207
638 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1065 here 43355B.208
639 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1066 here 43355B.209
640 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1067 here 43355B.210
641 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1068 here 43355B.211
642 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1069 here 43355B.212
643 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1070 here 43355B.213
644 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1071 here 43355B.214
645 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1072 here 43355B.215
646 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1073 here 43355B.216
647 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1074 here 43355B.217
648 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1075 here 43355B.218
649 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1076 here 43355B.219
650 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1077 here 43355B.220
651 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1078 here 43355B.221
652 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1079 here 43355B.222
653 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1080 here 43355B.223
654 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1081 here 43355B.224
655 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1082 here 43355B.225
656 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1083 here 43355B.226
657 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1084 here 43355B.227
658 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1085 here 43355B.228
659 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1086 here 43355B.229
660 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1087 here 43355B.230
661 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1088 here 43355B.231
662 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1089 here 43355B.232
663 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1090 here 43355B.233
664 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1091 here 43355B.234
665 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1092 here 43355B.235
666 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1093 here 43355B.236
667 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1094 here 43355B.237
668 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1095 here 43355B.238
669 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1096 here 43355B.239
670 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1097 here 43355B.240
671 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1098 here 43355B.241
672 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1099 here 43355B.242
673 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1100 here 43355B.243
674 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1101 here 43355B.244
675 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1102 here 43355B.245
676 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1103 here 43355B.246
677 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1104 here 43355B.247
678 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1105 here 43355B.248
679 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1106 here 43355B.249
680 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1107 here 43355B.250
681 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1108 here 43355B.251
682 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1109 here 43355B.252
683 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1110 here 43355B.253
684 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1111 here 43355B.254
685 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1112 here 43355B.255
686 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1113 here 43355B.256
687 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1114 here 43355B.257
688 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1115 here 43355B.258
689 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1116 here 43355B.259
690 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1117 here 43355B.260
691 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1118 here 43355B.261
692 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1119 here 43355B.262
693 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1120 here 43355B.263
694 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1121 here 43355B.264
695 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1122 here 43355B.265
696 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1123 here 43355B.266
697 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1124 here 43355B.267
698 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1125 here 43355B.268
699 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1126/1300 here 43355B.269
(i) 

W I T N E S S E S 

Page 

Albright, C.H ............................................................................................................ 509 

Bodman, Hon. Samuel ............................................................................................. 1 

Karsner, Alexander .................................................................................................. 509 

Kolevar, Kevin ......................................................................................................... 509 

Orbach, Raymond .................................................................................................... 323 

Owen, Michael ......................................................................................................... 169 

Rispoli, Jim .............................................................................................................. 169 

Slutz, James ............................................................................................................. 509 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING