U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

68–480 PDF 2011

THE FISCAL YEAR 2012: DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

AND NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

BUDGETS 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER 

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE 

ECONOMY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 16, 2011 

Serial No. 112–20 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

Vice Chair 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

BRIAN BILBRAY, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

Ranking Member 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

(II) 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

Chairman 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

Vice Chairman 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

BRIAN BILBRAY, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

Ranking Member 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex officio) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

Chairman 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

Vice Chairman 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

Ranking Member 

TOMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex officio) 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Kentucky, opening statement ......................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 2 

Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4 

Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 5 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8 

Hon. Mary Bono Mack, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, prepared statement ........................................................................... 123 

Hon. Gregg Harper, a Representative in Congress from the State of Mississippi, prepared statement ............................................................................... 124 

WITNESSES

Steven Chu, Secretary, United States Department of Energy ............................. 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 130 

Gregory Jaczko, Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission ............................. 79 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 82 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 175 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Supplemental memorandum, submitted by Mr. Waxman ................................... 126 

(1) 

THE FISCAL YEAR 2012: DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BUDGETS 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER, 

JOINT WITH THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 9:35 a.m., in room 

2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Whitfield 

(chairman of the subcommittee on Energy and Power) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Whitfield, Upton (ex officio), 

Barton, Shimkus, Pitts, Terry, Burgess, Bilbray, Bass, Scalise, 

Latta, Harper, Cassidy, McKinley, Gardner, Griffith, Waxman (ex 

officio), Dingell, Markey, Rush, Green, DeGette, Capps, Doyle, Inslee, and Matsui. 

Staff present: Maryam Brown, Chief Counsel, Energy and Power; 

Allison Busbee, Legislative Clerk; Andy Duberstein, Special Assistant to Chairman Upton; Mike Gruber, Senior Policy Advisor; Dave 

McCarthy, Chief Counsel, Environment and the Economy; Mary 

Neumayr, Counsel, Oversight/Energy; Peter Spencer, Professional 

Staff Member, Oversight; Jeff Baran, Democratic Senior Counsel; 

Phil Barnett; Democratic Staff Director; Gret Dotson, Democratic 

Energy and Environment Staff Director; Caitlin Haberman, Democratic Policy Analyst; and Karen Lightfoot, Democratic Communications Director, and Senior Policy Advisor. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY 

Mr. WHITFIELD. We will call the hearing to order this morning. 

The title of today’s hearing is ‘‘The Fiscal Year 2012 Department 

of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission Budgets.’’ And we 

certainly extend a warm welcome to Secretary Steven Chu, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy. Mr. Secretary, we appreciate your being with us today very much and look forward to your 

testimony. We also have with us on the second panel the Honorable 

Gregory Jaczko, who is chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Circumstances have certainly changed since we decided to have 

this hearing, and with the events taking place in Japan we all 

2 

want to extend our very best wishes and thoughts to the people of 

Japan as the result of this tragedy. And we will certainly benefit 

today from the insights of Dr. Chu and Dr. Jaczko on this ongoing 

matter. 

Obviously, nuclear energy plays a vital role in the energy needs 

of our country today. It provides roughly 20 percent of all electricity generated in America. Countries like France and Japan have 

an even greater percentage of electricity produced from energy. 

And we recognize the importance, when we talk about energy, also 

of the safety aspect of that as well. 

And while I didn’t really intend to talk a lot about nuclear energy today, there are so many points relating to our country as it 

pertains to nuclear energy today: the storage issue, Yucca Mountain, what is happening there, the 104, 106 nuclear plants around 

the country and the location on those sites of the waste material 

instead of going to Yucca Mountain, the permitting period, roughly 

10 years to get a plant permitted. In other countries it is less than 

that but, as we have learned just in the last few days from what 

happened in Japan, we can expect unexpected events to occur and 

we have to maximize safety. I, for one, do not believe that we can 

meet our future demands of energy without nuclear playing a vital 

role in that. 

So Mr. Secretary, we are going to look forward to your testimony. 

I know that there will be a lot of questions for you. And at this 

time I would recognize for his opening statement Mr. Rush of Illinois. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD

• Sadly, this hearing has been overtaken by events in Japan. Our hearts go out 

to an ally that has lost thousands of its citizens in this tragedy, and we closely follow unfolding events there, including the situation at the damaged nuclear power 

plants. On the last point we will certainly benefit from the insights of Dr. Chu and 

Dr. Jaczko on this ongoing matter. 

•The energy challenges America faces are daunting, 

o from high gasoline prices, 

o to EPA global warming regulations adding even further to the regulatory burden on fossil fuels, 

o to questions about whether there will be enough electric generating capacity to 

meet the nation’s future needs and enough transmission lines to deliver it, 

o to whether we have a long-term solution for nuclear waste storage, and a great 

many others. 

•The Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission have long dealt 

with many of these challenges, and I look forward to working with both of them 

to find the energy solutions America needs. 

• But those solutions begin with the reality that fossil fuels—the coal, oil, and natural gas that provide America with 70 percent of its energy—are a critical component. Without affordable fossil fuels consumers suffer at the pump and when paying 

their electric and natural gas bills, and manufacturers don’t have the low cost energy they need to compete in a global marketplace. After all, the only reason we 

use so much fossil fuels is that they are affordable relative to the alternatives. 

• Yet the Office of Fossil Energy, in line with President Obama’s State of the 

Union remarks that fossil fuels are ‘‘yesterday’s energy,’’ gives short shrift to funding into fossil energy sources. 

• Quite frankly, a 44.5 percent decrease is out of step with the challenges we face. 

This is especially so given EPA regulations that increasingly make it more difficult 

to use fossil fuels. We should not have one agency complicating the use of fossil fuels 

with more and more regulations while another cuts back on the research into needed breakthroughs. And we certainly do not need the proposed tax increases on doVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:21 Oct 26, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 112\112-20 031611\112-20 CHRIS
3 

mestic oil and gas, which would only serve to constrain production here in the U.S. 

and raise prices on consumers. •The cuts in the Office of Fossil Energy include a 26 percent reduction in funding 

for coal research. Given the economic and national security benefits of coal—the energy source America possesses in greatest abundance, and one whose full potential 

is still not being realized—I believe these cuts are ill-advised. • I am pleased that the DOE budget included additional funds for the nuclear loan 

guarantee program, but I do not support the Administration’s concurrent actions to 

shut down the statutorily mandated Yucca Mountain Program. DOE alone has spent 

$13.5 billion of ratepayers’ money on this project and because the project is not finished another $15 billion has been spent in settlements with utilities companies because the federal government is not meeting its obligations. • I am pleased that in America we have the most robust and dependable nuclear 

power systems in the world and I believe that we need to promote that power in 

a way that is beneficial to the public. However, permitting for new plants and repermitting for existing plants is simply too slow at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. • I know we will learn a great deal from the events unfolding in Japan, but in 

the process we should not do anything from a regulatory or legislative standpoint 

to unnecessarily threaten the continued development of what is a safe and important part of our base-load power system here in the United States. 

• I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and I now yield to the Ranking 

Member, Mr. Rush. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. RUSH. Well, now, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank 

Mr. Secretary Chu for being here today. I understand we have 

Chairman Jaczko coming in a little later. 

Before I give my thoughts on the nuclear situation in Japan, as 

you have, Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring attention to the 

drastic cuts that have been proposed by my Republican colleague 

under H.R. 1. Section 3001 of H.R. 1 would rescind all unobligated 

Recovery Act funds without any exception. And these cuts would 

directly impact crucial job-creating renewable energy projects 

under the Loan Guarantee Program. At least 26 job-creating 

projects across the country, from California to Illinois, Michigan to 

New York, and Oregon to Texas would be affected by these proposed cuts. 

In all, projects with negotiated terms reach $12.5 billion in loan 

guarantees that would create over 28,000 construction jobs and 

over 5,000 permanent jobs are at stake. The Republican proposal 

would basically put all of DOE loan guarantee funding into 1 category, and that category is nuclear energy. 

And while I am in support of nuclear energy, I also believe we 

must invest in renewable energy projects that would generate 

power from solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, and cellulosic ethanol, as many of these projects do. Mr. Chairman, my State of Illinois obtains 47 percent of its electricity from nuclear, one of the 

highest in the Nation. I personally believe that nuclear must be 

part of any portfolio of renewable energy sources that will move 

this Nation forward. 

However, as far as the events unfolding in Japan are concerned, 

my advice for the nuclear energy industry, both here and in Japan 

and elsewhere, would be to be as transparent as possible. Transparency is really the key word. The American people, the people 

around the world are looking for transparency. They want to believe in the nuclear energy and I think it is up to us and others 

4 

to make that happen. We must make sure that we are honest with 

the American people about exactly what we know and also what we 

do not know. 

Mr. Chairman and Mr. Chairman, I look forward to discussing 

this more in depth during the discussion with Secretary Chu and 

Chairman Jaczko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and with that I want 

to recognize Mr. Waxman. I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rush follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH

Thank you, Mr. Secretary and Chairman Jaczko for being here today. Before I 

give my thoughts on the nuclear situation in Japan, I would like to bring attention 

to the drastic cuts that have been proposed by my Republican colleagues under H.R. 

1. 

Section 3001 of H.R. 1 would rescind all unobligated Recovery Act funds without 

any exceptions, and these cuts would directly impact crucial, job-creating renewable 

energy projects under the loan guarantee program. 

At least 26 job-creating projects across the country from California to Illinois, 

Michigan to New York, and Oregon to Texas would be affected by these proposed 

cuts. 

In all, projects with negotiated term sheets of $12.5 billion in loan guarantees 

that would create over 28,000 construction jobs and over 5,000 permanent jobs are 

at stake. 

The Republican proposal would basically put all of DOE loan guarantee funding 

into nuclear energy, and while I am a supporter of nuclear energy, I also believe 

we must invest in renewable energy projects that would generate power from solar, 

wind, geothermal, biomass and cellulosic ethanol, as many of these projects would 

do. 

Mr. Chairman, my state of Illinois obtains 47-percent of its electricity from nuclear, one of the highest on the country. 

I personally believe that nuclear must be part of any portfolio of renewable energy 

sources that will fuel this country moving forward. 

However, as far as the events unfolding in Japan are concerned, my advice for 

the nuclear energy industry, both here and in Japan, would be to be as transparent 

as possible. 

We must make sure that we are honest with the American people about exactly 

what we know, and also what we don not know. 

In a letter earlier this week, my Democratic colleagues and I called for hearings 

and an independent investigation so that when the current crisis mode has ended 

we can accurately explain to the American people what happened and assure them 

that we are prepared for any contingency in our own nuclear energy arsenal. 

I look forward to discussing this more in depth during the questioning session for 

Secretary Chu and Chairman Jaczko. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman, and with that I would like to recognize Mr. Green from 

the Environment and the Economy subcommittee. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Rush, thank you for your comments. I noticed you had about 2 minutes left on your opening statement. I 

had about 2 minutes left on my opening statement, and I was looking so forward to hear what you said that I neglected to recognize 

my friend, Mr. Shimkus, who is chairman of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee. So I am going to recognize him for the remaining 2 minutes of my opening statement. So Mr. Shimkus, you 

are recognized for 2 minutes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Secretary. 

We always live in interesting times and this is another one. This 

is a DOE budget hearing and, of course, budgets are all the rage, 

size-of-government spending. Your budget request is 29.5 billion, 

which is about a 12-percent increase from fiscal year 2010, so a lot 

of questions will be—obviously, that is not going to happen. We are 

5 

going to have to prioritize and we are going to have to see what 

works and go through the list and make sure we are funding the 

priorities, but nowhere in America is anyone expecting us to increase the size of government and federal agencies by 12 percent. 

In fact, I would—as I said in another hearing—be prepared for 

2008 spending levels or a significantly reduced amount. So that is 

an issue. 

Having said that, we want to, you know, applaud the work and 

continue to support, as Mr. Rush said—I am from Illinois also—the 

nuclear power industry, make sure it is safe. There are interesting 

issues going on with your loan guarantees that we want to keep 

pursuing the 3 facilities that are moving forward, while we still 

have to address—and my subcommittee has a nuclear waste portfolio. And we have got to get serious about addressing this issue. 

I will talk about that more in my questions, but for the President 

to have a Blue Ribbon Commission that excludes any discussion 

about Yucca Mountain is a fraud. And I think you probably had 

some writings in the past that also addressed the importance of 

Yucca Mountain. And we will continue pushing all of the above energy strategies. 

So with that, my time is expired, Mr. Chairman. So I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. At this time I recognize the gentleman from California, the ranking member, for his opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, during the last year we have had 

wakeup call after wakeup call warning us that we need a new energy policy. Last April a coalmine explosion in West Virginia killed 

29 miners. It was the worst coal disaster in 40 years. That same 

month, Deepwater Horizon exploded in BP’s Macondo well. Oil was 

gushing into the Gulf for 3 months. Now oil is $100 a barrel because the Middle East is in turmoil. And Japan faces potential nuclear meltdowns at its damaged reactors. We don’t know yet whether Japan will be able to avoid catastrophic release of radioactive 

material. We don’t know what the full impact will be, but we 

should be investigating the safety and preparedness of the U.S. facilities. 

After all of these energy catastrophes, it should be obvious we 

need a new energy policy that promotes clean, safe, and affordable 

energy. We need more vehicles that run on electricity, natural gas, 

and renewable fuels. We need more wind and solar power. And we 

need more energy efficiency. Instead, what we have gotten from the 

Republican-controlled house is partisanship and an assault on 

clean energy. 

The Republican budget for this year, H.R. 1, would slash DOE’s 

energy efficiency and renewable energy budget by 35 percent. It 

would completely eliminate assistance to low-income families who 

want to weatherize their homes or save energy and lower their utility bills. And the Republican budget would wipe out DOE’s ability 

to award loan guarantees to worthy renewable energy projects. 

This would cost us thousands of jobs. Some of these loan guaranVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:21 Oct 26, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 112\112-20 031611\112-20 CHRIS
6 

tees have recipients just waiting to close the deal, and now there 

will be no money left for them, whether it is a solar project in California, a wind turbine plant in Idaho, a geothermal project in Oregon, a biofuels facility in Louisiana. The list goes on. All these 

projects and all these jobs are on the Republican chopping block. 

Yesterday in this committee we debated a bill the Republicans 

said, oh, we are for all-of-the-above energy policy. But that is not 

is what is in their budget. The Republican budget would rescind 25 

billion of the 47 billion in loan guarantee authority provided by 

Congress in 2009. The bill would preserve the entire 18.5 billion in 

loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors and $2 billion available 

for uranium-enrichment projects, while leaving only $1.5 billion for 

all other technologies. This is not an all-of-the-above strategy. This 

is an all-nuclear strategy. 

Mr. Chairman, instead of spending our time debating partisan 

legislation that denies science and guts the Clean Air Act, we 

should be working together to encourage clean energy investments 

that will create jobs in the U.S. It should not take a nuclear meltdown to make us face reality. We urgently need a new energy policy, and I hope the testimony today from Secretary Chu and Chairman Jaczko will help point the way. 

I would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a supplemental memo detailing the effects of the Republican budget on 

clean energy jobs. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Without objection. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. WAXMAN. And Mr. Chairman, I yield now to the ranking 

member of the subcommittee on environment, Mr. Green. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman is recognized. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing 

today on the Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s fiscal year 2012 proposed budgets. I want to thank Secretary Chu and also Chairman Jaczko for taking the time to appear before our committee and I know both of you are extremely 

busy working with Japan to assist them in their current situation 

at several of their nuclear reactors. 

Our thoughts and our prayers are with the people of Japan, and 

I hope the United States can assist them in their time of need. This 

is truly a devastating disaster and they need as much assistance 

from around the world so they can recover. 

As a Member of Congress who represents one of the largest energy-producing areas in the country, an area of the country that 

also has permits pending before the Office of Management and 

Budget for construction of new nuclear power plants, I am interested in the testimony of our witnesses today. 

In 2008 our Nation produced over 800 billion kilowatt hours from 

nuclear power. Japan produced 245 billion. We need to step back 

and take a breath and see what we need to do to produce clean 

electricity safely and at a reasonable cost. And I know that is our 

bottom line and we need to do that, particularly with what has 

happened with Japan. 

And I do hope that Secretary Chu and Chairman Jaczko can update us on the current situation in Japan, as well as give us information on the fiscal year 2012 budget and how Congress can take 

7 

the leadership in doing that. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 

back my time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Waxman, you can call the time. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I don’t know if we are reserving 

any balance of our time, but we have exhausted our speeches for 

the opening of—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much. At this time I recognize 

the full chairman of the committee, Mr. Upton, for his opening 

statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. UPTON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Mr. 

Secretary. 

Given all of the energy challenges the American people face, this 

hearing on DOE and the NRC ’12 budgets would have been a very 

important one even if it was held before the tragedy in Japan. But 

given the unfolding of events there and the impact on several nuclear reactors, today’s hearing certainly takes on added significance. 

In the midst of a natural disaster and a tragedy that we are 

watching unfold literally hour by hour, we need to allow time for 

reflection and careful analysis and learn from their mistakes. This 

is especially true when it comes to proposals that would make permanent changes in policy based on incomplete information. 

We will be having a number of hearings on this issue as details 

unfold and we welcome your participation. This committee is going 

to hear the facts as soon as they become available. That is for sure. 

For me, I live 15 miles from two nuclear power plants, so the 

safety of U.S. nuclear facilities is not an issue that I have ever 

taken lightly. I am not straying from my support for safe nuclear 

energy as a vital component of America’s present and future energy 

mix. It is just as important to dispel overstated fears as it is to discuss legitimate concerns. And I know that we can begin the process 

of doing both. 

The Department of Energy’s ’12 budget is $29.5 billion, an increase of almost 12 percent or $3 billion from current levels and 

I see areas where funding is excessive and perhaps others where 

it is insufficient. Spending—even for laudable goals like energy efficiency or developing affordable alternative energy sources and technologies—needs to be scrutinized for effectiveness. Indeed, we just 

had a large-scale real-world test of the merits of throwing a lot of 

money at nice-sounding energy projects in the 2009 stimulus. The 

stimulus program was very generous the American people’s tax dollars and certainly for energy programs, but a series of DOE inspector general reports on stimulus spending for home and building 

weatherization projects in other agencies found significant flaws. 

In other areas I believe that the budget is inappropriately cheap, 

and this is especially the case with regard to fossil fuels. Wishful 

thinking about magic bullet alternatives is not going to heat and 

cool our homes, get us where we need to go, and power the businesses the provide the jobs that America wants. The reality is we 

still need fossil fuels and we will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Now, I don’t believe that this reality is reflected in the 

8 

budget, which calls for a 44-percent decline in funding for the Office of Fossil Energy. That, along with the President’s support for 

raising taxes on domestic oil and natural gas producers, is indicative of a hostility to domestic fossil fuel production. 

On nuclear energy we have got similar concerns. Blocking Yucca 

Mountain is penny-wise and pound-foolish, especially considering 

we have spent nearly $13.5 billion and the need ultimately to find 

a repository for nuclear waste. Instead, preventing the need for interim storage is one way of reducing risk from nuclear energy and 

reducing risk is certain to be a major part of the energy discussion 

moving forward. 

This committee will look long and hard at Yucca Mountain, the 

nuclear fuel cycle and spent-fuel policies. Now more than ever the 

politically-based policies must end. America demands safe, common-sense solutions. And I yield the balance of my time to Chairman Emeritus, Mr. Barton. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

Given all of the energy challenges the American people face, this hearing on the 

DOE and NRC 2012 budgets would have been a very important one even if held 

before the tragedy in Japan. But given the unfolding events there and the impact 

on several nuclear reactors, today’s hearing takes on added significance. 

In the midst of a natural disaster and a tragedy we’re watching unfold hour by 

hour, we need to allow time for reflection and careful analysis and learn from their 

mistakes. This is especially true when it comes to proposals that would make permanent changes in policy based on incomplete information. We will certainly be 

having a number of hearings on this issue as details unfold. The Committee will 

hear the facts as soon as they become available. 

I live 15 miles from two nuclear power plants, so the safety of U.S. nuclear facilities is not an issue I take lightly. I am not straying from my support for safe nuclear energy as a vital component of America’s present and future energy mix. It 

is just as important to dispel overstated fears as it is to discuss legitimate concerns, 

and I know we can begin the process of doing both. 

The Department of Energy’s 2012 budget is $29.5 billion, an increase of 11.8 percent or $3.1 billion from current levels. I see areas where funding is excessive and 

perhaps others where it is insufficient. 

Spending, even for laudable goals like energy efficiency or developing affordable 

alternative energy sources and technologies, needs to be scrutinized for effectiveness. Indeed, we just had a large scale, real world test of the merits of throwing 

a lot of money at nice-sounding energy projects, in the 2009 stimulus. The stimulus 

was very generous with the American people’s tax dollars, and especially for energy 

programs. A series of DOE Inspector General Reports on stimulus spending for 

home and building weatherization projects and other agency efforts found significant flaws. 

In other areas, I believe the budget is inappropriately cheap, and this is especially 

the case with regard to fossil fuels. Wishful thinking about magic bullet alternatives 

is not going to heat and cool our homes, get us where we need to go, and power 

the businesses that provide jobs. The reality is we still need fossil fuels and will 

continue to do so for the foreseeable future. I don’t believe this reality is reflected 

in the budget, which calls for a 44.5 percent decline in funding for the Office of Fossil Energy. That, along with the President’s support for raising taxes on domestic 

oil and natural gas producers, is indicative of a hostility to domestic fossil fuel production. 

On nuclear energy, we have similar concerns. Blocking Yucca Mountain is penny 

wise and pound foolish, especially considering the $13.5 billion already spent and 

the need for an ultimate repository for nuclear waste. Indeed, preventing the need 

for interim storage is one way of reducing risks from nuclear energy, and reducing 

risks is certain to be a major part of the energy discussions moving forward. This 

Committee will look long and hard at Yucca Mountain, the nuclear fuel cycle, and 

spent fuel policies. Now more than ever the politically based policies must end. 

America does demand safe common sense solutions. 

9 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I concur with your 

statement. We welcome the distinguished Secretary of Energy and 

the distinguished Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I think you know that I was a White House fellow for one of 

your predecessors, Dr. James B. Edwards, so it is always good to 

have the Secretary of Energy here. 

Obviously, we want to talk about the budget and a big part of the budget is going to be the $36 billion Loan Guarantee Program 

for nuclear energy. But in light of what has happened in Japan, we 

are obviously going to be interested in your comments about the 

safety and the NRC Chairman’s safety of our existing nuclear reactors and the new reactors that are beginning to be permitted and 

hopefully be built in our Nation. I continue to be a strong supporter 

of nuclear energy, and I hope that you and the President also continue to do so. 

I noticed your support for a clean energy standard. I am not 

sure, Mr. Secretary, that we need any kind of an energy standard 

for America, but I think myself and others may be willing to look 

at it. Obviously, it depends on what the definition of clean is. And 

I think any definition should include clean coal, nuclear, and natural gas. 

With that I yield back to the chairman or yield back to the subcommittee chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much, Mr. Barton. Because of 

the fact that Mr. Rush did not use all of his time and had 2 minutes left, I am going to recognize Mr. Rush for an additional 2 minutes. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 

minutes to Mr. Markey. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Rush, very much. 

Right now, a few dozen brave souls are fighting a nuclear meltdown with water trucks. We send our prayers to those heroes and 

to the people of Japan. 

The effects of this disaster have already rippled through the 

world. China, Venezuela, Germany, Switzerland, and other countries are shutting down older plants and scrapping plans for new 

ones. We, too, need a seismic shift in our approach to nuclear reactor safety. I fear that we are not moving fast enough to take these 

important steps. 

Just yesterday, the Department of Health and Human Services 

announced that it would study the distribution of potassium iodide, 

a radiation emergency pill that is being distributed to Japanese 

people and to U.S. military personnel in the region. It has been 32 

years since the Kemeny Commission that investigated the Three 

Mile Island accident recommended it. 

It has been 29 years since I held a hearing and called for its use. 

It has been 10 years since the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

began making potassium iodide available within 10 miles of a nuclear reactor. It has been 9 years since this committee passed my 

law to expand the distribution zone of these pills from 10 miles to 

20 miles away from the reactor. It has been 7 years since the National Academy of Sciences endorsed its use. And yet two administrations have ignored the law. We don’t need to study these pills 

to know that they can prevent cancer. I believe that the Obama adVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:21 Oct 26, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 112\112-20 031611\112-20 CHRIS
10 

ministration should immediately implement my law from 7 years 

ago, having it be distributed within a 20-mile radius. 

Our economy crumbled because Wall Street took high-risk investments and transformed them into safe-looking bonds. As the underlying sub-prime loans defaulted en masse, these investments 

turned into toxic assets that no one wanted. So President Bush created the TARP Program so the government could buy them. That 

is pretty much what we are looking at on nuclear loan guarantees. 

They are just like a toxic asset, literally and financially guaranteed 

by the federal taxpayers if something goes wrong. The industry will 

be OK financially. The taxpayers will be left with the tab. We have 

already known what happens when the taxpayer has to pick up the 

tab when things go wrong. We should be very careful from this moment on. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Markey. At this time, Secretary 

Chu, we recognize you for your opening statement and look forward 

to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN CHU, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Mr. CHU. Thank you, Chairman Whitfield, and I thank Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Waxman, Mr. Barton—Mr. Dingell I 

don’t see is here today—and of course all the members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget request for the Department of Energy. 

I want to begin by expressing the administration’s support for 

the people of Japan, as well as American citizens in Japan as they 

respond to and recover from the tragic events of the past few days. 

Officials from the Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, and other agencies have maintained close contact 

with Japanese officials and provided the Japanese Government 

with expertise in a variety of areas. As far as that effort, the Department of Energy has sent 2 experts to Japan to provide advice 

and technical assistance. We are positioning Consequence Management Response Teams in U.S. Consulates and military installations 

in Japan. These teams have the skills, expertise, and equipment to 

help assess, survey, monitor, and sample areas. They include 

smaller groups that could be sent out to gather technical information in the area. We have sent our Arial Measurement System Capability, including detectors, analytical equipment used to provide 

assessments of contamination underground. In total, the DOE team 

includes 39 people with more than 1,700 pounds of equipment. 

The Department is also monitoring activities through the DOE 

Nuclear Incident Team as employing assets at its national laboratories to provide ongoing predictive atmospheric modeling capabilities based on a variety of scenarios. The American people should 

have full confidence that the United States has rigorous safety regulations in place to ensure that our nuclear power is generated 

safely and responsibly. 

Information is still coming in about the events unfolding in 

Japan, but the administration is committed to learning from Japan’s experience as we work to continue to strengthen America’s 

nuclear industry. Safety remains at the forefront of our effort to responsibly develop America’s energy resources, and we will continue 

11 

to incorporate the best practices and lessons learned in that process. 

To meet our energy needs the Administration believes we must 

rely on a diverse set of energy sources, including renewables like 

wind and solar, natural gas, clean coal, and nuclear power. We look 

forward to a continued dialogue with Congress in moving that 

agenda forward. 

Now, I would like to turn to the budget. President Obama has 

a plan to win the future by out-innovating, out-educating, outbuilding the rest of the world, while at the same time addressing 

the deficit. The President’s budget makes touch choices, and cutting in many areas while recognizing that we must invest in strategic areas like clean energy innovation that will create jobs and 

strengthen competitiveness. To that end, President Obama has 

called for an increase in investments in clean energy research, development, and deployment. In addition, he has proposed a bold 

but achievable goal of generating 80 percent of America’s electricity 

from clean sources by 2035. 

A clean energy standard will provide clean long-term signal, a 

clean long-term signal to industry to bring capital off the sidelines 

and into the clean energy sector. The government does not need to 

pick favorites. The most competitive clean energy sources will win 

in the marketplace. 

The Department of Energy’s fiscal year 2012 budget requires that $29.5 billion supports the President’s goals. Defense-related 

activities such as nonproliferation and cleaning up the Cold War 

sites account for roughly half that budget. The other half, which includes energy and science programs, are also critical to national security in addition to economic competitiveness. 

Through energy efficiency programs, we will save money for consumers by saving energy. In addition, the budget supports the research, development, and deployment of renewable energy, the 

modernization of the electric grid, and the advancement of carbon 

capture and sequestration technologies. And it helps reduce our dependence on oil by developing the next generation of biofuels, by 

accelerating electric vehicles research and deployment. 

The budget supports loans for renewables and energy efficiency 

technologies. Nuclear energy also has an important role to play in 

our energy portfolio. The budget requests up to 36 billion in loan 

guarantee authority to help deploy a new generation of American 

nuclear reactors. It also invests in research and development of advanced nuclear technologies. The budget invests in basic and applied research and keeps us on a path to doubling funding for key 

scientific agencies, including the Office of Science. 

The budget invests 550 million in Advanced Research Projects 

Agency-Energy. The administration also seeks an additional 100 

million for RPE as part of the President’s Wireless Innovation and 

Infrastructure Initiative. This investment will allow RPE to continue the promising early-stage research projects that aim to deliver game-changing clean energy technologies. 

Another key piece of our research effort is the Energy Innovation 

Hubs. The hubs bring together our Nation’s top scientists and engineers to achieve similar game-changing energy goals. Over a concentrated effort over a longer-time horizon is needed to establish 

12 

innovation leadership. The budget requests $146 million to support 

three existing hubs and to establish three new hubs. 

Finally, the budget supports the Energy Frontier Research Centers, which are mostly university-led teams working to solve specific scientific problems that are blocking clean energy development. To reach our energy goals we must take a portfolio approach: 

pursuing several research strategies that have proven to be successful in the past. This is not a kitchen-sink approach. This work 

is being coordinated and prioritized with a 360-degree view of how 

the pieces fit together. 

Together, these initiatives will help America lead in innovation. 

In addition to strengthening out economy, the budget request also 

strengthens our security by providing $11.8 billion for the Department’s National Nuclear Security Administration. 

The Department is mindful of our responsibility to the taxpayer. 

We are cutting back in multiple areas, including eliminating unnecessarily fossil fuel subsidies. We are streamlining operations. 

And we are making some tough choices by freezing salaries and bonuses for hardworking National Laboratory Site and Facility Management contractor employees. 

The United States faces a choice today. Will we outcompete the 

rest of the world or will we fall behind? To lead the world in clean 

energy, we must act now. We cannot afford not to. 

Thank you. And I would be pleased to answer any questions you 

may have. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Chu follows:] 

13 


68480.007
14 


68480.008
15 


68480.009
16 


68480.010
17 


68480.011
18 


68480.012
19 


68480.013
20 


68480.014
21 


68480.015
22 


68480.016
23 


68480.017
24 


68480.018
25 


68480.019
26 


68480.020
27 


68480.021
28 


68480.022
29 


68480.023
30 


68480.024
31 


68480.025
32 


68480.026
33 


68480.027
34 


68480.028
35 


68480.029
36 


68480.030
37 


68480.031
38 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, thank you, Secretary Chu. And because of 

the event in Japan and Chernobyl and Three Mile Island and other 

events, the news media certainly is focused on what is happening 

in Japan and the impact that that would have on nuclear power 

in America. It is my understanding that the International Atomic 

Energy Agency has a 7-level international nuclear and radiological 

event scale, and that on that scale, the event that occurred in 

Japan was at a Level 4. It is my understanding that Three Mile 

Island was a Level 5, which, according to the International Atomic 

Energy Agency, would have been more serious than even what is 

in Japan is the information that I have. 

My question is that I read an article recently about Three Mile 

Island and it said that a person standing at the property line of 

Three Mile Island during that event would have received a dose of 

radiation equivalent to between a chest x-ray and a CAT scan. And 

my question, as a layman, that does not sound like a lot of exposure, and particularly when you consider this would be a Level 5. 

And I was just curious, are you aware of that kind of exposure at 

Three Mile Island or do you have any additional information on 

that? 

Mr. CHU. My knowledge of Three Mile Island actually comes 

from an NRC report that was issued—I don’t know exactly when— 

but after the analysis had been done, and what I remember is 

within a 20-mile-or-so radius, the average exposure of those people 

closest to Three Mile Island was a very small fraction of background radiation. It could have been a scale of 1 percent or less. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Right. 

Mr. CHU. That is what I recall. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, you know, I think that is important that 

we talk about that because, obviously, safety is an important issue. 

We don’t want to American people to be panicked about any of this. 

And did you have an additional comment you were going to make? 

Mr. CHU. Yes, I do. I think that the events unfolding in the 

Japan incidents actually appear to be more serious than Three 

Mile Island. To what extent we don’t really know now. And so as 

they are unfolding very rapidly on an hour-by-hour, day-by-day 

basis and there are conflicting reports, and so we don’t really know 

in detail what is happening. This is one of the reasons why the Department of Energy and the NRC are there with boots on the 

ground, with detectors in the ground, not only to help assist the 

Japanese power company and the Japanese Government, but also 

for our own sake, to know what is really happening directly though 

our own instruments. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. But the U.S. Government is offering any and all 

assistance that has been requested? 

Mr. CHU. That is correct. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. Now, just to touch on Yucca Mountain for 

a moment, it is my understanding that the Department of Energy 

or the U.S. Government had entered into contracts with the nuclear power plants in the U.S. to take their waste material from 

the operation in their reactors. And because Yucca Mountain has 

not been completed, that lawsuits were eventually filed by the industry against the Federal Government for violation of that contract. Is that the case? 

39 

Mr. CHU. That is the case. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And do you know what the total amount of judgments against the U.S. Government is as of today? 

Mr. CHU. I don’t exactly recall. There have been some judgments. 

They are certainly non-trivial. They are a considerable amount of 

funds. These are settlements so that the money could be used by 

the industry to help store the waste on their own sites. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Now, I don’t know if my information is correct, but I have been told it is in the neighborhood of 10 or $12 billion 

in judgments already. Does that sound in the neighborhood to you? 

Mr. CHU. I don’t know. It is certainly over a billion. I don’t know 

where my staff is but we can get back to you on that. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, we could follow up. 

Mr. CHU. We will get you the exact number. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. And I am assuming that this is ongoing 

legal action because of Yucca Mountain not being completed, is that 

correct? 

Mr. CHU. Not specifically Yucca Mountain not being completed. 

It is a legal action in the sense that we have a responsibility to provide for the storage of the nuclear waste, and the NRC has determined that dry cask storage at the site—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Right. 

Mr. CHU [continuing]. Is a safe procedure for at least a half a 

century, but we would be still obligated to reimburse the companies—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes, we just don’t have the capability to take 

care of it, right? 

Mr. CHU. Right. Exactly. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. My last question, and this would just not be a 

question but to ask for information. Would your staff be able to 

provide me information on the dollar value of loans, loan guarantees, and/or grants that the Department of Energy may be making 

for wind and solar projects in the U.S.? 

Mr. CHU. Yes, we would be able to—in the sense that the ones 

that we have offered conditional commitments to or that have 

closed. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes, sir. Thank you. At this time I will recognize 

the gentleman from Illinois for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, it is good 

to see you again here before the committee. 

And I am going to get my questions about Japan asked and over 

with in the first one, OK? The first question I have, as far as security, can you assure the members of this committee, the American 

public, that what happened in Japan cannot happen here in America at any of our nuclear power plants? 

Mr. CHU. We are going to be looking very, very closely at the 

events happening in Japan and those lessons. And you can be assured that with the NRC leading, but the Department of Energy 

employing any assistance to look again at the current existing nuclear power plants and any that are being considered for design, to 

look very hard and see how one could, if possible, upgrade the security. We don’t believe that there is imminent danger, but in any instance like this when there are truly unfortunate events like what 

we are seeing in Japan, what we do is we look and we learn from 

40 

that. This is true of all of the technology—transportation technologies, energy technologies, you name it. And so we will be looking very carefully and gathering whatever lessons that can be 

learned from that double disaster of the 4th-largest earthquake in 

recorded history and a huge tsunami. And so we will take those 

lessons and apply them to all the nuclear facilities we have in the 

United States, not only earthquakes, but violent storms, everything, anything that could affect them 

Mr. RUSH. I have been told, Mr. Secretary, that as far as natural 

disasters, that it would be fairly difficult to have created and repeated what happened in Japan happened here in America as far 

as man-made disasters. And I have also been told that our numberone threat to our nuclear facilities is terrorism and that that is 

really what we should also keep a sharp eye on, especially terrorism, to our nuclear facilities. Can you expound on what the level 

of activity at the DOE and you have committed and what are your 

plans for countering any terroristic attack that might wind up having the same results or even different results? 

Mr. CHU. Well, all of the civilian nuclear facilities are tasked to 

have very high security measures, and I can certainly vouch for the 

Department of Energy nuclear facilities. They have extraordinarily 

high security measures. I would rather say whether terrorism or 

natural disasters is higher or lower, we and the NRC are very focused on actually preventing either from happening. 

Mr. RUSH. OK. I am going to shift my direction. Section 1425 of 

H.R. 1, the Republican-proposed Continuing Resolution plan, where 

we sent 25 billion of the 47 billion in DOE’s Loan Guarantee Programs under Title XVII, which includes funding for renewable energy and energy efficiency projects, can you speak on the impact of 

cutting funds for renewable sources of energy under the DOE Loan 

Guarantee Program? How important is it that we invest in renewable sources of energy? 

Mr. CHU. Yes. In our budget request for 2012 we ask for those 

additional funds to help support the 1705 loan guarantees, but also 

for an expanded authority so we could also invest in energy efficiency technologies as well, because energy not used is money 

saved and energy saved. Without that additional loan guarantee 

authority, many of the projects that would also help unleash private capital and bring that off the sidelines we are afraid would not 

go forward. And so that would mean a significant decrease in job 

creation going forward. It would really set back what we are trying 

to do both in starting our economy and also, quite frankly, in giving a signal to industries in the United States to be developing 

these new sources. We want to give that signal because it is a competitive world out there and there is going to be a race in who develops these technologies that will be demanded worldwide. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. I yield back the balance. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize the gentleman from 

Michigan for his questions. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a number of questions and I will abide by the 5-minute rule. 

I must say that I have the same complaint with you as I may 

have with your predecessors. At least I think I have a complaint 

with you. And that is from time to time we hear the Department 

41 

give its gas estimates and, at least when I hear them, I wonder if 

we are not going to hit those estimates by the end of the week and 

not by Memorial Day. And last week I heard a national report that 

the Department was indicating that they thought that gas prices 

would be $3.70 by Memorial Day. The particular gas station that 

I was passing that day going into the office from Northern Virginia 

was already at 3.89, and it is higher than that in a lot of places 

around the country. USA Today had a headline, it must have been 

about a month ago, ‘‘Will Gas Prices Hit $5 by the 4th of July?’’ 

I look at the projections that the Administration has put forth 

showing—as we all know, we get about a third of our oil from the 

Gulf. We are a quarter of a million barrels less per day than we 

were getting a number of months ago, and when you looked at the 

time from ’09 to ’12, again, DOE indicates that we are going to get 

about 450 million barrels less per day in ’12 than we got in ’09. 

As one that believes in supply and demand, I see Alaska has, you 

know, continued declines in production. Where do you think we 

really will be? And this was, again, before Libya, before Egypt, before all the different things that were happening in the Middle 

East. Where do you really think we are going to be on gas prices, 

something that is on every household’s mind across the country? 

Mr. CHU. Well, there is an official EIA prediction as you mentioned. 

Mr. UPTON. They must be career bureaucrats. Whether it is Republican or Democratic administration, it just—— 

Mr. CHU. Actually—— 

Mr. UPTON [continuing]. Seems wrong—— 

Mr. CHU. It is actually an independent arm so it is independent 

of any political influence. But in any case, certainly, the gas prices 

in Washington, D.C., are higher than the average in the country. 

The gas prices in California are—— 

Mr. UPTON. But I see those same prices in Michigan. 

Mr. CHU. Yes. 

Mr. UPTON. They were 3.80 this week in Michigan. 

Mr. CHU. But anyway, I don’t really know what the gas prices 

are going to be this summer. The mean projection is 43.70 as you 

said. There are large uncertainties. So we don’t really know. And 

I don’t have any better crystal ball than you do on that. 

In terms of the oil production in the United States, again, first, 

you were talking about the oil production in the Gulf of Mexico and 

what is going to be projected. And I believe you were talking about 

this is what was happening because there was a suspension for a 

while of the deepwater exploration. The oil production in the Gulf 

has continued. The shallow-water exploration has continued but 

the deepwater permitting has begun again. 

Mr. UPTON. But again, if you look at the actual production levels, 

they are down from the projection from only 4 or 5 months ago, and 

they are down again according to your own numbers from the trend 

line from ’09 to ’12. 

Mr. CHU. I don’t want to focus just on the Gulf. If you look at 

the total oil production in the United States, again, there are some 

uncertainties, but we are actually seeing increased oil production 

in the continental United States. And we are actually expecting to 

see an increase in oil production from the extraction of shale rock. 

42 

And again, it is uncertain to how much that will grow, but already 

it is a couple hundred thousand barrels a day production. It could 

increase 12 million barrels per day in the near future. So again, it 

is the total oil production in the United States we are also looking 

at. 

Mr. UPTON. In my remaining time let me ask 2 questions. I know 

you have been in contact with your counterparts in Japan. Is there 

anything that they have asked for that we have not done? 

Mr. CHU. To the best of my knowledge, no. They have accepted 

our help in terms of the services, the airborne radiation detectors, 

things of that nature. We are continuing to offer them help, and 

they are accepting it. 

Mr. UPTON. I just note, too, I know I said million. I mean hundreds of thousands in my declining production. 

Mr. CHU. Hundreds of thousands of—— 

Mr. UPTON. Yes, I said 450 million—— 

Mr. CHU. Right. 

Mr. UPTON [continuing]. But I—— 

Mr. CHU. Right. I understand. 

Mr. UPTON. Last question in my 2 seconds, a number of us sent 

you a letter back in February asking questions about the Nuclear 

Waste Policy Act. If you could take a look at the letter and give 

us as a response as we get prepared—— 

Mr. CHU. All right. 

Mr. UPTON [continuing]. That would be terrific. Thank you. 

Mr. CHU. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. UPTON. I yield back my time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize the gentleman from 

California for his questions, 5 minutes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, after 

Chernobyl many said such an event could not happen in the United 

States because the Soviet Union’s nuclear sector was not as advanced as our own. And there was truth to that. The Chernobyl 

plant was not as advanced and was not designed with many of the 

safeguards we have in the United States. But Japan is a highly developed country. It is technologically sophisticated as us and there 

is much concern in the U.S. that a similar accident can occur here. 

How do you respond to that concern? 

Mr. CHU. Well, first, I would agree with you. The reactor in 

Chernobyl was of a different design. It had points of instability. It 

had no containment vessel. But we are looking very carefully at 

what is happening in Japan because, as you say, they are using 

more advanced designs. A number of reactors in the United States 

are similar designs, and we are going to look at what went wrong 

in terms of this double-barreled whammy of this huge, huge earthquake and then a huge tsunami and look to our reactors again and 

learn as much as we can so we can, if needed, improve the safety. 

By ‘‘if needed,’’ what I really mean is that we are always increasing 

the safety of our reactors, and not only our reactors but the safety 

of all our industrial systems. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Secretary, 2 days ago a number of us wrote 

the Chairman Upton, Whitfield, and Stearns, requesting that our 

committee here investigate and hold hearings about the safety and 

preparedness of nuclear power plants in the United States. Do you 

43 

think we should investigate the issues to ensure the safety of our 

nuclear plants? 

Mr. CHU. I think that will naturally occur, especially given the 

events in Japan. We will look back as we learn what happened and 

apply those lessons where needed to all of our nuclear power reactors. That will be a natural consequence. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, a natural consequence for everybody to look 

at it but, quite frankly, I think we have a responsibility—— 

Mr. CHU. Right. 

Mr. WAXMAN [continuing]. In Congress, not just you in your position but we in the Congress for our oversight and investigative purposes since we write the laws. 

Now, let me ask you about the laws that we are in the middle 

of writing. We are trying to figure out our energy policy. And the 

Republican energy policy seems to be depending on coal, oil, and 

nuclear power. That is what they look to for the future. In fact, it 

has been the past. And we do have a problem of climate change because of the carbon and other greenhouse gases. We do have a 

problem now that so much of all of our eggs are in the nuclear basket. 

When we look at the Republican budget, they are putting in billions of dollars of investment and thousands of construction and 

permanent jobs are all going to nuclear, but they are rescinding a 

lot of your budget to deal with other things that are clean and reliable and safe such as renewable energy and energy efficiency. 

Just to dramatize this issue, Republicans would rescind 25 billion of the 47 billion in loan guarantee authority that was provided 

to you in 2009. But they preserve $20.5 billion in loan guarantees 

for nuclear energy while leaving only 1.5 billion for all other technologies. They say they are for an all-of-the-above strategy. That is 

an all-nuclear strategy to me. I would like to have you explain why 

it is so important for America to be looking at these other projects 

as we devise our energy strategy to move us away from dependence 

on oil and coal and maybe even nuclear for our future. 

Mr. CHU. Certainly. If you look at what is going to be happening 

in this century, we believe, for example, that the prospect of solar 

power coming down in price, the business community thinks that 

within this decade the falling costs of solar generation of electricity 

will be cut in half. We have had a number of workgroups and we 

think it is very possible that by the end of this decade that costs 

can be cut to 25 percent of what it is today. 

Mr. WAXMAN. They will be competitive if we make investments 

in them. 

Mr. CHU. It will be very competitive and realizing that there is 

a high probability, a reasonable probability that solar energy, other 

renewable energies—wind—could be competitive with fossil fuel by 

the end of this decade—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. But nuclear energy, on the other hand, is not competitive unless the government subsidizes it. The market does not 

pick nuclear power as a winner if the market works its will by 

itself, isn’t that correct? 

Mr. CHU. At the moment I think nuclear and renewables do need 

help, but going forward we are trying to figure out a plan where 

none of those will need subsidy. 

44 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time has expired. At this time 

I recognize the gentleman from Illinois for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. And again, Mr. Secretary, welcome. I 

have got a lot of questions, short, and I am going to try to go, not 

disrespectful, but trying to get through my list. But I will just say 

to the chairman emeritus, that is why coal will still be king because it does address the market issues, and coal will still have a 

major issue in our portfolio for years to come. 

Just an issue I had by a battery technology guy who said that 

he was laughed out of your battery office. And my concern is is that 

the DOE may be so big and already have a designed belief on battery technology that if someone comes with something new that 

they are not going to get a good hearing. Can we talk about this 

later on and visit with this—— 

Mr. CHU. Sure. 

Mr. SHIMKUS [continuing]. Because if we are going to do research, we don’t want to have—because we put billions of dollars 

into one sector, if a new entry comes in that may offer more, we 

want to give them a fair hearing. Can you define clean? 

Mr. CHU. Well, you can start with what we all recognize are traditional pollutants, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury, particulate matter—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The criteria of pollutants in the Clean Air Act. 

Mr. CHU. Yes, but clean also includes carbon dioxide. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. And that is good because a lot of people will 

not add that. They will say clean but they won’t address the CO2 

issue. And just a message, Waxman-Markey failed as a national 

policy through the legislative process because the public decided to 

not price carbon. So we had that argument yesterday. We have a 

bill moving through the floor of the house that will start addressing 

the EPA, but we need another approach. And I would say energy 

security is a better way to bring both sides together than pricing 

carbon. 

DOE was established in, what, 1977? 

Mr. CHU. Around that time, ’75, ’76. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I got a yes. Our reliance on imported crude oil at 

that time was what percent? Do you have any idea? 

Mr. CHU. The ’70s? I am going to take a wild stab, something 

around 25 percent for petroleum imports. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes, I thought maybe 35. I am not sure. And what 

is it today? 

Mr. CHU. It was 49 percent in 2010. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So can we say that we have really made any great 

strides by having the DOE here over 25 years? 

Mr. CHU. No. In fact, it was 57 percent in 2008. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. That is a point. FutureGen 2.0, is that 

really BushGen 1.0? 

Mr. CHU. No. This is—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Let me explain. I followed FutureGen a lot. 

Mr. CHU. Yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. FutureGen was a new coal fire plant that actually 

would go to hydrogen technology and a research center. Bush tubed 

it, said let us gasify coal in existing plants and use CCS. Isn’t that 

what FutureGen 2.0 is? 

45 

Mr. CHU. No. The first FutureGen was a gasification and capture 

and storage. This is—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Using hydrogen turbines, though, new technology. 

Mr. CHU. Yes. In gas turbines in most—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. So my point is just for clarify when we are 

retrofitting Meredosia with current technology, which is gasification, capturing it, that really was the Bush plan. That is really 

what Bodman was moving to do. Was that correct? 

Mr. CHU. Certainly the taking of a commercial-scale power play 

and capturing the carbon dioxide and sequestering it was the Bush 

plan. This FutureGen is different because it is burning in an oxygen atmosphere, this is new technology. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. I got the answer that I needed. We 

want to decrease reliance on imported crude oil. Senator Obama 

joined Senator Bunning to push coal-to-liquid legislation through 

the Senate. What is the DOE’s position on coal-to-liquid technologies? 

Mr. CHU. We think it is something we should look at. There are 

new coal-to-liquid technologies. I am not talking about the older 

ones invented by Germany during World War II but new ones that 

are more efficient. We have to capture the excess carbon dioxide in 

those technologies. And, indeed, the National Academy of Sciences, 

through the America’s Energy Future initiative, has issued a report 

looking at the mixture of coal plus biomass gasification methods to 

then create liquids with carbon capture. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And it is my understanding that carbon footprint 

is actually lower than crude oil refineries in that design? 

Mr. CHU. Significantly lower, and once you exceed 30 percent biomass, it actually becomes negative. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. We want to be helpful in that. Last question is one 

of the risks in Japan is that one of the decommissioned or offline 

nuclear power plants had a storage pool that went dry, is that correct? 

Mr. CHU. We don’t know—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. At least that is what the industry reports are. 

Mr. CHU. There are many conflicting reports. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Let me just make this point and I will be done. 

There are 11 pools within 40 miles of downtown Chicago. Wouldn’t 

it make sense to have one center location for storage of high-level 

nuclear waste? Like you identified in your report when you were 

the lab director when you said licensing of Yucca Mountain repository as a long-range resource was one of the findings. 

Mr. CHU. We are talking about 2 different things. In a nuclear 

reactor site immediately after you take out the rods, you need to 

put them in water pools. That is a very short-term storage. Yucca 

Mountain is a long-term—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The folks who are holding the nuclear waste in 

pools think it is pretty long-term right now. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time has expired. I recognize 

the gentleman from Texas for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Secretary, in the line of questioning we had a 

lot of questions of Members talking about solar and wind. Does either solar or wind have the potential in the next 10 years of ever 

46 

becoming a stabilized base load like coal or nuclear or even natural 

gas? 

Mr. CHU. It depends on the development of energy storage technologies along with that. You know that they are variable, and 

when the sun sets or the wind stops blowing, they are no longer 

generating electricity. So it would have to depend on that. But before that happens I think that it can certainly go to a reasonable 

fraction of our electricity use. Countries like Ireland are now at 20 

percent wind coupled with fossil fuel. 

Mr. GREEN. Is there any country in the world—I know Denmark’s is lead—what is the percentage of wind, for example, in 

Denmark? 

Mr. CHU. It is a little over 25 percent but there it is coupled into 

a massive grid, and so Ireland is actually a better example because 

they have to be self-sufficient in themselves. 

Mr. GREEN. According to our grids, we have it much more difficult in our own country is because Texas our own and, of course, 

the East and West Coast. Let me ask another question, though. 

The administration has proposed repealing numerous subsidies for 

tax preferences on fossil fuels, one you mentioned that has been 

part of the U.S. Code since 1926, another created to help U.S. manufacturers maintain and create U.S. jobs. I am concerned about 

this because increasing cost for domestic energy industry would 

jeopardize both some small business jobs but also increase our reliance on foreign sources of energy. 

Would you agree that increasing cost for domestic production 

may also impact our ability to address climate change because we 

failed to provide natural gas, which is cleaner burning, as a bridge, 

whatever we have, whether it is nuclear or solar or whatever, to 

meet our short-term carbon reduction goals that we hope to have 

while providing affordable and reliable supplies for energy for 

American consumers? 

Mr. CHU. Well, I would say based on what has been happening 

in shale gas and the lower gas prices and the anticipation that for 

the next decade and possibly 2 decades natural gas prices will be 

low. There will be a natural move towards gas. But I would also 

say, then, I think the utility companies, the power generators are 

very aware of this, that you still want a diverse set of energy 

sources. 

Mr. GREEN. Well, and I know what could hurt us on our natural 

gas success in our country—we pay actually less, you know, per 

MCF than anywhere else in the world almost for natural gas because of our success—but either tax increases or limitation on 

hydrofracking could eliminate that 100 years of natural gas that 

we have. So I would caution you. To jumpstart the domestic nuclear energy industry, your budget requests 36 billion in loan guarantees and authority for fiscal year 2012. How many projects do 

you think we would be able to support with that even with the 

tragedy that has happened in the last few days? Do you still think 

we ought to go forward after taking a breath, for example, and saying OK, what do we need to do different? Do you still think we 

need to go forward in expansion of nuclear power in our country? 

Mr. CHU. Well, first, I agree with you. I think based on the 

events in Japan we need to look harder at these projects and guarVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:21 Oct 26, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 112\112-20 031611\112-20 CHRIS
47 

antee that they can go forward in a safe way. This is a question 

of the $36 billion we believe should be able to fund something like 

6 to 8 projects. The loan guarantees could get six to eight projects 

going. Then we believe if they can proceed and be built on time, 

on schedule, there would then be enough confidence that the private sector should be able to pick that up. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you. In the President’s State of the Union address he had a goal of clean energy sources account for 80 percent 

of American’s electricity by 2035. If we shut down our expansion 

of nuclear power like we did after, you know, Three Mile Island 

and Chernobyl, is there any possibility we can even get anywhere 

near 80 percent from clean burning fuels? 

Mr. CHU. It would certainly make it harder. Right now we are 

40 percent clean by this rough definition where you account, you 

know, for combined cycle natural gas giving half-credit. But I think 

we will need, certainly, a large increase in wind and solar. We will 

need clean coal. And I believe we will need to have some fraction 

coming from nuclear. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. And I know the Energy Information Institute, 

Mr. Chairman, and I was surprised at the billions of kilowatt hours 

that our country generates even compared to what Japan does. Of 

course, Japan is blessed with a great deal of hydropower that, for 

example, in my area in Houston, we are flat. We don’t have the option for hydropower like the West Coast or other areas of the 

world. So we have to look at natural gas and nuclear and coal. Mr. 

Chairman, thank you for your patience. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes. At this time recognize the gentleman from 

Texas, Mr. Barton, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, thank you, Mr. 

Secretary, for being here. 

In light of what has happened in Japan, I would like to hear 

what you believe President Obama’s position is now on nuclear 

power generally in the United States. Does he still support a rebirth of nuclear power and construction of new plants? Could you 

just give us your best estimate of what his position is? 

Mr. CHU. Well, I think the President and the Administration believe that we have to be looking very, very closely at the events in 

Japan. As I said before, we have to apply whatever lessons that 

can be and will be learned from what has happened and is happening in Japan. Those lessons would then be applied to first look 

at our current existing fleet of reactors to make sure that they can 

be used safely and also to look at how, as one proceeds forward, 

that any lessons learned could be applied. It would be premature 

to say anything other than we will use this opportunity to learn as 

best we can and consider carefully how to go forward. 

Mr. BARTON. I am not sure what you just said. 

Mr. CHU. OK. 

Mr. BARTON. Does the President support new nuclear power 

plant construction in the United States? 

Mr. CHU. The present budget is what it is, and we are asking 

for loan guarantees. The present budget is also calling for small 

modular reactors. That position has not been changed. 

Mr. BARTON. So that is a yes? 

Mr. CHU. That is a yes. 

48 

Mr. BARTON. Good. That is what I wanted you to say. See, if you 

had just said yes. Now, with regards to the loan guarantees that 

you just mentioned, given again what has happened, do you and 

the President want the Congress to support the full 36 billion that 

you have put in the President’s budget? 

Mr. CHU. Yes. 

Mr. BARTON. OK. You are learning. You are not a Nobel Prize 

winner for nothing, I guess. OK. This one is going to be a little bit 

trickier. You are a former director of a national laboratory and did 

an excellent job. I am a strong supporter of the national laboratories. At one time I had hoped to have one in Texas, the Super 

Collider laboratory that wasn’t funded under President Clinton. 

However, having said that, given the situation of our budget, do 

you think it might be time to reevaluate the number of national 

laboratories and perhaps begin to come up with a plan to reorganize and consolidate them? 

Mr. CHU. You are right. That is a toughie. I would say before we 

do that, there are a lot of things we can do to look at how we can 

get real efficiencies in what we do. Even though the President and 

I firmly believe that the Department of Energy will play a critical 

role in guaranteeing the future prosperity of the United States in 

its research and development, we do also recognize that we have 

to look to gain efficiencies wherever we can and to streamline what 

we do, knowing that ultimately the money that we give to universities, to national laboratories and help research in businesses, that 

is our real job. And the other structures are there to ensure that 

we do this in the most intelligent way possible, in the most responsible way possible. So we are going to be working very hard to look 

at how we can increase those efficiencies. 

Mr. BARTON. Well, I support the national laboratories, but I do 

think we ought to begin to reevaluate them in the light of the 

budget and also the fact that perhaps some of their missions are 

not quite what they were when they were originally established. 

My last question, Mr. Secretary, is, again, something that is of 

a sensitive nature. We have had repeated security violations at the 

Sandia National Laboratory in Los Alamos. There have been a 

number of investigations, a number of special taskforces trying to 

get control of the security situation in terms of our national secrets 

in those institutions. Can you elaborate and tell the committee 

what the status is of trying to make sure that those 2 laboratories 

are secure in terms of the secrets that we have out there? 

Mr. CHU. I think the Department of Energy takes security very 

seriously, not only in Los Alamos, Sandia, but also Livermore, the 

NNSA laboratories. There are other laboratories that carry out 

classified information, and we take those responsibilities very, very 

seriously. And I can give you the details. I have a slightly different 

view than you on the number of security violations, but every one 

of them we take seriously, and we would be glad to brief you and 

your staff on that. 

Mr. BARTON. I appreciate that. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, 

for the courtesy of giving me the time to ask some questions. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize the gentlelady from 

California, Mrs. Capps, for 5 minutes. 

49 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your timely testimony. 

I recently toured the University of California Santa Barbara’s Institute for Energy Efficiency, which was named a frontier research 

center by your Department, and I was pleased that you mentioned 

your support for this program in your testimony. 

As you know, this center is researching energy savings in 

photovoltaics and solid state lighting. I am so impressed by the 

work of the professors and the students, especially their commitments to the commercialization of new technologies like LEDs. 

So would you talk for a minute or two about how your budget 

request will support the administration’s effort to get projects from 

the laboratory and the marketplace with a direct impact on the 

economy? 

Mr. CHU. Certainly. I think the budget request in the Office of 

Science that is funding the group that you are speaking about is 

precisely the kind of research we will need to ensure that America 

stays at the forefront in these developing technologies. It is a very 

competitive world out there. Currently, the United States does 

make the best LEDs but we can easily lose that lead. Korea, China, 

Japan, Europe all want to take this away. 

In the meantime we are actually trying to recapture the lead in 

things we have lost. For example, advanced battery technology and 

what we see coming out of universities and national labs are the 

next generation of new batteries where I think we can recapture 

that lead. These are multi-billion-dollar markets in the future, and 

this goes to the heart of what the budget request is about, that in 

this very competitive world where all of the countries and companies are trying to say we want to own this share, this is what is 

going to be at risk. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you. I also want to ask you about the State 

Energy Program. Decreased support for these programs will limit 

efficiency aid to small businesses and families, as well as to our 

local governments. As you mentioned earlier, efficiencies will 

produce major energy and cost savings. That has been clearly demonstrated over time. I have been told that the State Energy Program has produced cost savings of $300 million annually. It also 

leverages $10 in private money for every $1 of government money 

spent. So would you describe now about how the cuts in the State 

Energy Program, particularly those proposed in H.R. 1 by the Republican majority will affect local clean energy initiatives? Would 

you anticipate job losses from these cuts and how would these cuts 

affect small businesses trying to reduce their energy bills, not to 

mention homeowners and other—— 

Mr. CHU. Right. Well, they certainly will have the impacts you 

talked about, and this is one of those areas where we have to make 

some tough choices. You know, we had a very good State Energy 

Program in the Recovery Act and the EECBG program, and we will 

have to work with Congress going forward and how to apportion 

what monies Congress gives us between research and development 

and things like the State Energy Program. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Finally, I want to ask you about the innovative approaches to generating electricity from marine renewables. And I 

have a particular company in mind. Right now the Department has 

planned funding for 9 companies with active projects, including a 

50 

company based in my congressional district called Ecomerit. First, 

can you please talk to us about the promise of marine renewables, 

maybe the steps the Department is taking to avoid or mitigate environmental impacts in coastal areas? And second, are you concerned that cuts to clean energy programs like this one might slow 

down the development and deployment of marine renewables? 

Mr. CHU. Well, again, the cuts would definitely affect the research we can fund. And by marine renewables I think you are referring to kinetic energy-type extraction techniques. There are at 

least a dozen companies that I know of that are looking into this 

both here in the United States and abroad. It is something that is 

a research project, so we don’t really know if it is going to see wide 

deployment, but it is certainly one of those areas that there is tremendous energy in ocean waves and in ocean currents. And so that 

is why companies, universities, and national labs are looking at 

this. 

Mrs. CAPPS. And the other steps that your Department is taking 

to mitigate environmental impacts—— 

Mr. CHU. Yes. 

Mrs. CAPPS [continuing]. In coastal areas? 

Mr. CHU. It is all part of the package because we all know that 

whatever form of energy production we use, they could easily have 

environmental impacts. And you do this, you know, at the very beginning because in the end what you want to do is develop a technology that can actually be deployed and there would not be strong 

objections to that deployment. So it is always a part of the package, 

environmental impacts. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time Dr. Cassidy of Louisiana is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Now, I am struck that you mentioned the subsidies, 

the heightened or continued subsidies for wind and solar and other 

renewables. I am looking at something from—I think this is from 

EIA, Energy Information Administration, and it says as of 2007, 

which I gather is the latest it is available, the subsidy and support 

per unit of production of solar is $24.34 per megawatt hour, for 

wind it is $23, for coal it is 44 cents, and for natural gas and petroleum liquids, it is 25 cents. So given that there is almost, what, 100 

times increase subsidy for solar and wind versus natural gas and 

petroleum, maybe 80 times for coal, how much subsidy is required 

for us to take wind and solar up to 25 percent of our grid and can 

we afford that subsidy? 

Mr. CHU. Well, there are two ways of calculating subsidies. One 

is by absolute dollar amount and another is by fraction of energy 

produced. I think you referred to fraction of energy produced—— 

Mr. CASSIDY. And does it seem a more reasonable way because 

obviously if coal is 50 percent of our energy production to take the 

absolute number is a little misleading versus that as a percentage 

of the energy it actually produces. 

Mr. CHU. Well, it really depends because if you look at the subsidy of oil and gas beginning in the beginning of the 20th century—— 

Mr. CASSIDY. If we can just stay on—just because I have limited 

time. I don’t mean to interrupt. I don’t mean to be rude. But just 

51 

to take right now electricity because there is a kind of, if you will, 

lingua franca, which is the megawatt hour and the subsidies per, 

so it is $25 roughly for solar and wind, 25 cents for natural gas per 

megawatt hour. How long can we subsidize solar and wind and can 

we afford it if we are going to increase it to 25 percent of our electrical use? 

Mr. CHU. Well, I certainly think that wind and solar should not 

have any longer subsidies than oil and gas, which is about 80 or 

90 years. 

Mr. CASSIDY. My concern is—because obviously others have attempted to do this, so there is a renewable energy magazine, ‘‘Renewable Power News,’’ which is kind of an advocacy group for renewable power. Spain has clearly attempted this high-subsidy market. I am quoting from an article they wrote. ‘‘Spain will cut renewable energy subsidies. These have grown exponentially, their use of 

renewable energy, but it has been associated with an astronomical 

rise in energy prices, which has equally resulted in heightening inflation and decreasing levels of competitiveness, which is an alarming threat to a feeble economy.’’ So not to put words in your mouth, 

but are you committing to 80 years of us to follow the path of 

Spain? 

Mr. CHU. Absolutely not. As I said, we are developing plans of 

what we can do in order to bring the costs of renewables like solar 

and wind down to the cost of fossil fuel, and we are talking about 

a decade, maybe 2 decades maximum. So this is an accelerated 

plan because the world is racing ahead. The development and the 

drop in price of these renewables will be very fast. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Now, my concern, though, is is that we are racing 

ahead, but there are certain laws of physics. Who am I to tell you 

about laws of physics? But the battery capability to store huge 

numbers, millions of electrons, if you will, doesn’t really seem that 

it is ready for commercial use in the next decade. 

Now, that said, I am from Louisiana. Our hydropower ability is 

limited. Clearly, the reason that wind works in Denmark is that 

they have lots of hydropower, so if the base load goes down from 

wind, they can ramp up with hydropower. In my State, the Peking 

Plant will be coal or natural gas. You still get carbon emissions, 

but you get the higher cost of the renewables. This works in hydropower. What do we do elsewhere? 

Mr. CHU. Well, first, Denmark has access to other grids. Denmark itself, I don’t believe, has hydropower. But never mind. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Sweden’s hydropower is what I was referring to. 

Mr. CHU. Right. Yes, the point is that they have access to other 

sources of energy outside their own borders. In terms of batteries, 

we are pretty certain that within the next couple of years the battery storage technology that begins to go to utility scale will be 

dropping perhaps by 50 percent—— 

Mr. CASSIDY. But will it be adequate to say power in Washington, D.C., if we have windmills turning and the wind stops to 

blow or the night comes or the cloudiest day, will it have sufficient 

capacity to power Washington, D.C.? 

Mr. CHU. I think it is going to take several decades to transition 

to renewables at that extent, but to get to 10, 20, 30 percent renewables, you can get to 20 percent renewables, possibly even 30 withVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:21 Oct 26, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 112\112-20 031611\112-20 CHRIS
52 

out energy storage, but energy storage will be an increasingly important part as you go higher than that. 

Mr. CASSIDY. I think we are a little circular because obviously 

the Peaking Plants will still be necessary, in which case you still 

have your emissions. I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize the gentleman from 

Washington, Mr. Inslee, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, I was excited by your 

comments about prospective gains in solar. I just said the other 

day that Kleiner Perkins, the folks who started Google, just made 

a big investment in a group that could, I think, obtain I think they 

said 30 percent efficiency from solar cells. Could you tell us sort of 

in layman terms to the extent you can why you think we can get 

these big advances in solar and what do you think realistic projections for those advancements are in the decade? 

Mr. CHU. The realistic projections within a decade are somewhere between a 50 percent drop and a 70 percent drop in the cost. 

It is full cost. Not only is it the module but it also includes the installation cost, the electronics cost, the full cost. We actually don’t 

know which of the photovoltaic technologies will work because silicon continues to make dramatic strides, and we are especially 

looking at dramatically changing the costs of the manufacturing of 

silicon cells. There are wonderful ideas out there that are being 

pursued by companies and by researches. There are also a number 

of thin-film technologies. 

But if you look at these, and all the companies are looking at 

each other, we also need to increase the efficiency. Silicon is now 

in the low 20 percent efficiency. We expect it to make climbs in efficiency. The thin-film technologies are also beginning to make significant increases. And so there is a great deal of excitement. When 

I talked to the photovoltaic manufacturers, they are pretty certain 

this drop will occur in this decade. But we think it can even better. 

And that is what we are focused on. 

Mr. INSLEE. Well, shoot for that. The Republican budget has proposed a 35-percent cut from last year in efficiency and renewable 

energy portfolio, and about half of that degree of cut for nuclear. 

That just doesn’t make any sense to me. It would seem to me you 

would want to have a balanced portfolio. We have great strides 

available in efficiency and renewable. Would you want to comment 

on that? 

Mr. CHU. Yes, I think we would like to see research in both, just 

as we would like to support the engineering for small modular reactors. The engineering for looking at how we can improve both the 

safety and the productivity of future nuclear power plants, we 

think a balanced approach we should be looking at renewables as 

well. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. I want to ask about Yucca Mountain. We 

have some real issues, my state. We have paid about $300 million 

are rate-payers into the nuclear waste fund. There has been about 

$100 billion spent already on Yucca. We are told that the Office of 

Civilian Radioactive Waste is proposed to be shut down that was 

responsible for moving forward. In the State of Washington we 

have had 53 million gallons of radioactive and chemical waste 

stored in 77 underground tanks. We need a solution. Right now we 

53 

don’t see a viable proposal by the administration in this regard and 

would like to see one in the near future. Could you give us what 

options you intend to put on the table because we would like to see 

Yucca move forward. 

Mr. CHU. Well, first, as you well know, the waste treatment 

plant at Hanford got a lot of attention, a lot of personal attention 

from me and a lot of personal attention from my deputy secretary, 

Dan Poneman. And we have, in fact, put on the table first both the 

contractor and all the people in the DOE involved. We now have 

8 teams there. We have proposed to accelerate the budget so that 

we can drive this project forward so that we will be delivered on 

time, on budget. And that is the first thing that we get the material from those liquid waste tanks and into a much more stable 

form. 

Mr. INSLEE. And we appreciate your work there. There is good 

work going on there and we appreciate your leadership. But we are 

concerned about—— 

Mr. CHU. Right. 

Mr. INSLEE [continuing]. The depository. If you could address 

that. 

Mr. CHU. Certainly. And so the first order of business is to stabilize that waste. The second order of business is that going forward we do need a plan. I believe that is the intent of the Blue 

Ribbon Commission, to look at what to do in the future beyond 

what we now have, beyond what the knowledge was when Congress wrote the Nuclear Waste Act of 1982 and modified in 1985. 

A lot of water has passed under the bridge. And so that is the 

charge of that committee. I believe they are going to be coming out 

with results this June. 

Mr. INSLEE. I suspect you know our position, but not only water 

over the bridge, but there is some radioactive water may be burning right now and we do have pools around this country in scores 

of places that do present risk, not just financial risks. So we are 

going to continue to press the administration on this issue. Thank 

you, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. At this time I recognize the gentleman from West Virginia for 5 minutes, Mr. McKinley. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There were several 

questions I have. One was there has been a dialogue from people 

who have come before you in this hearing have called about coal 

subsidies. I don’t expect you to give them to me now, but could you 

share with us those companies that are being subsidized and how 

that is? Because people seem to be loosely applying their coal subsidies. And I have had opportunities to talk to quite a few coal companies and they are not getting any subsidies. So I would be curious if you could share with us any coal subsidies. 

There is another issue is this SOAP program, this Small Operators Assistance Program. There seems to be some funding difficulties with that and I would appreciate if you would look into that. 

Your Department is not freeing up monies to the State to reimburse some of the small operators that are producing coal. So if you 

could get back to me on that I would appreciate it. 

Also as it relates to funding ratios of cost/benefit ratios for you 

that it was alleged earlier that since you have been funded someVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:21 Oct 26, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 112\112-20 031611\112-20 CHRIS
54 

where in the early ’70s, you have probably received in the neighborhood of maybe $800 billion of revenue to operate, and I am just 

curious on a cost/benefit ratio if you could share with us sometime 

if you could put that from your staff that what are the benefits that 

we have received out of that $800 billion? If you could just provide 

something. I don’t want to get into that right now. I am sure it 

could go on for some time because I am hoping that it is a more 

than 1-to-1 ratio that we have received. So I would like to get some 

idea of where that would be. 

But more importantly where I want to spend as much time was 

talking about with the National Energy Technology Lab that we 

have in Pennsylvania, Texas, Alaska, Oregon, West Virginia. When 

I met with them, they indicated that they are the only laboratory 

for the DOE that is owned and operated by the DOE according to 

their literature as well. And they are indicating that the budget 

being proposed is going to reduce their expenditure by almost $800 

million by their own data that they have. That is very threatening 

because I see a paradox with this. I heard the administration talking about we want to do more research and development in energy 

but yet the very laboratory that you all fund is being reduced by 

$800 million. There must be a misunderstanding there someplace, 

either in the administration making that representation or in the 

data that they have provided in a chart. 

So if you could provide us something back on that because they 

are doing some wonderful things there at the NETL and they are 

trying to build research cooperatives with the universities in the 

area. And for us to cut their expenditures at this time is just unconscionable. 

For example, one is with the Marcellus Shale that we have in 

Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia, and they are trying to find 

ways through NETL of getting more than 15 percent of the gas out. 

Right now that is all they are getting out of Marcellus for all of 

that expenditure and they want to spend the money but yet the 

proposed budget is cutting the amount of money that we have for 

research. Can you share what is that underlying current? Why are 

we cutting money in energy research at your own facilities? 

Mr. CHU. I will get back to you on that. I certainly know the 

NETL labs, and we have an excellent laboratory director that I am 

very positive about. And I know what they are doing in terms of 

increased interactions with the universities. I am very positive 

about it. I will get back to you on the details of that because there 

may be a misunderstanding. Certainly, the research that NETL 

does and does in universities we are very positive on that. And I 

will get back to you. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. You can get back to me and I appreciate it. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. At this time I recognize the 

gentlelady Matsui from California. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Secretary for being with us here today. I applaud your leadership on 

supporting continued investments and clean energy technology. 

These investments are critical for the economic growth in my home 

district in Sacramento. 

55 

The developing nuclear situation in Japan has captured the attention of the world and certainly this committee. And my thoughts 

and prayers are certainly with the people of Japan. 

Mr. Secretary, when Chairman Whitfield asked you about the 

crisis in Japan, he mentioned the international rating system for 

nuclear accidents, and you explained that the situation in Japan is 

already likely worse than that on Three Mile Island. My understanding is that the big difference between Three Mile Island and 

Chernobyl is that in Three Mile Island, the reactors containment 

system was able to contain the radioactive material. So most of 

that radioactive material didn’t spread into the environment. At 

Chernobyl there was no containment. So the release of radioactive 

material devastated the Soviet Union and other countries. 

Mr. Secretary, what happens if there is a meltdown and one or 

more of the Japanese reactors and the containment system fails? 

Mr. CHU. Well, we think there is a partial meltdown but—as you 

correctly noted—that doesn’t necessarily mean the containment 

vessel will fail. Three Mile Island had a partial meltdown, and it 

did not fail. 

But we are trying to monitor very closely. We hear conflicting reports about exactly what is happening in the several reactors that 

are now at risk. And I would not want to speculate on exactly what 

will happen. So let us just say that we monitor it very closely and 

we will take it as it comes. 

Ms. MATSUI. I imagine we do not want to go there at all. We 

don’t want this to become Chernobyl. But I would think that in the 

light of these events, the committee should investigate the safety 

and preparedness of our own reactors. And I think you said that 

also. But I think this committee should really take that seriously 

because we have an obligation to make sure that our own reactors 

are safe. 

Mr. Chairman, my home district of Sacramento, we have a decommissioned nuclear power plant which now manages the used 

nuclear fuel. And there are about 10 sites around the country, including Sacramento, where used nuclear fuel is being stored but 

where the nuclear power plant has been dismantled. I am interested in knowing what is being done at DOE to prioritize these 

sites, to move the used fuel so that they can be placed back into 

productive use. How does your requested budget address these 

issues? 

Mr. CHU. Well, I would have to get back to you on the details 

of the sites you are speaking about, but there are various stages. 

After you take the fuel rods out of the reactor, immediately you put 

them in a pool of water for a period of time where they are actually 

still dissipating a considerable amount of heat. But then after that, 

the next stage is that you can put them in dry cask storage—— 

Ms. MATSUI. Yes. 

Mr. CHU [continuing]. Which is much safer and Chairman Jaczko 

will be following me, but the NRC has recently ruled that storage 

on site of dry cask storage would be a safe interim—by interim, 

something on the scale of 50 or 60 years—and that gives us time 

to develop a coherent, integrated strategy on what to do with spent 

fuel. 

56 

Ms. MATSUI. So we have, well, maybe not 50 or 60 years for our 

Rancho Seco, but maybe 40. 

Mr. CHU. Well, we hope to develop a plan far sooner than that. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK, great. Mr. Secretary, we are fortunate in the 

Sacramento region that we have access to clean hydropower resources as part of our growing renewable energy portfolio. I believe 

if we are to achieve the President’s goal of establishing a clean energy future, hydropower needs to be part of the discussion. 

I would like to know what DOE is doing to advance the adoption 

of new hydropower systems to generate more clean electricity in 

the country. 

Mr. CHU. There are several things we can do. We don’t anticipate 

building new, large dams, but we can replace the old turbines in 

existing dams with more efficient turbines that are actually friendlier to fish—— 

Ms. MATSUI. Yes. 

Mr. CHU [continuing]. And more efficient. We should look at 

what are called run-of-the-river hydro dams. So again, it has far 

less environmental impacts than a conventional dam. And we 

should also look at sites where we store water for flood control—— 

Ms. MATSUI. Yes. 

Mr. CHU [continuing]. And we release the water to put turbines 

in those sites, again, would have virtually no environmental impact 

but you can capture the electricity. So those are things we are looking at. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I see my time has 

run out. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. At this time I recognize the gentleman from Colorado for 5 minutes, Mr. Gardner. 

Mr. GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Secretary, 

thank you for your attendance today. 

A couple of questions for you following up somewhat on other 

Members’ questions but also some questions concerning Yucca 

Mountain and also what is happening in Japan. Right now, what 

is your level of communication with the administration in Japan 

regarding the events? 

Mr. CHU. Well, I spoke to the METI minister. It was yesterday 

morning. And offered him some of our services, our equipment, 

things like that, to which he accepted and expressed gratitude for 

that. I don’t know whether it is hourly, but our people are certainly 

in constant contact with people in Japan. There are communications with Ambassador Roos, several daily, and so we are mostly 

going through channels. The State Department is also communicating, NRC, and then other informal channels. But we are continuing to offer assistance to Japan in any way we can, as well as 

informing ourselves of what the situation is. 

Mr. GARDNER. And at this point you are satisfied with their response to the situation? 

Mr. CHU. Well, I can’t really say. I think we hear conflicting reports, but I will go back to say that Japan is a very advanced country. They take these things very seriously and so I don’t want to 

say anything more than we will stand by and help them as best 

we can. 

57 

Mr. GARDNER. Thank you. And Mr. Secretary, I have seen various what appear to be conflicting statements regarding the use of 

the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in news reports. Do you or do you 

not support at this point the access of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve? 

Mr. CHU. Well, if by access you mean that regarding the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as one of several options that we can hold 

in our arsenal, it is designed for severe disruptions in supply. The 

President has made very clear that that is an option that he can 

consider. And there are other things that are happening right now. 

I think the other oil-producing countries in the world are stepping 

up their production. 

Mr. GARDNER. What about production here? Have you talked to 

Secretary Salazar or perhaps the Department of Agriculture about 

stepping up production within our own resources? 

Mr. CHU. That is right. As I understand it, two deepwater leases 

have been recently issued by the Department of the Interior. There 

have been a number of shallow-water leases that have been issued. 

There is an increase in production in the continental United States, 

as I mentioned before, because the shale gas actually has shale oil 

in it as well. We see an increase in recovery of that, and that is 

going to be a significant asset going forward. 

Mr. GARDNER. Are you encouraging domestic production to help 

lower the price of gasoline in the country? 

Mr. CHU. I think domestic production should be part of a coherent plan going forward in what we need to do with our transportation fuel. 

Mr. GARDNER. But what is the President’s plan right now to 

lower gas prices by the summer? 

Mr. CHU. Well, first, domestic production itself doesn’t turn on 

instantly, even if you have a known reserve. Producing more production from that known reserve will actually take months to 

years. Developing new reserves would take longer. 

Mr. GARNER. But the fact that that is coming online should be 

reflected in price? 

Mr. CHU. That is true. So the immediate thing is that if you 

know that there are reserves coming online, just as oil-producing 

exporting countries around the world, you know that they are increasing their production. So that should have a calming influence 

on price. But in the long run I think we should also say that if we 

look at the demand —by the long run I mean 10-plus years—— 

Mr. GARDNER. So the administration’s plan to lower gas prices by 

this summer is 10 to 12 years? 

Mr. CHU. No, we are working toward doing what we can in the 

short term, but I am also saying that this problem can emerge easily again because of the laws of supply and demand. 

Mr. GARDNER. So what is the administration’s plan, though, by 

the summer to lower the price of gas? 

Mr. CHU. Well, we are going to be seeing if production can be increased. We are in conversations with other countries around the 

world on how we can increase production. And again, the petroleum reserve option is on the table. 

58 

Mr. GARDNER. But you are talking to the Secretary of Interior 

and Agriculture, Department of Agriculture, to increase production 

here? 

Mr. CHU. Well, I talked to the Secretary of Agriculture and Interior several times a week. But I think the licensing and things of 

that nature are in the purview of Secretary Salazar, and it is in 

good hands. 

Mr. GARDNER. Again, I have additional questions on Yucca 

Mountain that I would like to submit if you wouldn’t mind giving 

them back for the record. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time the chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Michigan for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Curtis, I thank you for holding the hearing and for 

your courtesy in recognizing me. Mr. Secretary, welcome to the 

committee. 

The President, in his State of the Union, said if the United 

States is to compete, we intend to out-innovate, out-educate, and 

out-build the rest of the world. A big part of that from my perspective is the Section 136 Program or the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program. I have heard from numerous 

entities that have applied for funding under Section 136 and I find 

that in the development of that, none of them have been able to 

tell me that it has been an entirely positive experience, although 

I believe you and the Department have tried to be as helpful as you 

can. It is, of course, a complicated and a new law, which is somewhat made difficult by the fact that you had to function under 

very, very limited time frames. 

In fact, I hear a complaint that the goalposts are constantly moving. This is perhaps the most serious and it is perhaps the one that 

I hear most. Companies feel that everybody enters into the negotiations with the best of intentions but they have no assurance that 

they will ever get to the end of the road. For the record, please, 

would you provide a detailed summary of how Section 136 process 

works? 

Mr. Secretary, I note that your budget request for this year is 40 

percent less than was requested in 2011 and that the 2011 request 

is 50 percent less than the 2010 enacted levels. I understand our 

budget situation is serious but this seems to be inconsistent with 

the President’s out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build message. 

Has the need for funding to reequip, expand, and build more facilities to create the vehicles of the future gone down since 2010? Yes 

or no? 

Mr. CHU. No, we certainly need to expand and build facilities. 

Were you comparing the recovery budget or our base budget? 

Mr. DINGELL. Well, my concern here is the Section 136 process 

and how it is working. And what I am trying to find out is has the 

need for that section to be used for funding to reequip, expand, and 

build more facilities to create the vehicles of the future gone down 

since 2010 so as to justify the reduction in the level of funding requested by the administration? Yes or no? 

Mr. CHU. I think it has gone down if you are including Recovery 

Act funding. 

Mr. DINGELL. Say again? 

59 

Mr. CHU. I said if you are referring to the ATVM loans and including the Recovery Act funding for 2010, if you include that, our 

funding request has gone down. 

Mr. DINGELL. Well, I think it would be helpful to both of us if 

you were to submit the answers to the record, but where I am concerned is that we up there find that there is still a substantial need 

and yet we are finding that the requests for funding are going 

down. And what I am soliciting, Mr. Secretary, is your comments 

on this matter. 

Last question, Mr. Secretary. Could you for the record submit a 

comprehensive list of applicants for assistance under Section 136 

and give us each—with regard to each—an indication of where they 

are in the process? 

Mr. CHU. Really we would be violating some confidentiality in 

the applicants of who has applied, and so that would be difficult. 

Mr. DINGELL. Well, Mr. Secretary, I am not trying to lay any 

traps for you. And I recognize this is difficult, which is why I ask 

that you submit this for the record. And my staff will be happy to 

work with your staff to see to it that we are able to work together 

to get the proper answers. 

Mr. CHU. We can supply information in the aggregate, anonymity, things of that nature, and we can do that. 

Mr. DINGELL. And I hope you understand, Mr. Secretary, these 

are friendly questions, not hostile. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for 

your courtesy. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. At this time I recognize for 5 minutes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Pitts. 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Secretary Chu, 

for your testimony today. In light of your opening statement, I believe if I can paraphrase it, you said nuclear power should continue 

to be a key part of our national energy policy, is that correct? 

Mr. CHU. That is correct. We would like it to be part of our energy in this century, yes. 

Mr. PITTS. In light of this, the administration has eliminated the 

Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, an office within 

DOE expressly created by statute. The administration has also 

shut down the Yucca Mountain repository program. There are currently concerns about the status of spent nuclear fuel rods that 

have been in wet storage at the Japanese nuclear plants affected 

by the recent earthquake. 

In light of the events in Japan, does the decision to eliminate the 

Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste and the shutdown of Yucca 

Mountain program deserve reconsideration from the President? 

Mr. CHU. Well, we shouldn’t conflate what is happening with the 

events in Japan and the need to have a long-term repository. And 

again, as I said, there are stages. Once the fuel rods have been 

used, they are stored in a pool, but that is a very short-term thing. 

And then you convert after several years to dry cask storage and 

then finally you look for disposition. But technology is changing 

and there is, again, I don’t want to preempt what the Blue Ribbon 

Commission will say, but there could be potentially going forward 

in the coming years other opportunities to perhaps capture more of 

the energy content of that used yield. 

60 

Mr. PITTS. So at present, how does the administration fulfill its 

obligations under Nuclear Waste Policy Act to manage and permanently dispose of the Nation’s spent fuel inventories? 

Mr. CHU. Pardon? 

Mr. PITTS. How do you manage and permanently dispose of the 

Nation’s spent fuel inventories today? 

Mr. CHU. Well, the Department of Energy is responsible for dealing with the spent fuel, and again, we are asking the Blue Ribbon 

Commission to give us advice on—which they will do in June in a 

draft report on how to proceed forward so that we can actually take 

this spent fuel. As I said, I don’t want to preempt what they are 

saying, so I don’t really know what they are going to be recommending in terms of what you use with the fuel once it is cycled 

once. 

Mr. PITTS. In light of the events in Japan, can you make any conclusions at this point about the safety of nuclear power in the 

United States as a result of what you know about the incident? 

Mr. CHU. No, as I said before, what we want to do is look at 

what happened in Japan and say if there are these multiple events, 

as what has happened in Japan, a terrible earthquake and a tsunami, and look to whether we would vulnerable to a cascade of 

multiple events and how they might compromise safety. And so we 

first intend to look fully at whether we have considered all possibilities and get whatever lessons we can learn from—— 

Mr. PITTS. What is DOE doing in terms of monitoring any potential radiation emitted from the Japanese facility? Will you collect 

exposure and health effect data? 

Mr. CHU. Well, what we have done is we have airlifted airborne 

equipment that can help monitor. We have made that available to 

the Japanese. We also have ground equipment that can pick up exposure levels and the type of radiation of people on the ground that 

we have also in the process—so it is in Japan now. And we are 

looking to deploy this in various areas so that we can have a firsthand understanding of what the exposure levels are and how they 

might change. 

Mr. PITTS. And in your testimony you say we are cutting back 

in multiple areas, including eliminating unnecessary fossil fuel 

subsidies, reducing funding for the Fossil Energy Program and reducing funding for the Hydrogen Technology Program. Will this decision increase or decrease gas prices in your opinion? 

Mr. CHU. Because of the Recovery Act, there was a tremendous 

amount of investments in clean coal technologies, carbon capture, 

sequestration technologies. And so because of that we thought that 

given that essentially $4 billion of investments that we can, given 

the issues about the fiscal responsibility, we thought that that very 

large investment can carry us forward for a number of years. So 

that is where most of the investments in our Fossil Energy Program were going into. It was going into clean coal technology. So 

we will still continue to make those investments because we believe 

that is a proper government role, to develop clean coal technologies. 

But that is different than transportation fuel. 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time the chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey. 

61 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Chu, you wear 

many hats as the Secretary of Energy. One of them is banker-inchief to the nuclear industry, a socialist system that allows for the 

U.S. Government to provide taxpayer-backed loan guarantees for 

nuclear power plant construction in our country. I want to know 

from a purely financial-risk perspective, do you think that the 

events in Japan will probably make it less likely for Wall Street 

investors or utility executives to want to assume the financial risks 

associated with ordering new nuclear power plants? 

Mr. CHU. I can’t really predict what Wall Street will do, but certainly the events in Japan are going to cause everybody to look 

back and look back at their existing plants and their future plans 

and I think that is a good thing in the sense that you take this 

opportunity to look back and see what you are doing and are you 

doing everything possible to maximize the safety. 

Mr. MARKEY. So along those lines, are you going to reassess as 

the banker-in-chief the risk premium that you charge nuclear utilities for the loan guarantees you are giving them in light of the 

events in Japan? 

Mr. CHU. The risk premium is ultimately a credit subsidy issue. 

Mr. MARKEY. Are you going to reexamine it in light of what happened in Japan? 

Mr. CHU. Well, I think all factors get folded into a nuclear loan. 

Mr. MARKEY. So you are going to reexamine it? 

Mr. CHU. But ultimately, as you know, the OMB is the part of 

the government responsible for the determination of that credit—— 

Mr. MARKEY. Should OMB reexamine the risk premium? 

Mr. CHU. I think they will include anything like what has happened in Japan in their determination. 

Mr. MARKEY. So they should go back again. I thank you. 

The Department has awarded an $8.3 billion loan guarantee to 

the Southern Company conditional upon the certification of the 

brand New Design, the AP1000 reactor by the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. Three days before the Japanese earthquake I sent a 

letter to the NRC because I learned that one of its most senior scientists, Dr. John Ma, has said that the design of that plant may 

be too brittle to withstand a strong earthquake and that it will 

‘‘shatter like a glass cup’’ under strong impact. He even said that 

Westinghouse modeled the resiliency of the reactor using a totally 

unrealistic earthquake simulation. 

Don’t you think it is too risky to issue conditional loan guarantees backed by the federal taxpayer for reactors like the AP1000 

that have not been fully approved by the NRC in final form after 

public notice and comment, particularly when one of the NRC’s 

own top technical people has raised serious concerns about its safety? 

Mr. CHU. One of the conditions of a loan is that the NRC has 

to grant approval of the license, and that is still pending before the 

NRC. And so the Southern Company and its collaborators do not 

get federal money until the NRC approves their construction. 

Mr. MARKEY. Don’t you think that we should hold off on licensing 

new reactors on new reactor designs or approving new loan guarantees until we assure that these new reactors are safe and we have 

learned the lessons of Fukushima? 

62 

Mr. CHU. I think we will, no matter what happens going forward, 

try to take the lessons of Fukushima and apply them to our existing fleet and any future reactors that we will be building. 

Mr. MARKEY. Now, in the case of the conditional loan guarantee 

you gave the Southern Company for the two new AP1000 nuclear 

reactors at Vogtle, that $8.3 billion taxpayer loan guarantee will 

then allow the Southern Company to get an $8.3 billion loan directly from the Federal Financing Bank at the Department of 

Treasury, again, a U.S. taxpayers entity. So the taxpayers are fully 

on the hook for 8.3 billion out of the $14 billion project. If there 

is a default on this Vogtle plan—and the first 2 units that they 

have already built in past years there were 11 times over budget— 

So if there is a default on the Vogtle loan, what would happen? 

Mr. CHU. In our loan guarantee program the people who work in 

that program work very, very hard so that they make sure that if 

there is a default, that the government taxpayers are protected, 

that there are assets in Southern Company and others—— 

Mr. MARKEY. But if you can’t get paid off, what happens then? 

Mr. CHU. Well, it is a very complex agreement and there are specific—— 

Mr. MARKEY. Would we own the Southern Company like we involuntarily wound up owning General Motors if they can’t pay? 

Mr. CHU. That I would have to get back to you on the details of 

what the exact—— 

Mr. MARKEY. Yes. 

Mr. CHU [continuing]. Recovery is. 

Mr. MARKEY. I think the American taxpayer really has to be protected here going forward. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. MARKEY. Should not be licensing AP1000s—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Harper, is 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Secretary 

Chu, for being here today. I know that you can see the end in sight 

here of the questioning. I know you will appreciate your time, 

though, today being here. 

And I wanted to talk to you about something that President 

Obama said in a press conference recently, that we should increase 

energy production in this country and he mentioned oil specifically, 

but it appears in his 2-plus years in office I would argue the President has really not done much in that way, not much towards increasing our production of oil. When the President came into office, 

gas at the pump was actually under $2 a gallon. We are approaching $4 a gallon in many regions. And, of course, we have had the 

Deepwater Horizon explosion back on, I believe it was April 20, approaching that 1-year anniversary. And then a moratorium was 

placed on the deepwater offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico following that and there have been limiting of leases on the East 

Coast. And of course, we continue to ignore our resources in 

ANWR. 

And I would ask if you have had any conversations with the 

President recently about expanding exploration and production of 

domestic oil, and if you have had those conversations, what input 

or direction have you received from the President? 

63 

Mr. CHU. The President has already spoken on this matter. He 

mentioned in a press conference that in 2010 the production of oil 

in the United States was as high as it has ever been since 2003. 

Prior to the Macondo accident, what had happened is more land 

was made open to have access to drilling, and that was certainly 

an Administration policy. The oil companies are seeing a lot of 

leases are not fully utilized, and the President has said that they 

would ask if those companies are just sitting on those leases, they 

are not actually using them, that we can explore mechanisms to 

find other lessees who would, then, explore those. So the President 

is, as part of a comprehensive transportation strategy, going forward. That is one of the things, in order to deal with what we are 

now facing. 

Mr. HARPER. When we say, or when the President says, or the 

White House says that production is as high as it has been since 

2003, is that high enough in light of what is going on around the 

world, first with the concerns in Egypt, and then Libya, and now 

what has happened in Japan? Are you convinced that we are pursuing the recovery of our own natural resources as it comes to oil 

in this country and the regions that we can go into offshore? Do 

you believe we are doing a sufficient amount at this level? 

Mr. CHU. I think we are going to have to do many things. Increased oil production is only part of the solution. As the President 

said, we now have 2 percent of the known oil reserves in the world, 

and yet we consume 25 percent of the oil. And so we can increase 

production in the United States, but it clearly can’t be the full solution. That is why we are focused on improving still further energy 

efficiency in automobiles, biofuels, advanced biofuels especially, and 

finally electrification. 

Mr. HARPER. Secretary Chu, have you had any conversations 

with the Department of Interior about the slowness in the permits 

being approved for the Gulf of Mexico drilling? 

Mr. CHU. No, I haven’t. 

Mr. HARPER. OK. Do you intend to have any about the slowness 

of the permit process? 

Mr. CHU. Well, I believe that this has gotten started again, and 

the shallow-water permits were continuing and now we have 2 

deepwater permits. And I anticipate that that will be accelerating. 

Mr. HARPER. And what is your position on drilling and ANWR? 

Mr. CHU. Right now there are many other sites open for drilling, 

and so we need not tap there. And the President is also exploring 

other sites in Alaska both on- and offshore. And so at the present 

time, there are many sites open for drilling that are not being used. 

And so I think we first look to those sites and try to get the oil 

companies interested. 

Mr. HARPER. Would you look to those sites being used first before 

you tap into the Strategic Petroleum Reserves? 

Mr. CHU. Well, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, again, is something which was meant to have a continuous oil supply in case of 

significant disruption, and that is a strategic reserve. I mean, oil 

is very essential for our country and so that is the original intent. 

What you are speaking of are things that has—even in a known 

reserve, it takes a year or two to bring up production and then for 

unknown reserves and exploration—— 

64 

Mr. HARPER. Sure. 

Mr. CHU [continuing]. Five-plus years. 

Mr. HARPER. And exactly, wouldn’t it be necessary? I will yield 

back my time with that. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Harper. At this I recognize the 

gentlelady from Colorado, Ms. DeGette. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

coming today, Mr. Secretary. Mr. Upton said that we are going to 

have more hearings about what happened with the nuclear power 

plants in Japan, but I just wanted to ask you a couple of questions 

that have been on my mind since the terrible events of last week. 

The Fukushima Daiichi plant, at that plant, three of the six reactors were operating at the time of the earthquake to my understanding. Is that correct? 

Mr. CHU. That is my understanding also. 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK. And so when the earthquake struck, the control rods essentially shut down those reactors as it was designed 

to do if there was an earthquake. Is that also right? 

Mr. CHU. That is my understanding. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And then after the reactors were shut down, then 

power was lost in the plant and then the cooling pumps were shut 

off. Is that correct? 

Mr. CHU. That is correct. The power was lost. 

Ms. DEGETTE. So then the backup diesel generators came on as 

that was also designed to do and then those generators quit functioning because they went under the floodwaters from the tsunami. 

Is that right to your knowledge? 

Mr. CHU. The generators came on and then later I have been informed that some of them then shut off. This is where I couldn’t 

give assurances because you hear conflicting reports, but the story 

I heard was that the cooling for the generators was at risk and 

they tripped off for that reason. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Right. OK. So then now what they are trying to 

do is pump the seawater in to keep these rods from melting down, 

right? 

Mr. CHU. That is correct. They are using, now, fire trucks. 

Ms. DEGETTE. So—— 

Mr. CHU. And other pumps. 

Ms. DEGETTE [continuing]. This is the concern I have got—and 

I imagine you share this concern—is that there were numerous 

failsafe systems here with this plant. I mean, it is 40 years old but 

it is a pretty technologically advanced plant and there were numerous failsafe methods, correct? 

Mr. CHU. Yes. 

Ms. DEGETTE. The plant was built to withstand earthquakes, but 

because of the tsunami, now we have got this crisis about what to 

do. And the thing I am concerned about is that you can’t always 

plan for every exigency in these situations. We saw this on this 

committee. You saw it last year with the Deepwater Horizon disaster because there were numerous failsafe mechanisms on that rig 

and then each one of them failed, and then we saw huge amounts 

of oil spewing out into the Gulf. 

So my question for you is I know DOE is putting resources towards advanced reactor technology and there are a lot of concerns 

65 

from this committee and from my colleagues who live in California 

and some of the other earthquake zones. But here is my question 

is how can you, with something so potentially destructive as these 

nuclear rods, how can we ever anticipate the worst so that we can 

be prepared for it? That is a tough question, I know, but maybe you 

have some initial thoughts on it. 

Mr. CHU. Well, what the Department of Energy is very interested 

in doing is developing tools to get a better handle on these multiple 

cascading events, interacting events, an earthquake plus a tsunami, a tornado plus this or that, things like that. One of the 

things that we are very keen on doing because we have developed 

high-performance computers and simulation techniques, that this 

is one of the tools we think that can actually be used to make any 

system we have, including nuclear reactors, safer. You know, if you 

consider all the things we do now, we fly on airplanes, we do all 

sorts of things, and there is ever-increasing ability to make each 

of these systems safer as we go forward. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Sure. Well, you know, 1 thing that strikes me— 

and I was just in Japan a couple of weeks ago with the Congressional Delegation—and the 1 thing that strikes you about Japan, 

this is not, you know, Chernobyl. This is not some Third World 

country with rinky-dink technology. This is state-of-the-art technology and yet it failed. 

So I really think one of the questions, Mr. Chairman, we are 

going to want to explore as we move forward is do we really have 

the kinds of modeling that we need to develop nuclear energy safely in this country. And I am sure you are looking at that, too. 

Mr. CHU. Yes. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize the gentleman from 

California, Mr. Bilbray. 

Mr. BILBRAY. Yes, Mr. Chairman. And I think the secretary will 

agree with the statement that Japan is state-of-the-art is inappropriate. It is a state that was designed maybe 40 years ago. We have 

now got designs even in the fuel composition that really address 

these issues. So as somebody who lives downwind of San Onofre, 

I just want to assure everybody our surge wall is three times what 

they had in Japan. The surge wall, the construction at Diablo is 

eight times higher and the fault line is inland, not offshore. So I 

think when we talk about this, there are differences scientifically. 

Let me just say, Mr. Secretary, I am 1 guy sitting on this side 

of the aisle that is very excited to see you as the secretary. And 

we talked about this last year over in the Science Committee. I just 

realized the connection. Back when I was a young 26-year-old city 

councilman, the Department of Energy was created. Back in the 

’70s when it was created our dependency on imported energy was 

what again? 

Mr. CHU. Well, I heard 35. I was guessing 25. But I will provide 

a more precise number for the record. 

Mr. BILBRAY. I think you are right. I think it was more like 25. 

And when you took over in ’08 the imported energy was what percentage? 

Mr. CHU. In 2008 it was 57 percent. 

66 

Mr. BILBRAY. And that is how much success our Department of 

Energy has had in the past, but that is why I am optimistic that 

you are the right guy at the right time with the right President to 

finally get this country to, rather than have an anti-energy policy, 

actually have an energy policy. And that is one of the things I am 

really encouraged about. My biggest concern—and I will say this 

with tongue-in-cheek—to the fact of how much obstructionists always seem to be there every time you come up with an innovative 

approach. 

I want to point out that as one of the three California surfers in 

Congress, you mess with our ways to try to generate electricity, you 

are going to have a real problem with us, OK? Just the fact is 

every time somebody says there is something nobody will complain 

about, believe me. You start talking about wave actions in Southern California and Hawaii, we are going to have some concerns. 

But that aside is that one of the things I want to talk about is 

you are being asked to do things in isolation. And my attitude 

about our oil reserves or the areas being drilled is that right now 

we are buying oil overseas, sending our resources overseas. What 

happens to the federal profits that we get from opening up lands 

like ANWR or Alaska? We do make some profits off those oil exploration and development, don’t we? 

Mr. CHU. We do. 

Mr. BILBRAY. And where does that resource go now? 

Mr. CHU. As far as I know it goes to the Treasury. 

Mr. BILBRAY. OK. Don’t you think that we may want to at least 

discuss the possibility of opening up lands and committing those 

profits to next-generation green fuel so that we have a built-in resource like the transportation components, the freeway interstate 

system, have a built-in source for you to use to be able to pay for 

that bridge to a greener future? 

Mr. CHU. I would love the Department of Energy to have a builtin source that we can do the research that will lead to technology 

the private sector will pick up. 

Mr. BILBRAY. OK. Let us talk about obstructionists. We talk 

about going to electrical generation. We talk about energy development. Isn’t it true that the technology we use for efficient electric 

motors and the efficient generation of wind power depends on permanent magnet technology because it is so much more efficient 

than the AC technology that it replaced? 

Mr. CHU. The permanent magnet technology is more efficient, 

and we are also looking at other because these permanent magnets 

and the rare-earth magnets—— 

Mr. BILBRAY. This is where we come down, the rare-earth. At the 

same time we are talking about electrification, nobody in this town 

is talking to the Department of Interior about opening up public 

lands to allow the mining of rare earth, 70 pounds in every Prius 

where in 30 years that we have gone with this Energy Department, 

the Department of Interior has created an environment where instead of 98 percent of the rare earth being produced in the United 

States, it is now in China. Don’t you agree that we need in this 

committee if we want to create efficient electrical generation and 

use, we have got to be brave enough to ask our colleagues over at 

the Department of Interior and the Resource Committee to start 

67 

looking at opening up public lands within our country so these essential rare earth can be developed if we are going to go to electrification? 

Mr. CHU. I agree with you that having China control 98, 99 percent of the rare earths of the world is not a good situation. And 

we are looking—I believe Molycorp Corporation in California will 

be—I think it is in California—will be—I am not sure actually. 

Mr. BILBRAY. My point, Doctor, is that you understand the barriers. My frustration is the barriers is more government obstructionism. We write checks quick but we are not willing to change 

regs. We talk about we need a Manhattan Project for energy independent. The fact is today the Manhattan Project would be legal 

to perform under federal and state regulations. And we have got 

to be willing to not just tell other people how they have to change 

their operation and their way to do business, those of us in government have to change the way we do business, too. Wouldn’t you 

agree? 

Mr. CHU. I think we are going to be looking at many, many 

things, but certainly there need to be requirements is something 

we also have to take seriously and I would be glad to talk to you 

about that in private. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize the gentleman from 

Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, welcome. 

It is a pleasure to have you here before our committee today. 

Secretary Chu, you know in Pittsburgh we are fortunate to have 

the National Energy Technology Lab that does a lot of innovative 

research. And I was hoping I could ask you a few questions concerning some of the cuts in the administration’s upcoming budget 

proposal. I see that you have terminated all of the natural gas and 

oil programs run out of the NETL. Don’t you view these research 

programs as being particularly relevant today, since it funds environmental protection projects that are related to drilling, hydraulic 

fracturing, oil and gas production, as well as the development of 

advanced technologies that will allow increased recovery from our 

domestic unconventional oil and gas resources? 

Mr. CHU. Well, the Department of Energy played a very important role in the developing of natural gas recovery in the late ’70s, 

early ’80s to 1992. It was actually the Agency that funded the research that led to the fracking of natural gas. But the private sector has picked it up and is doing quite well. 

There has been a transfer of funds from FE, Fossil Energy, to the 

Office of Science for doing research in methane hydrate recovery 

because, commercially, energies are that interested so far, but the 

bulk of our funding in FE, as you know, is for carbon capture and 

sequestration. 

Mr. DOYLE. Yes. And I understand the larger companies have the 

ability to pick up some of that slack but, you know, this program, 

at least in my view, is really not subsidizing the bigger companies. 

In the United States we have 5,000 small independent producers. 

They do 90 percent of the wells and 60 percent of the domestic oil 

and 80 percent of the natural gas comes from these small companies that employ an average of 12 people or less and they don’t 

have the resources to invest in the R&D. And this is where DOD 

68 

has really fulfilled a critical need for technology advancements 

through partnerships with companies like these and university researches and technology. 

I do want to ask also to follow up because you just mentioned 

this. The administration has proposed that the Gas Hydrate Research Program and fossil energies being terminated and transferred responsibility for future research over to the Department’s 

Office of Science. Now, the program has been well managed. It has 

made significant progress, and it concerns me that you are going 

to kill a program that is on the verge of making production from 

gas hydrate a practical reality after decades of research and millions of dollars spent by DOE and other agencies to bring this to 

this point, that you are going to start up a new program in the Office of Science that I think would have little bearing on anything. 

And when you look at the language just in the most recent Energy and Water Senate report, we contain language about this that 

the committee recommended, includes 22 million. Of this amount 

15 million is provided for methane hydrate activities. The committee actually restored this hydrates technology program of the 

account, and they don’t support funding this within the Office of 

Science. Their intention was that this was to be funded out of Fossil Energy. So I am curious why you are deciding to defund this 

program and transfer it over to the Office of Science? 

Mr. CHU. Well, I know the program very well and I do think 

highly of it. We hope the Office of Science will be the people doing 

that research, but we will abide by Congress’ wishes. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. One more question, too. As the co-chair 

of the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Caucus, I am also concerned about 

the Department is basically zeroing out funding for the Fuel Cell 

Energy Program within the Office of Fossil Energy. I understand 

that one of the projects managed by DOE won and R&D 100 award 

in 2010 for improving the service life of solid oxide fuel cell stack 

materials. I am curious, why would you eliminate this very successful Fossil Energy program that is developing fuel cell technology 

required for large-scale power generation applications to produce 

affordable, efficient, and environmentally friendly electricity from 

coal? 

Mr. CHU. Well, we actually have several fuel cell programs within the Department of Energy. We are continuing to fund fuel cell 

development as stationary fuel cells, but not in Fossil Energy. 

Mr. DOYLE. See, my understanding is that you are continuing to 

fund transportation fuel cells but that you have zeroed out the stationary fuel cells. Are you saying that is not accurate? 

Mr. CHU. It is my understanding that we are mostly concentrating on stationary fuel cells. We do have some on transportation 

but it is concentrated on that. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. I see my time has expired. Thank you, 

Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time the chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Virginia, Mr. Griffith. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Continuing talking 

about coal a little bit, I am concerned that new regulations will 

slow growth and send jobs to China. Both you and the President 

are supporters of China’s energy policy. We hear time and time 

69 

again from the administration that China has a strong commitment to wind and solar energy and that we need to catch up or we 

will lose the future. 

But you would agree and are aware that China gets 70 percent 

of its total energy and 80 percent of its electricity from coal. 

Wouldn’t you agree with that? 

Mr. CHU. I have heard numbers like that, yes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Yes, sir. And isn’t it true that China uses 3.5 

times as much coal as the United States uses and that that number is actually growing? 

Mr. CHU. I think so. Again, I am not sure of the exact numbers. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. OK. And you are aware that under the Kyoto Protocol, China has no obligation to reduce emissions and it is not imposing anything anywhere close to the EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations on its coal use, isn’t that correct? 

Mr. CHU. That is correct. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And you are also aware that the Chinese Government has repeatedly stated that they would never put a price on 

carbon, isn’t that also true? 

Mr. CHU. I don’t know. China is committed very emphatically to 

transition to 15 percent renewable energy by 2020 and they may 

get to 20 percent. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. OK. And while you are aware that wind and solar 

in China are growing in percentage terms, they will never—or at 

least not anytime in the near future—be equal to their relationship 

or their reliance on coal, isn’t that true? 

Mr. CHU. Well, it is their intention to greatly diversify their energy supplies. In the short term they are heavily dependent on 

coal, but they have made it very clear that they want to develop 

wind, solar, hydro, nuclear. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Yes. And the factories that make the wind turbines and solar panels for export to Europe and the U.S., isn’t it 

true that they are actually powered by coal energy sources? 

Mr. CHU. I would presume given that coal is still the dominant 

form of energy. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And don’t you think that is a part of their competitive advantage is that they are using a cheap source of fuel 

that we seem to not want to use in this country? 

Mr. CHU. Well, it is more complicated than that. If you don’t 

mind, I will tell you a little story. I toured a Chinese solar company 

and they would get their silicons from companies in the United 

States and then add the high value part of it to make the modules 

in China—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And I appreciate that. My concern is I only get a 

certain number of minutes to ask you questions, and I guess my 

concern is is that, you know, it appears to many that the future 

of coal in the United States is merely to mine it and send it to 

China for them to use and that our jobs are going to go over there. 

They are going to send their pollution back to us over the Pacific 

Ocean because they are not going to have even some of the more 

reasonable regulations that we have, but that we are not using our 

own coal for our manufacturing purposes. And so as a part of that 

I am wondering if you have talked to any of the folks at the EPA 

about their slowness to permit new coalmining or is this part of an 

70 

administration plan to slow down the production of coal and thus 

force us to, I think, lose jobs? But the plan would be force us to 

not use coal because there isn’t a supply available domestically? 

Mr. CHU. I have not talked to the EPA regarding this, but just 

to finish that story, China takes its silicon from the United States 

because it says that energy is so cheap in the United States and 

that is why we do it. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. OK. And in regard to coal you would agree that 

it is a fairly affordable and reliable source of energy in the United 

States and that it is a good source, at least over the next 20 or 30 

years it is a good source that we shouldn’t cripple, would you not 

agree? 

Mr. CHU. Well, I think that is why the Department of Energy is 

committed to developing those technologies to use coal as cleanly 

as possible. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And I would encourage you to work with the Environmental Protection Agency to make sure that they don’t shut 

down your supply for those purposes and other purposes. Thank 

you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. At this time I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess. 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Chu, I appreciate 

you being here. I certainly appreciate how generous you have been 

with your time over the past 2 years to visit with Members of the 

committee outside of the committee room. 

In response to a question from the gentleman from Mississippi 

about ANWR and whether or not the President would consider 

that, you said that there were other sites in Alaska that the President was looking at. Now, in all honesty, I mean, his background 

is as a community organizer; you are the energy expert. Are you 

helping him with that? 

Mr. CHU. Well, actually, this is the domain of the Secretary of 

Interior, and so it is the Secretary of Interior who would be helping 

him with that. 

Mr. BURGESS. All right. But he has got some petroleum people 

who are actually helping him make that decision? 

Mr. CHU. I would think so, yes. 

Mr. BURGESS. OK. Maybe we ought to find that out who can help 

him. Now, also mentioned in a previous answer to a previous question, you said that oil can’t be our only solution. We have 2 percent 

of the reserves and 25 percent of the consumption. 

Now, a resource where we do have significant reserves is natural 

gas. And in my part of Texas we have new technology that allows 

recovery of natural gas from strata that previously were thought to 

be inert and that is ongoing at the present time. As you are aware, 

there is some controversy about the methods of extraction and to 

be certain all of us do need to be concerned about safety. We have 

seen it in Japan this week. We saw it in the Gulf Coast last year, 

so we do need to be concerned about safety. But we also need to 

be concerned about the overregulation of these processes that inhibit our ability to take advantage of a resource that we do have 

in abundance. 

Now, on the utilization end, I am sure you are familiar with people like Boone Pickens who talk about our heavy transportation 

71 

fleet should be run much more on natural gas rather than liquid 

petroleum products. What are you doing at the Department of Energy right now in regards to that? 

Mr. CHU. We are supporting pilot programs. We think especially 

in delivery vehicle situations where there are central fueling stations because we don’t have a natural gas infrastructure, that that 

would be a good place to prove natural gas and establish the technology. I think we had a loan guarantee for natural gas vans for 

helping handicapped people. We have supported programs using 

Recovery Act money for centralized fueling stations. 

Mr. BURGESS. Sure. So things like city buses and school buses 

make sense because they are not long-haul vehicles and they—— 

Mr. CHU. And they always go back to the same place. 

Mr. BURGESS. Correct. They could be centralized. Now, are you 

working with your counterparts at the Environmental Protection 

Agency to help ensure the correct utilization of this resource, the 

ability to continue to recover it and that it is to be done in a safe 

manner? Because you know the EPA has a couple studies going on 

right now as regards to hydrologic fracturing. Are you communicating with them about that? 

Mr. CHU. Well, first, the Department of Energy is using some resources in this fiscal year to look at fracking safety. I think it is 

something that can be done safely but we have to—— 

Mr. BURGESS. Can you say that again? 

Mr. CHU. The Department of Energy currently—— 

Mr. BURGESS. I think that—finish that thought. 

Mr. CHU. I think that—— 

Mr. BURGESS. I think that it can be done safely. Did I hear you 

say that? 

Mr. CHU. I believe it is like everything else. We learn from what 

is happening and it can be done much more safely just as deepwater oil drilling can be done more safely than it has been done 

in the past. We learned from the—— 

Mr. BURGESS. Don’t parse your own language. I heard you say 

it. It can be done safely as a simple statement of fact? 

Mr. CHU. It can be done safely. 

Mr. BURGESS. I agree with you, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. CHU. But you also have to be on guard. One can’t be absolutely certain of these things and you have to take that responsibility very seriously. 

Mr. BURGESS. Absolutely. And I will tell you in my home area 

right now the public doesn’t get the sense that its safety is being 

protected. That is why I urge you to work with your counterparts 

at the Environmental Protection Agency. This is an important resource for the country and we cannot afford it to become locked in 

where we can’t develop it because it was either done incorrectly or 

unsafe practices were pursued and the public’s then reaction 

against it is such that it just can’t be developed. 

Just briefly on Japan for a moment. Is your Department sending 

a contingent to Japan or has Japan asked for any help from the 

United States Department of Energy? 

Mr. CHU. As I said in my opening remarks, we have sent some 

33 or 34 people to Japan to help them monitor with equipment. 

72 

Mr. BURGESS. Just for what it is worth, I think at some point in 

the future when you deem it safe, your presence in Japan, I think, 

would go a long way towards reassuring the people there. Thank 

you, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Secretary, thanks 

very much for your indulgence with us today. We really appreciate 

you being here and I am going to follow up a little bit on Dr. Burgess’ comments a little bit ago. 

But just to kind of give you a little background about my district 

and how important energy is out there, Ohio overall gets about 80 

percent of its energy is coal-based. And also, interestingly enough, 

about 80 percent of everything that comes in and out of Ohio comes 

in by truck. So we are talking about oil. 

The 5th Congressional District, according to the National Manufacturers, is the 20th largest manufacturing district in Congress. It 

is also, interestingly enough, the largest ag district in the State of 

Ohio. We also have two solar manufacturing plants in the district. 

I have two ethanol plants in my district. The first four really working turbines in the State of Ohio I can see from my backyard. 

There are four of them not too far from my home. And I am one 

that really truly believes that we have an all-of-the-above energy 

policy. And again, that is your oil and natural gas, coal, nuclear, 

and all of the alternatives because we have to really utilize all of 

those. 

But at the same time when I am out talking to my companies, 

my businesses, the factories across my district, one of the things 

that always comes up in the conversation is we have to have baseload capacity to turn these machines on in the morning. And I 

know that a question was asked, I think it might have been Mr. 

Green had asked a little earlier in regards to, you know, where are 

we at that, you know, through the alternatives? I think the question he posed was in 10 years that we could really start supplanting, you know, some of the oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear. 

But, you know, to make sure that we can compete, and I know 

the questions have come up because it all comes down to really jobs 

and making sure people can get out there and work and we have 

these jobs in the future. Is there anything out there right now that 

can supplement those 4 basic methods that we have right now from 

nuclear, the clean coal, the oil, and natural gas? 

Mr. CHU. I think it is going to be a transition period. If you look 

at other countries around the world and if you look at what we are 

doing here in the United States that these things don’t happen 

overnight. It will take decades to make these transitions. And one 

recognizes that. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, let me ask this. I represent quite a few co-ops 

in my district and one of the things that they are worried is is that, 

you know, the cost of having to buy a lot of the alternatives right 

now are driving up their cost, which is driving out the businesses 

from the area. And do you foresee that happening? 

Mr. CHU. There is background noise. 

Mr. LATTA. Sorry. I have a lot of co-ops in my district. And one 

of the questions that they always bring up to me is that they are 

73 

fearful that if they have to buy too much on the alternative side— 

and I know that we all want to see alternative—but they see it 

that they are not going to be able to supply power cheaply enough 

to be able to maintain the businesses that they service right now. 

And do you see that as a problem? 

Mr. CHU. Well, we have to be very sensitive to that and that is 

why the Department of Energy is so focused on looking at exactly 

where we think the trajectory will be and what are the time scales 

that would be needed in order to bring down the price of renewables so that they are absolutely competitive without subsidy with 

fossil generation of energy. 

Mr. LATTA. You know, in your testimony you also, on page 8 

where the cuts are occurring under the Office of Fossil Energy, how 

do you define unconventional fossil energy? 

Mr. CHU. Unconventional fossil energy I would think methane 

hydrates would be an example of that. This is natural gas trapped 

in crystalline structures of ice. 

Mr. LATTA. And just kind of following along in the lines that Dr. 

Burgess talked, especially in the fracturing question. You know, we 

now have in Ohio and Pennsylvania, New York, the Utica reserves 

are being found. They are saying that probably Ohio they will be 

able to get to that maybe first. And again, just making sure because I know there has been talk around the Hill by some individuals that, you know, fracturing shouldn’t be done. And I am one 

who has looked at the EPA reports that they have put out from 

several years back that said that fracturing can be done. And I 

know that, you know, Dr. Burgess has asked that question of you 

that, you know, I believe it can be done safely. And, you know, will 

the Department of Energy also make sure that that can be done 

and that these people out there aren’t going to be impeded to get 

this energy that we need in this country? 

Mr. CHU. I think yes. When I said it can be done safely, let me 

reiterate ‘‘can be done’’ is different than ‘‘is being done’’ safely. I 

think industry can take the steps needed to extract these resources 

safely. And I think it is important that we continue taking those 

steps to improve the methods. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, I guess finally is that as we look at everything 

that is out there, hopefully the Department of Energy always is 

looking at all of these alternatives that people are coming up with. 

And I know my array of individuals working on clean coal technology and trying to make sure that, you know, we can utilize high 

sulfur coal that comes from like our region of the country and put 

it to use since the United States does have such large reserves 

when it comes to coal. 

And with that I appreciate you being here today. And Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize the gentleman from 

Iowa, Mr. Terry. 

Mr. TERRY. Or Nebraska. Yes, corn states. Confuses tobacco state 

people. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At least I got your name right. 

Mr. TERRY. Yes, coal states. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I got your name right. 

74 

Mr. TERRY. It is progress, Mr. Chairman. Sorry, Doctor. I really 

appreciate you being here and I think we all have great respect for 

you and your talents that you are lending to the Nation right now. 

Harping on the fracturing, let me ask you a simple question. You 

mentioned earlier that you are in discussions with Interior and 

EPA all the time. Have there been any discussions about limiting 

fracturing now? 

Mr. CHU. I have not been part of those discussions. I have not 

been. 

Mr. TERRY. OK. Because there is a lot of discussion or rumors 

that Interior is going to shut down all fracturing within Interior 

lands and there is rumors that EPA is going to come down on current fracking techniques. Now, have you heard any of that within 

the administration discussions? 

Mr. CHU. No, the only thing I heard about, the EPA has requested that monitoring be done and certainly there have been reports of possible contamination and things of that nature. So the 

ones I have heard said we should monitor what is being discharged. For example, the water being used and the fluids being 

used in fracking as they go into, let us say, sewer treatment plants 

that the EPA has, I believe, asked for the monitoring in the discharge of those sewage plants. 

Mr. TERRY. Very good. And I appreciate that you said to Dr. Burgess that fracking can be done safely. 

Mr. CHU. Yes. 

Mr. TERRY. Without that technique we aren’t going to have the 

level of natural gas that we are going to count on. The Bakken 

shale up in North Dakota, their production would go down greatly. 

We want to do it safely and cleanly but we don’t want an overreaction and just start shutting it down either. So we need to do 

it safely. Are you engaged in any activities right now to set out 

what techniques or changes to make it safe or safer? 

Mr. CHU. Right now we do have a small program—it is located 

in universities—to look at what are the issues in terms of the safety in fracking fluids. The Department of Energy does have expertise in how fluids move around in rock because of both carbon capture sequestration, also because of the underground repository 

work that we need to do. And so those same technologies can be 

brought to bear on fracking. 

Mr. TERRY. I have got one more question in my minute-forty-five. 

So let me interrupt with this one. I want to know if there are any 

reports due or their findings—and I will send you a written question as fairly common at the conclusion of hearings that we will 

send written questions to you. Expect that one from me. It would 

be nice to know when you will get that information in so we could 

look at it, too, and maybe have you back. 

But in regard to natural gas you have a lot of proponents of natural gas not only in electrical generation but moving it more towards a transportation fuel. I see in your budget that there is $200 

million in the competitive program to encourage communities to invest in electrical vehicle infrastructure. Can you tell me what 

measures the DOE is undertaking to promote natural gas vehicles? 

Mr. CHU. Yes. As I said, we have invested in some pilot projects 

for centralized delivery van type of things where you can go to a 

75 

centralized fueling station. I can get back to you on the full details 

of what we are doing on natural gas. 

Mr. TERRY. I would appreciate it. And I think the focus, if I could 

be so bold, is probably in large fleets with on-premises fueling stations. 

Mr. CHU. That is correct. 

Mr. TERRY. And so in regard to providing us information if you 

could do that on any of the programs that would help implement 

or build on-site stations for large fleets I think that would be helpful. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Terry. At this time I recognize 

the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Scalise. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chu, I appreciate 

you being with us today. 

I want to talk about the broader picture of energy policy. And I 

know a few of my colleagues touched on some of the various objectives. And over the years our dependence seems to have increased 

on foreign oil especially over the history of the Department of Energy. In your mission statement you talk about ensuring America’s 

energy security. 

And I think one of the concerns I have is when you look at what 

the current policies are from this administration. It seems like despite the current levels of production which are the result of years 

of exploration in the past, it seems like this administration has 

shifted policies away from energy exploration in America. And, of 

course, we are seeing this in a very devastating way in the Gulf 

of Mexico and the parts of the outer continental shelf that have 

been closed down where only two permits have been issued in 10 

months. And that seems to run counter to even the President’s own 

scientists, a panel he had put together after the explosion of the 

Deepwater Horizon where his own scientists and engineers recommended against any kind of moratorium or now permitorium 

where you literally are strangling the ability for our country to 

seek its own energy, which then increases our dependence on countries like those Middle Eastern countries that are so volatile. 

So how do you, I guess, reconcile what the mission statement of 

your Department is that really says you are going to strive to increase our American energy security when, in fact, you have got 

the President initiating policies that close off more areas of our 

known resources? 

Mr. CHU. Well, the President actually increased the resources in 

the sense that more areas were open to exploration with not such 

great timing, a couple weeks before the Macondo disaster. And—— 

Mr. SCALISE. But has since closed those areas off and they are 

not issuing permits at any level close to what they were before. 

And while the President may hang his hat on two permits issued 

in 10 months, that is an embarrassing low number, you know, 

when you look at the safety records of those companies that didn’t 

make the mistakes of BP that are being punished for BP’s actions. 

Mr. CHU. Well, the permitting of deepwater has resumed and—— 

Mr. SCALISE. Would you consider than an adequate resumption, 

2 permits in 10 months? 

Mr. CHU. Well, you could say it is two permits over the last couple weeks as well, so I think it has been resumed and will continue 

76 

to resume. I think the committee that investigated the Deepwater 

spill said that, you know, it is not only just BP that has been implicated in this, that the whole industry can up its game and make 

improvements in safety. 

Mr. SCALISE. Well, and there were some serious flaws in the report where they basically try to say it was the entire industry that 

was at fault when, in fact, that is not the case, considering the fact 

that in all of the wells, thousands of deepwater wells that have 

been drilled, you had one disaster because of a series of mistakes 

by that partnership that weren’t replicated at all of the other wells. 

So I think it is inaccurate for them to say it is systemic. I would 

hope you wouldn’t think that it is the entire industry that is at 

fault when you clearly had an example of one company in a partnership that did cut corners where others didn’t. 

And I think that is the key point is there is this kind of broad 

brush it seems like from this administration that they are almost 

shying away from American energy exploration. I wanted to ask 

you about a comment you had referring to use it or lose it provisions in leases. And you seem to imply that there are companies 

that are not utilizing their leases adequately and you inferred that 

maybe other people should be given that ability when, in fact, right 

now in the Gulf of Mexico, all of those companies that want to go 

and reestablish what they were doing before and exploring for 

American energy are not being allowed to. And yet the clock is still 

ticking on their leases. Now, would you support a change in policy 

where if a company does want to expand and go and explore that 

lease but right now they are being prevented by the administration 

that that clock shouldn’t keep running while the administration is 

holding them back? 

Mr. CHU. I think the leases, the permits for exploration has 

started again and you were talking about a hold on deepwater 

leases for something like 6, 8 months. I think the lease time is considerably longer than that. 

Mr. SCALISE. And let me ask one last question as my time is 

about to run out. When you were talking about known reserves, 

you used the term 2 percent of the world’s reserves are in America. 

There is a CRS report and I am not sure you have read it. I am 

sure you have read something like this that looks at this. Nineteen 

billion barrels of oil reserves are what I think are alluded to in this 

2 percent number, but in fact there are about 145 billion barrels 

of reserves that are estimated to be recoverable using new technology. So there are some outdated numbers when people use this 

2 percent number. First, are you aware when people say 2 percent 

they are referring to 19 billion barrels of known reserves when, in 

fact, it is estimated that there are over 145 billion barrels of reserves in America using the newest technologies? 

Mr. CHU. Reserves are a very specific thing. It is a known asset, 

bankable asset. You are talking about potential future reserves and 

there is a difference there. There are potential future reserves in 

the U.S. territories. 

Mr. SCALISE. Would you give an estimate on how much? 

Mr. CHU. Well, I am not sure the exact numbers but I can get 

them to you. But there are significant potential reserves in—— 

77 

Mr. SCALISE. I would appreciate it if you would share that with 

the committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I recognize the gentleman from New Hampshire, 

Mr. Bass, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BASS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I don’t come 

from coal or oil or nuclear. I am interested in biomass. What is the 

status of the DOE’s support for advanced biofuels development? 

Mr. CHU. It is in a very good position. We have, as you may 

know, three biofuel centers and we do sponsor a lot of research in 

universities, also in national labs. Those biofuel centers and other 

research with DOE support have generated a significant amount of 

intellectual property. That intellectual property is being picked up 

by industry. Already some of the intellectual property in the first 

3 years of our biofuels centers advanced biofuels, so this is to make 

a drop in diesel fuel, gasoline jet fuel from simple sugars using bacteria. Those things have been licensed and already there are now 

plans in the private sector for building pilot plants based on that. 

So it is a very good track record. 

Mr. BASS. As I recall when I was here before, Secretary Bodman 

was announcing or getting a loan guarantee program to build a 

commercial-scale advanced biofuels facilities around the country. 

How many of those have you—I don’t know the answers to these 

questions. What is the status of that program? 

Mr. CHU. That we are looking at. I know we did one loan guarantee but that is not for the fuels research. I think the loan guarantee program is constrained in that if the research is too advanced and if it is too much of a pilot because in our loan guarantee program, we have to make sure that the taxpayer is protected. And when it becomes too much of a research enterprise, 

then there are some constraints. And so I can get back to you on 

the details of those. 

Mr. BASS. That is fine. And I would like to have a further discussion about that. You mentioned run-of-the-river hydro dams. That 

is hydrokinetics. Is there any action there? 

Mr. CHU. No. There are two forms, hydrokinetics in the ocean of 

waves and things that extract wave energy or things that bob up 

and down or flex like this or currents. Run-of-the-river is you take 

a little part of the river and you make a detour and put in a spinning turbine—— 

Mr. BASS. OK. Let me change the subject, then. What about 

hydrokinetics? Is there anything going on—— 

Mr. CHU. Well, we are supporting some of it. It is a very research-oriented thing. It is certainly not ready for primetime but 

there are a number of companies that are very excited about the 

process. 

Mr. BASS. I am taking the subject slightly once more to see does 

the Energy Department support any research in hydrofracking 

compounds or materials that would be perhaps more environmentally acceptable? 

Mr. CHU. Well, right now we aren’t supporting research in 

hydrofracking because when very big oil and gas exploration companies like Schlumberger got into it in 1992—— 

Mr. BASS. Yes. 

78 

Mr. CHU [continuing]. Or ’91 we got out. I do know that there 

is some exploratory work going on. Fracking has become mainstream, and so it is now supplying 30 percent of U.S. gas. There 

are companies looking at fracking with carbon dioxide as, perhaps, 

a better fluid. 

Mr. BASS. Lastly, I am trying not to express any opinions here. 

I love ARPA–E, though. You described there is significant difference between the ARPA–E program and the grants that are 

given out under EERE? 

Mr. CHU. Yes, there are. ARPA–E’s projects have a very short 

time scale, a leash of 2 years, perhaps renewable for yet another 

year and that is it. And so it is a very short program that tries to 

identify what we call radical breakthrough technology. So in doing 

that it also knows full well that some of these grants may turn out 

not to yield anything. But on the other hand, it is looking for really 

dramatic advances that completely change the landscape of our 

choices. And so it is a more venture-capital approach if you will 

to—— 

Mr. BASS. Are there any notable successes there, (a)? And (b), 

what is the EERE grant program? How does it differ? 

Mr. CHU. OK. First, there are some notable successes in the 

sense that in about half a dozen of our grants, we have given companies money to do some research. They have done that research, 

and in less than a year they were able to go out and raise five 

times, four times that amount in the private sector because the private sector says OK, this is great. We now have enough confidence 

to invest in you. That is precisely what we want to do to allow companies to do research and get further funds from the private sector. 

We are looking in EERE. There are now a whole new cast of program directors who are full of energy and we are looking towards 

rejuvenating those areas to do the best it possibly can in giving out 

whatever precious dollars we have. 

Mr. BASS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Bass. I am going to recognize 

Mr. Inslee for 30 seconds. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. If we can put this picture up. Mr. Secretary, I just wanted to congratulate you, sir, on the work you are 

doing on advanced biofuels. I want to show you a picture. This is 

a picture of the U.S. Green Hornet. It is a picture of an F–18. It 

is the first jet ever to fly on biofuels breaking the sound barrier. 

And you have been doing some great work in conjunction with the 

DOD. I just want to compliment you and hope you continue that 

and is there anything we could do in 10 seconds that we could really do to help you in that regard? 

Mr. CHU. Well, I think you can do much more in appropriations. 

Mr. INSLEE. We will work on that and I am sure our Republican 

friends are listening to you with great interest. Thanks very much. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. We are always interested in appropriating 

money so—but Secretary Chu, we thank you for joining us today. 

We enjoyed the dialogue. We look forward to working with you as 

we strive to meet the energy needs and safety of our country. 

And we are going to actually recess until 1:30 because Mr. 

Jaczko has been called down to the White House. So we will reconvene at 1:30. 

79 

And once again, Mr. Secretary, we look forward to working with 

you and appreciate your time today. 

Mr. CHU. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. I will call the hearing back into order. We 

took a recess because, Commissioner, you were called away to the 

White House, I believe, for a meeting. And we completed with Secretary Chu. So everyone has already given their opening statements. So at this time we would recognize you for 5 minutes for 

your opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF GREGORY JACZKO, CHAIRMAN, NUCLEAR 

REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Mr. JACZKO. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, to you and the 

other chairman of the two subcommittees and the Ranking Members Rush and Green and other Members of the subcommittee. I 

am honored to appear before you today on behalf of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Given the events that are unfolding overseas, my opening remarks will focus on the crisis in Japan. And I have additional information on the fiscal year 2012 budget that I have submitted for 

the record. Of course, I would be happy to answer questions on 

those matters, but I will focus my testimony on the situation in 

Japan. 

I would first like to offer my condolences to all those affected by 

the earthquake and tsunami in Japan over the last few days. My 

heart goes out to those who have been dealing with the aftermath 

of these natural disasters. And I want to publicly acknowledge the 

tireless efforts, professionalism, and dedication of the NRC staff 

and other members of the federal family in reacting to the events 

in Japan. This is just another example from my 6–1/2 years on the 

commission of the dedication of the NRC staff to the mission of protecting public health and safety. 

The American people can be proud of the commitment and dedication within the federal workforce exemplified by our staff every 

day. While the NRC regulates the safe and secure commercial use 

of radioactive materials in the United States, we also interact with 

nuclear regulators from around the world. Since Friday, the NRC’s 

headquarters operations center has been operating on a 24-hour 

basis to monitor events unfolding at nuclear power plants in Japan. 

Since the earthquake hit Northeastern Japan last Friday, some 

reactors at the Fukushima #1 plant have lost their cooling functions leading to hydrogen explosion and rises in radiation levels. 

Eleven NRC experts on boiling water reactors have already been 

deployed to Japan as part of a U.S. international Agency for International Development team. And they are currently in Tokyo. 

Within the U.S. the NRC has been coordinating its efforts with 

other federal agencies as part of the government response to the 

situation. This includes monitoring radioactive releases and predicting their path. Given the thousands of miles between Japan 

and the United States, Hawaii, Alaska, the U.S. territories, and the 

West Coast, we are not expected to experience any harmful levels 

of radioactivity. 

80 

Examining all available information is part of the effort to analyze the event and understand its implications both for Japan and 

the United States. The NRC has been working with several agencies to assess recent seismic research for the central and eastern 

part of the country. That work continues to indicate that the U.S. 

nuclear facilities remain safe, and we will continue to work to 

maintain that level of protection. 

U.S. nuclear power plants are built to withstand environmental 

hazards, including earthquakes and tsunamis. Even those plants 

located outside of areas with extensive seismic activity are designed for safety in the event of such a natural disaster. And the 

NRC requires that safety significant structures, systems, and components be designed to take into account the most severe natural 

phenomenon historically reported for the site and surrounding 

area. The NRC then adds a margin for error to account for the historical data’s accuracy. This basically means that U.S. nuclear 

power plants are designed to be safe based on historical data from 

the area’s maximum credible earthquake. 

And the NRC remains attentive to any information that can be 

applied to U.S. reactors. Our focus is always on keeping plants in 

this country safe and secure. As this immediate crisis in Japan 

comes to an end, we will look at whatever information we can gain 

from the event and see if there are changes we need to make to 

our own system. 

Within the next few days, I intend to meet with my colleagues 

on the commission on the current status and to begin a discussion 

of how we will systematically and methodically review information 

from the events in Japan. In the meantime, we continue to oversee 

and monitor plants to ensure that the U.S. reactors remain safe. 

The NRC will continue to monitor the situation and provide updates by our press releases and our public blog. The NRC also 

stands ready to offer further technical assistance as needed. We 

hope that this situation will be resolved soon so that Japan can 

begin to recover from this terrible tragedy. 

And I would like, if possible, to give you a brief update of what 

we believe the current status of the reactors in Japan is. There are 

essentially four reactors that we are currently monitoring as best 

we can. They are all at the Fukushima #1 site. Three of those reactors were operating at the time of the earthquake and were shut 

down following their normal procedures. We believe that in general 

for these three reactors they have suffered some degree of core 

damage from insufficient cooling caused ultimately by the loss of 

offsite power and the inability of the onsite diesel generators to operate successfully following the tsunami. We also believe that for 

these three reactors that seawater is being injected with reported 

stable cooling. The primary containment is described as functional. 

Now, I would note that for Unit #2 at this site we believe that 

core cooling is not stable. But also for that site believe at this time 

that primary containment is continuing to function. I would also 

note that for Unit #2 we believe that the spent fuel pool level is 

decreasing. 

For Unit #3 we believe that the spent fuel pool integrity has been 

compromised and that there has perhaps been a Zerck water interaction. 

81 

Now, in addition to the three reactors that were operating at the 

time of the incident, a fourth reactor is also right now under concern. This reactor was shut down at the time of the earthquake. 

What we believe at this time is that there has been a hydrogen explosion in this unit due to an uncovering of the fuel in the fuel 

pool. We believe that secondary containment has been destroyed 

and there is no water in the spent fuel pool. And we believe that 

radiation levels are extremely high, which could possibly impact 

the ability to take corrective measures. 

For the two remaining units at this site we have an IAEA report 

that the water level was down a little bit in this spent fuel pool 

as well. And for the final reactor we don’t have any significant information at this time. 

Recently, the NRC made a recommendation that based on the 

available information that we have, that for a comparable situation 

in the United States, we would recommend an evacuation to a 

much larger radius than has currently been provided in Japan. As 

a result of this recommendation, the ambassador in Japan has 

issued a statement to American citizens that we believe it is appropriate to evacuate to a larger distance, up to approximately 50 

miles. 

The NRC is part of a larger effort, continues to provide assistance to Japan as requested, and we will continue our efforts to 

monitor the situation with the limited data that we have available. 

So that provides a general summary of where the incident 

stands. And with that and my testimony, I would be happy to answer questions you may have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jaczko follows:] 

82 


68480.032
83 


68480.033
84 


68480.034
85 


68480.035
86 


68480.036
87 


68480.037
88 


68480.038
89 


68480.039
90 


68480.040
91 


68480.041
92 


68480.042
93 


68480.043
94 


68480.044
95 


68480.045
96 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, Commissioner, thank you. We appreciate 

your being with us this afternoon. 

In the earlier question-and-answer period with Secretary Chu, 

the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey, had referred to a 

finding by Mr. John Ma for—I believe his last name M-a—relating 

to the AP1000 design. And he had indicated that Mr. Ma had some 

serious reservations about the design. And I was just curious, have 

you all had the opportunity to review his concerns and have you 

come to any conclusions about that? 

Mr. JACZKO. We have done a very thorough review of the AP1000 

design relative to a large number of safety issues. As part of that 

review process, we have had a vibrant discussion among the members of the NRC staff. We have thoroughly reviewed as part of that 

discussion the concerns by one of our staff members that you indicated. And we believe based on a thorough analysis that that design going forward can be acceptable. It is right now in the process 

of additional review. It is right now out for public comment essentially. We do our designs almost like a regulation, so we allow them 

to be commented on by the public. And so we are at that stage in 

the process of that review. But the concerns while we believe would 

certainly enhance the safety of the design, we don’t believe at this 

time that they are necessary to meet our strict regulations. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Right. Well, thank you for that comment. I just 

wanted to follow up on that. 

Of course, as a result of what has happened in Japan, the focus 

is on safety as it relates to nuclear, and I believe this is a safe industry. Historically, it has been a safe industry. And I know that 

in France and Japan and many other countries, a large percentage 

of their electricity comes from generation by nuclear. In the U.S. 

it takes—and you can correct me if I am wrong because I may be— 

but it takes roughly 10 years or so to obtain permitting for a nuclear plant. Am I in the ballpark when I say 10 years or not? 

Mr. JACZKO. Well, I think right now the process is taking, I 

would say, closer to about 5 years right now to go through the permitting. Now, of course, we are not finished, but we are getting 

nearer to the end of our reviews. And I like to think about this in 

a way like when I went to college. People go to college with the intent to graduate in 4 years, but as you go through that process, you 

take your classes, if you do well you have a chance to get done in 

four, sometimes a little bit sooner. Some people take a little bit 

longer time depending on how things go. So as we continue to work 

with the licensees or the applicants, we have, I think, improved our 

understanding of how to make the process work effectively and efficiently. So right now this has been the first-of-a-kind effort and 

something we haven’t done in a long time and it involves a new 

process. So I would say at this time I think we are moving at a 

relatively effective pace, but again, keeping our focus first and foremost on safety. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And in your testimony you did say that you evaluated these permit applications for seismic as well as tsunami-type 

activities, correct? 

Mr. JACZKO. That is correct. We review all designs against a 

wide range of natural disasters: tsunamis, earthquakes, tornadoes, 

hurricanes. It just depends on the geographic location. 

97 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Right. But with all the publicity surrounding 

Japan right now, everyone, as I said, is certainly focused on safety 

and we are certainly thinking about the Japanese people, but with 

more focus on safety, I am not a nuclear engineer but I know that 

there is some technology based around sodium-cooled reactors. And 

I have been told that sodium-cooled reactors, that there is not a 

possibility of a meltdown and that these are smaller-type plants, 

maybe 50- to 100-megawatt plants. And I was wondering if you 

would mind commenting on that technology of sodium-cooled technology? 

Mr. JACZKO. Well, we don’t currently have any specific applications in front of us for a sodium-cooled design. I would say it is a 

different type of technology than what we currently have operating 

in this country, and as a result, it presents its own challenges 

when it comes to operation. But I wouldn’t want to speculate too 

much on what those kinds of challenges are because we really 

haven’t gone through the specific review of one of these. But in 

general, with a smaller reactor, a smaller energy output, usually 

the risks are lower because you just have a smaller amount of radioactive material—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Right. 

Mr. JACZKO [continuing]. But as I said, sodium reactors do 

present slightly different technical challenges because of the way 

that they operate. The sodium has to be maintained in a liquid 

form and there are different types of risks and hazards that you 

would have on that type of design. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. But that type of technology, I guess, was developed in the United States at one point and there are some countries that evidently have at least some of these plants in operation. 

Is that your understanding? 

Mr. JACZKO. Yes, it is my understanding, but we don’t currently 

have any license in operating in the U.S. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. Well, thank you very much. My time has expired. I would like to recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 

Rush, the ranking member. 

Mr. RUSH. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. And to Chairman 

Jaczko, it is good to see you and welcome to the committee. I am 

going to get my Japan question in first. 

The question in Japan that is first and foremost on the mind of 

many of my constituents in Illinois for the specific reason we have 

more reactors in Illinois than any other State. And my constituents 

are asking a simple question. And that question was summed up 

in a Fox Chicago News headline published on Sunday, ‘‘Should Illinois be Worried About its Nuclear Plants?’’ And before you answer 

the question, I want to also note that Illinois lies within the new 

Madrid earthquake zone, although we do not have to worry about 

tsunamis. But what assurances can we give to the people in my 

State with as high a concentration of nuclear reactors that also sits 

on an earthquake zone? And in your answer, would you please 

speak to the possibilities and to the effect—we are in a tornado 

zone—that tornados could have on nuclear reactors? 

Mr. JACZKO. Well, Congressman, at the NRC we focus every day. 

And the dedicated women and men at the NRC work every day to 

make sure that nuclear power plants in this country continue to 

98 

operate safely. All the nuclear power plants that are in the United 

States are reviewed against a very significant standard for seismic 

activity. We take what we can find out from the historical record 

from looking at the rocks and the geology and the seismology, we 

try and determine what we think is the largest earthquake that 

can happen in an area. And from that we do an analysis of what 

kind of effect we think that will have on the power reactor. Namely, how much will the building shake or what kind of forces will 

it feel? And we require that the nuclear power plants can withstand that kind of event. And we actually go a little bit larger than 

that just to make sure if there are any uncertainties in our analysis. So that is a part of what we do for every reactor in the country, whether it is in the Midwest—of course, the seismic activity 

may be different in that part of the country versus another part of 

the country. 

Mr. RUSH. It seems to me, though, in Japan it wasn’t just the 

earthquake that caused the problem; it was the tsunami that really 

caused the problem. And my question is in terms of a tornado? 

Mr. JACZKO. We look at tornadoes as well. 

Mr. RUSH. All right. 

Mr. JACZKO. We actually look at all natural phenomena: hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, although as you indicated, some sites in the country don’t experience all of those phenomena. But we look historically to make sure we have captured 

all the natural phenomena that occur. So in Illinois we certainly 

would examine the impacts of tornadoes and other extreme weather events in Illinois. 

Mr. RUSH. OK. And it seems to me—I asked this question of the 

secretary this morning—that the number-one threat to nuclear facilities in this Nation is terrorists’ actions and activities and acts. 

So can you speak to how the NRC is handling the threat of terrorists? 

Mr. JACZKO. Well, we have a very robust program that requires 

nuclear utilities to ensure that they can protect their plants 

against terrorist-type attacks. That includes a very strong program 

to do exercises once every 3 years to actually participate in a mock 

terrorist attack on the facility. And we observe that and oversee 

that and ultimately use that as a way to ensure—— 

Mr. RUSH. Once every 3 years? 

Mr. JACZKO. Once every 3 years. In addition to that, we do conduct our normal inspections at the facilities to make sure that all 

the security systems are in place and operating effectively. And I 

would add that in addition, following September 11, we required all 

of the nuclear power plants in this country to look at some of the 

more severe kinds of impacts and effects you could get at a nuclear 

power plant from a terrorist attack or other types of severe natural 

phenomena, and as a result, we require—— 

Mr. RUSH. My time is almost over and on Friday I am headed 

to Dresden to sort of generate a station there in rural county 

Grundy, Illinois in northern Illinois and I am going to be there 

with some of your resident inspectors on location there. So I will 

give them your regards. 

99 

Mr. JACZKO. Well, good. Well, I appreciate that and we are very 

fortunate to have some very fine people at our power reactors overseeing them. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Mr. 

Jaczko. 

When did the Licensing Board return its decision denying the 

Department of Energy motion to withdraw its Yucca Mountain application? 

Mr. JACZKO. I believe that was earlier in the—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. End of June. 

Mr. JACZKO. End of June. Thank you. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Isn’t it true that all commissioners participating in 

the decision-making relating to the License Board decision have already filed votes on that matter, including you? 

Mr. JACZKO. We have filed what I would consider to be preliminary views that we exchange among our colleagues on the commission. Those are views that we use, then, to inform our final decision-making. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So you are saying you have not filed votes? 

Mr. JACZKO. We have not come to a final decision at this point. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So it is your position you have not filed final votes? 

Mr. JACZKO. That is correct. We have not reached a final decision 

on our act, unlike perhaps here, your familiarity with voting. I 

would consider votes to be more akin almost to prepared statements and remarks of members of the commission. The practice of 

the commission is to circulate those prepared remarks on any of 

the things that we do, and then, based on those circulated views, 

we work to see if there is a majority position. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So you are saying, then, on October 29, 2010, there 

wasn’t filed votes cast by all commissioners? 

Mr. JACZKO. On October 29 I believe we had all prepared our 

written statements that we circulated among—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So those written statements are considered votes? 

Mr. JACZKO. They are considered votes but they are not the final 

decision of the commission. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. So since you have written statements that are 

considered votes, when do you plan to schedule a commission meeting? 

Mr. JACZKO. We will have a meeting and issue an order when we 

have, per statute, a majority position. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And so you have these statements. They are considered votes but you don’t have a majority position? 

Mr. JACZKO. Correct. As I indicated, the terminology here I think 

is unfortunate. These votes are not, as I said, the final statement 

of the commission. In an adjudicatory matter, which is what this 

is, a formal hearing that we issue, the final statement—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Is there a minority decision already rendered—— 

Mr. JACZKO. There is no—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS [continuing]. By commissioners? 

Mr. JACZKO [continuing]. Decision by the commission at this 

point. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. By the chairman? 

100 

Mr. JACZKO. There is no decision by the commission. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Was the NRC decision to close out Yucca review 

and hearing activities yours alone or one made by the full commission? 

Mr. JACZKO. That was a decision that I made as chairman of the 

Agency consistent with the budget that was prepared by the commission—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. But let me ask you this question. What was 

your legal authority to do so? 

Mr. JACZKO. My legal authority was as chairman of the commission and the decision was fully consistent with appropriate law. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. No, I think your position is the budget zeroed it 

out, but I would beg to differ that you had the legal authority to 

do that. 

Mr. JACZKO. Well, I would respectfully disagree with that. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, I think we will review that and follow up. 

Mr. JACZKO. And I would add if I could that following that decision—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I mean, you wouldn’t do anything that would be 

illegal, would you? 

Mr. JACZKO. Of course I wouldn’t. Following the decision to begin 

the closedown activities of the Yucca Mountain project—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Begging to differ, I think it is a stated federal position by law that Yucca Mountain should be opened. That is the 

legal authority. There is no legal authority to close Yucca Mountain. The only authority that has been rendered is the administration in compliance with Majority Leader Reid to pull funding. But 

there is no legal authority to close Yucca Mountain by law. 

Mr. JACZKO. As I indicated, our action is consistent with all appropriate appropriations law and any other statutes that we have. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. You better be double-checking your facts because 

we are not through with this debate on legal authority. And I hope 

you are well prepared. We have been told that the courts may not 

rule on whether or not the commission’s position is legally defensible until the full commission takes a position. But you seem to 

be preventing that vote from occurring. If the court runs out of patience and does rule, will you abide by the court’s decision and act 

promptly to carry it out? 

Mr. JACZKO. The Agency will act according to any legal decision 

by the courts or any act of Congress. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize the gentleman from 

California, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Jaczko. 

And I know you are busy and I appreciate you coming back to our 

committee. And I know last week you and I talked about the President’s budget and the proposals to go back to fiscal year 2008 for 

your funding and we both expressed concerns about the layoff of 

hundreds of workers and particularly what happened in Japan. Obviously, this is not the time to go after our Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. So share that and hopefully that message will get to 

other folks. 

Let me talk about a local issue because I think all politics is 

local, as is what has happened in Japan. Texas has 1 proposed nuVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:21 Oct 26, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 112\112-20 031611\112-20 CHRIS
101 

clear plant that is pending at the OMB. And they are receiving 

their funding from CPS Energy, NRG, and Tokyo Electric Power 

Company, which presents part of the problem. One of the sites experienced problems. They own one of the sites that is experiencing 

the problems in Japan. And so knowing what may happen with 

their potential investment, CPS Energy and NRG have announced 

they have trouble finding new investors. Again, part of it is the 

market. We have low natural gas prices and for someone to buy 

into a long-term investment of nuclear power, which our country 

needs but we may not be able to get the investors. Can you talk 

about the review process for new plants like Texas and how long 

NRC and OMB processes are taking? It seems like I have worked 

on the congressional side now for a number of years to get the expansion at the South Texas plant that is just southwest of Houston 

and just to see just some information on how long it took, for example, for that expansion that goes through both your process and the 

OMB? 

Mr. JACZKO. Well, right now the South Texas project was one of 

the first applications that we received for new licensing. The review 

that we do for that project will be focused, for sure, on safety and 

security. That is always our primary focus. 

We are continuing to do that review. We are nearing some significant milestones as we work to complete the actual design reviews for that type of reactor. That design review right now is out 

for public comment as part of our process and we anticipate having 

that back in and working to resolve the comments over the summer. If we resolve those comments and it is successful, then we 

would move forward with completing the final reviews that are necessary, possibly perhaps within 12 months or so. 

But as I said, I want to reiterate our focus fundamentally, first 

and foremost, is on the safety and security of these designs. 

Mr. GREEN. When you said it was one of the first applications, 

can you tell me the time frame when that was filed? 

Mr. JACZKO. It was approximately, I believe, 2007. However, we 

immediately within several months had to suspend our review because the applicant in that case made a change in the vendor that 

they were using to support the design. So that took about a year, 

year and a half to work through that particular issue on the part 

of the applicant. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. I know the concern, literally, for the whole 

world and particularly for our own country, if what we are doing, 

making sure we are learning from what has happened to Japan— 

and I understand the Texas plant southwest of Houston has actually three safety backup systems instead of two. and it is my understanding that Texas emergency power sources are separate and 

watertight. We don’t have a problem on the Gulf Coast with, you 

know, tsunamis or earthquakes. We do have a hurricane every once 

in a while and tornadoes. But I understand that they have watertight concrete buildings that could withstand a hurricane or storm 

surges and even earthquakes. But like I said, I don’t think in geological time we have had an earthquake along the Gulf Coast. Our 

soil is too soft. But the Agency actually looked at that plant and 

all the applications, like you said, for safety. 

102 

Mr. JACZKO. That is correct. We look at all the plants for a variety of natural phenomena. And on the Gulf Coast than can include 

seismic activity, hurricanes, and other types of events. And we do 

have some analyses to look at tsunamis along the Gulf Coast and 

portions of the Atlantic coast. Those wouldn’t be expected to be 

tsunamis that are the same magnitude as ones we could—— 

Mr. GREEN. That particular plant is about 11 miles inland. It is 

not right on the coast. I know there have been technological advances. I am almost out of time. But sometime I would like if your 

staff could provide to the committee separately some of the technological advances in the current and proposed plants in the United 

States as compared to, for example, what has happened in Japan 

with the tsunami and also the earthquake. 

Mr. JACZKO. We can certainly provide that. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton, is 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again, Chairman, we 

welcome you here today. And I just want to say a couple things at 

the beginning. 

First of all, I certainly did appreciate our meeting that we had 

several weeks ago. I know we both discussed Yucca. We may have 

a different view but we are going to have ample time in Mr. 

Shimkus’ subcommittee with all the commissioners sometime this 

spring to fully talk about that and ask a good number of questions. 

As you know, I—as you do—we both support safe nuclear power. 

We both support appropriate and rigorous oversight of all of our 

104 sites around the country. And I, too, appreciated the visit that 

I paid to the NRC several years ago and viewed firsthand the NRC 

operations center and looked in in terms of your day-to-day activities to make sure that things are safe. 

Could you tell us what specifically the functions are of the 11 

folks that you have sent to Japan and what they are doing and 

they are reporting back to you and some of the information you 

might have received? 

Mr. JACZKO. The 11 individuals that we have in Japan are providing a variety of services. They are helping to organize the look 

at the reactors, the nuclear look at the reactors and helping to provide a good coordinated team to provide assistance to the embassy 

in Japan. 

Mr. UPTON. So does Japan have a similar operation like we have 

in terms of the operations center that I visited in Maryland out 

there? 

Mr. JACZKO. It is my understanding they do but I am not terribly 

familiar with—— 

Mr. UPTON. But they are in Tokyo, right? They are not at the 

Fukushima site? 

Mr. JACZKO. Our staff is in Tokyo working to interface with their 

counterparts in the Japanese nuclear regulatory authority. 

Mr. UPTON. And you announced that our ambassador now has 

urged all Americans to move at least 50 miles away. What reaction 

did you receive from your counterparts in Japan and the government there? 

Mr. JACZKO. I am not familiar of any reaction. 

103 

Mr. UPTON. But that announcement was made very shortly, 

right? 

Mr. JACZKO. It was made about 45 minutes ago. 

Mr. UPTON. You talked about the four different reactor vessels 

and the status of the four. Do you know where the hydrogen explosion was in the fourth reactor? 

Mr. JACZKO. At this point we don’t know that kind of specific information. But we believe that there was a hydrogen explosion at 

some point, likely because the spent fuel in that reactor has lost 

its cooling and at some point, then, was producing some degree of 

hydrogen. And that ultimately accumulated and led to an explosion. 

Mr. UPTON. And was that explosion today, U.S. time today? 

Mr. JACZKO. No, it occurred several days earlier. We can get you 

the exact date and time as we know it. 

Mr. UPTON. OK. As it relates to your budget—remember that 

was the original ask for you to be here today—what is your budget 

for safety oversight as part of the NRC? 

Mr. JACZKO. The bulk of our budget, probably about 3⁄4 of our 

budget goes to the reactor safety work, about 77 percent. It is 

slightly over approximately $800 million. 

Mr. UPTON. So does that include the personnel? Because I visited 

my two sites in my district and I would welcome you and I know 

you that you indicated a willingness to come out. But on all of my 

visits I have always stopped to say and welcome the oversight of 

your staff that has been there. 

Mr. JACZKO. Yes, most of our budget goes to our staff. We have 

mostly salaries and benefits. We have a small portion of our budget 

that is contracting dollars, but the bulk of it, about 60 percent, is 

the salaries and benefits of the staff. 

Mr. UPTON. And do you have any reason to believe that your proposed budget is not adequate to assess and monitor the nuclear 

power plant safety systems? I mean, do you feel that it fits the bill? 

Mr. JACZKO. At this time we believe it is a sufficient request that 

will allow us to do the work we need to make sure that plants stay 

safe. The only caveat I would add is that as we continue to review 

the situation in Japan, if it becomes apparent that we would need 

additional resources to address issues related to the situation in 

Japan, then we would perhaps have to come back and ask for additional resources for that. 

Mr. UPTON. Well, I was going to ask you if you thought you were 

going to need—will you be able to determine that within the next 

couple of weeks? 

Mr. JACZKO. I intend to meet with the commission within the 

next several days and begin looking at the kinds of questions we 

have to answer. And I think that will be one of the first. But first 

we want to kind of systematically figure out what it is that we 

need to look at and what are the important sources of information. 

Mr. UPTON. But you don’t really have a reserve cushion today to 

do that, is that correct? 

Mr. JACZKO. At this time—— 

Mr. UPTON. For fiscal year 2011? 

104 

Mr. JACZKO. At this time I would say we don’t necessarily have 

that. But again, I would like to take a look at that first before I 

make any conclusions. 

Mr. UPTON. OK. Well, again, I appreciate your willingness to be 

up here on a day as tough as it is today. And we appreciate your 

answers and look forward to working with you on a host of issues. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I recognize the gentleman from California for 5 

minutes, Mr. Waxman. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Jaczko, you describe a pretty dire situation in Japan. I want to ask you about 

this. An official from the European Union today used the word 

apocalypse to describe the potential damage that could occur in 

Japan. What is your reaction to this comment? Could Japan be facing widespread devastation from a nuclear meltdown or radiation 

release? 

Mr. JACZKO. Well, I don’t really want to speculate too much at 

this point on what could happen. I think people are working really 

very diligently to try and address the situation. It is a very serious 

situation without a doubt. And that is part of the reason why I 

thought it was important for the Agency to make the statement it 

did that we thought in a comparable situation in the United States 

we would have issued evacuation instructions to a larger distance 

away from the plant. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Yes. 

Mr. JACZKO. So it is a very serious situation. And efforts are ongoing to try and resolve it. but it will be some time, I think, before 

it is finally resolved. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, you said that you are recommending an evacuation of U.S. citizens within 50 miles. What are the risks that are 

causing you to make this recommendation? 

Mr. JACZKO. Well, it is based on an assessment of the current 

conditions of the site. Because of the damage to the spent fuel pool, 

we believe that there is very significant radiation levels likely 

around the site. And given that the reactors, the 3 reactors that 

were operating, given that they are operating with more of a 

backup to a backup, if you will, to a safety cooling system, if anything goes wrong with that, it would be very difficult for emergency 

workers to get into the site and perform emergency actions to help 

maintain that cooling. So there is the likelihood that the cooling 

functions could be lost, and if they are lost, it may be difficult to 

replace them, and that could lead to a more significant damage to 

the fuel and potentially some type of release. So as a prudent 

measure with a comparable situation here in the United States, we 

would likely be looking at an evacuation to a larger distance. 

Mr. WAXMAN. So is it the spent fuel problem in this Unit 4 where 

there is no water covering the fuel rods? Is that the greatest concern you have at the moment? 

Mr. JACZKO. Well, I think it is all of the factors together really. 

It is the combination. And so, yes, there is the possibility of this 

progressing further. And so, as I said, in this country we would 

probably take the prudent step of issuing an evacuation to a larger 

distance. 

105 

Mr. WAXMAN. High levels of radiation are being released from 

the pool, is that right? 

Mr. JACZKO. We believe that around the reactor site that there 

are high levels of radiation. Again, we have very limited data so 

I don’t want to speculate too much. 

Mr. WAXMAN. And what would be the significance of that? 

Mr. JACZKO. Well, first and foremost, it would mean that it 

would be very difficult for emergency workers to get near to the reactors. The doses that they could experience would potentially be 

lethal doses in a very short period of time. So that is a very significant development and largely is what prompted the Agency to 

make the statement that it did. 

Mr. WAXMAN. And if the emergency workers cannot get in there 

because of the danger to themselves, what would be the possibility 

then to deal with this problem of the spent fuels? 

Mr. JACZKO. Well, again, I don’t want to speculate too much because, again, we don’t have direct information about the conditions 

on the ground. But it is certainly a difficult situation and one that 

needs to be addressed. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, you describe serious risk at these facilities. 

Can you describe what you think are the highest risks and why? 

Mr. JACZKO. At the sites in Japan? 

Mr. WAXMAN. Yes. 

Mr. JACZKO. I think right now, as I think it has been the situation from the beginning, the efforts are to continue to keep the reactors cool, the three reactors that were operating at the time of 

the earthquake. And that is right now being done with a variety 

of different systems, and again, in more of a nontraditional way because they have lost a lot of their electrical power in their offsite 

power capabilities. 

In addition, the other risk is really to the spent fuel that may 

be in the spent fuel pools for possibly up to six of the reactors at 

the site. So keeping those pools filled with water and keeping that 

fuel cooled is also then the primary concerns. 

Mr. WAXMAN. And what is the significance of the report of a 

crack in the unit itself, in the containment unit? 

Mr. JACZKO. I want to be clear. Certainly, the indication that I 

was referring to was a crack possibly in the spent fuel pool on one 

of the other units. And the significance of that would be if there 

is a crack then there is the possibility of water draining from that 

pool and perhaps an inability to maintain the appropriate level of 

water in the pool, which could lead to damage of the fuel in that 

pool. 

Mr. WAXMAN. What would you say is the best case now for Japan 

and what do you think might be the worst case? 

Mr. JACZKO. Well, I think certainly the efforts are to continue to 

provide cooling of the reactors and to do everything possible to provide cooling to the spent fuel pools. Again, I don’t want to speculate 

on what could happen because, you know, it is a very dynamic situation and there are, you know, certainly a lot of efforts that are 

being undertaken with efforts of the U.S. Government in particular. I want to emphasize that this is really a U.S. Government 

response. The NRC is playing one small part but other assets have 

106 

been located from other parts of the U.S. Government and are 

being provided to help provide this cooling and do what we can. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton, is recognized 5 minutes. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Chairman, for being here on what is obviously a very difficult day for 

you. 

You may have answered some of these questions before or you 

may have even commented on them in your opening statement so 

I apologize if I ask something that has already been addressed. 

My understanding is that the safety systems at the power plants 

or the reactors in Japan are an older technology that requires an 

active backup and that the licenses that you are reviewing now 

have a different system that is a passive backup, i.e. if something 

happens catastrophic, the system automatically shuts itself down 

and the cooling system can perpetuate itself without outside power. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. JACZKO. Well, I wouldn’t necessarily want to comment too 

much on the Japanese sites because they are designed a little bit 

different from the designs we have that are similar in this country. 

But we are reviewing new reactors that do operate on what they 

call a ‘‘passive cooling system.’’ It is not all of the designs that we 

are reviewing, however. It is only two of the designs that we are 

looking at but—— 

Mr. BARTON. Well, my understanding is that there is—and correct me if I am wrong—that there is one new nuclear power plant 

under construction and that is the Southern Company facility in 

Georgia and that their safety system is a passive safety system. Of 

course you won’t have a tsunami in central Georgia but you could 

have an earthquake. And if there were to be an earthquake that 

it would automatically shut itself down without outside intervention and the coolant is a gravity-flow cooling system that self-perpetuates itself, again, without any outside power. Is that correct? 

Mr. JACZKO. That is correct. The system that is used for that 

particular design, which is the AP1000, does essentially rely on 

gravity to initiate circulation of water through the reactor and then 

naturally circulate based on the heat flow. It will circulate without 

the use of offsite power. However, there are other safety systems 

that do rely on the offsite power and—— 

Mr. BARTON. But we could say in the instance of the 1 new plant 

that is currently under construction, what happened in Japan, assuming the construction of the plant is robust enough that the containment is not destroyed by the earthquake in terms of cooling the 

reactors and shutting down the reactors, they would be shut down 

and they would stay cool. 

Mr. JACZKO. Well, again, I wouldn’t necessarily want to speculate 

on everything. We don’t really know what happened in Japan. We 

obviously know there was an earthquake. We know that there was 

a tsunami. We know a lot of safety systems haven’t functioned as 

would be needed. So, you know, at this point I don’t really want 

to speculate on how that applies to any U.S. facilities until we have 

a chance to really do a methodical and systematic—— 

107 

Mr. BARTON. I am not asking you to speculate on what happened 

in Japan. I am asking specifically if an earthquake hit the power 

plant in Georgia, based on your Agency’s review of their safety design, would it withstand that earthquake? 

Mr. JACZKO. All of the plants that we have licensed and all of 

the plants that we are currently reviewing will meet strict safety 

standards for earthquakes and other natural phenomena. So certainly, for the existing plants we believe absolutely that they can 

withstand an earthquake and they can meet the high standards 

that we have put in place. In the new plants we are still continuing 

our review. We haven’t completed our review so I don’t want to prejudge the outcome of that by making any final determinations. 

Mr. BARTON. OK. But you are allowing this plant in Georgia to 

be constructed, so you have approved something. 

Mr. JACZKO. It is a preliminary approval for a limited amount of 

construction activity that is not related to the most safety significant systems at this time. 

Mr. BARTON. Now, in general, for each plant in the United 

States, regardless of where it is located, does it have a minimum 

safety requirement to withstand an earthquake? 

Mr. JACZKO. That is true. All the plants have a requirement to 

be designed to deal with the kinds of earthquakes we would expect 

in about a 200-mile radius from that nuclear power plant. 

Mr. BARTON. Now, obviously, if a plant is in an area that is more 

prone to earthquakes, it might have a higher requirement than a 

plant that is in a location that has never had an earthquake in 500 

years, but they all have to withstand some base-case earthquake 

design criteria? 

Mr. JACZKO. That is correct. They all have to withstand what we 

think is the maximum expected earthquake from the historical 

record within about 200 miles of that site. 

Mr. BARTON. Now, I am told that the earthquake that hit Japan 

is order of magnitude the fifth most powerful ever recorded anywhere in the world. So that is obviously a very powerful earthquake. In the United States is the design criteria currently for that 

level of an earthquake or is it for an earthquake that would be, 

say, the standard of the earthquake that hit San Francisco in 

1906? 

Mr. JACZKO. Would you like me to answer? 

Mr. BARTON. I would like you to answer. 

Mr. JACZKO. I think it is important—I want to try and give a 

demonstration. I think we talk a lot about the magnitude of the 

earthquake, and that is not really what the NRC looks at. If you 

look at the cup of water that I have over here and you think of that 

as the nuclear reactor, the earthquake would be—I probably should 

fill up the water glass. 

Mr. BARTON. This is going to make TV so do it right. 

Mr. JACZKO. I practiced it before I started. So if you think of this 

as the nuclear power plant, when you talk about the magnitude of 

the earthquake, it would be like me hitting the table with my fist. 

So something like that. And you will see that it makes the glass 

over here vibrate. That is what we actually measure and we design 

our nuclear power plants around is that shaking of the power 

plant. So the actual impact depends upon where I hit in relation 

108 

to the glass. So if you have a large earthquake like this that is very 

far away may not have the same impact on a site as an earthquake 

that is maybe a little bit less but much closer. So something like 

that. So we actually worry more about—we look at all of the different earthquakes that could happen in this region and we look 

at what that shaking is and we make sure that that shaking can 

handle what we think are the maximum historical earthquakes in 

that region. Now—— 

Mr. BARTON. No, go ahead. 

Mr. JACZKO. Sorry. 

Mr. BARTON. Summarize. 

Mr. JACZKO. In addition to that, we know that we don’t always 

know everything. So we have done a lot of studies over the years 

to look at earthquakes and phenomena beyond that kind of design 

earthquake, and we have had the plants go back and look and see 

if there are things that they could do to ensure that they would be 

able to better withstand some possible earthquake that nobody has 

thought of or seen at this point. And so we have what we call severe accident programs that all of the utilities have where they 

have procedures and they have ability to mitigate that kind of 

more severe event that may not ever have occurred in a particular 

region. So it is a multi-layered system of defense. 

And if I could just briefly summarize one other point, in addition 

to that, following September 11, we required all of the nuclear reactors in this country to pre-stage equipment that can perform this 

emergency last—kind of—ditch effort cooling to the reactor and the 

spent fuel. And that is a variety of procedures and different types 

of equipment that are required to be at the reactor sites. And we 

have inspected the reactors to make sure that they have that. So, 

you know, that gives you another level of defense beyond, really, 

just what the design of the reactor is. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you. And thank you for the chair’s courtesy 

in letting him answer that question. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentlelady from California is recognized for 

5 minutes. 

Mrs. CAPPS. And Mr. Chairman, if you wouldn’t mind granting 

me a little consideration. I represent Diablo Canyon Nuclear Facility and I have three questions. But something was stated earlier 

that I believe needs to be clarified just for the record if I could ask 

the chairman in addition to thanking him for his testimony, did 

you say that Unit 4 in Japan in the incident there that there was 

no water in Unit 4 surrounding the spent fuel and that Unit 3 was 

in danger of losing the water source? 

Mr. JACZKO. We believe at this point that Unit 4 may have lost 

a significant inventory if not lost all of its water. 

Mrs. CAPPS. And that Unit 3 is in danger? 

Mr. JACZKO. Well, what we know at Unit 3 is that there is possibly—again, and our information is limited so we do—well, we believe that there is a crack in the spent fuel pool for Unit 3 as well, 

which could lead to a loss of water in that pool. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you. Diablo Canyon Nuclear Facility in my 

congressional district sits on the Hosgri Fault Zone, then in 2008 

the U.S. Geological Survey informed the utility that a new fault 

had been found near Diablo Canyon. It is called the Shoreline 

109 

Fault. You are well aware about the California law requiring the 

Energy Commission to perform reviews of the seismic issues associated with our State’s nuclear plants, sir. The Energy Commission 

recommended and our State PUC directed that independent peerreviewed advanced seismic studies be performed prior to applying 

for re-licensure. Do you think the NRC should take advantage of 

the talent, expertise, and resources available in California so that 

all information on seismic issues could be analyzed with the goal 

of avoiding a costly duplication? 

Mr. JACZKO. Well, ultimately, we have to make decision as an 

Agency based on the technical review that we as an Agency do. 

And again, I can’t get too far into some of these issues because we 

do have an ongoing hearing related to some of the very points that 

you have raised. So in our hearing process we are prohibited from 

discussing those things outside the context of the commission. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Right. I will tell you what it seems to me—— 

Mr. JACZKO. Yes. 

Mrs. CAPPS [continuing]. And to my constituents that having the 

best eyes and minds in our country working together looking at the 

seismic issues makes the most sense. First and foremost, for my 

constituents this is about safety. But seismic concerns also impact 

affordable and reliable generation as well. So I hope that this issue 

can be revisited not to take away from the responsibility and authority of the federal agency but to work with other agencies. And 

I look forward to working with you as we go along in this area. 

Mr. JACZKO. Well, Congresswoman, if I could just briefly say—— 

Mrs. CAPPS. Sure. 

Mr. JACZKO [continuing]. We actually did host a workshop within 

the last year, actually, that brought together a lot of these technical experts to have a discussion for the point that you said. We 

certainly are always open to hearing information from any technical expert that can provide information to us. So I just want to 

make the point that in the end the decision-making has to come 

from our—— 

Mrs. CAPPS. Right. 

Mr. JACZKO [continuing]. Expert staff. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Right. Here is another question. My constituents 

have become increasingly concerned about the preparation for a 

station blackout event. If power is lost, they want to be assured 

that backup power will be available throughout the duration of an 

accident in order to prevent fuel melting. In the last half-decade 

both California reactors have been cited by you, by the NRC, for 

instances in which both backup diesel generators were down or 

there were problems involving battery power availability. In such 

instances, merely citations were given to the utilities. Should the 

NRC reevaluate its regulations and perhaps increase the penalties 

for such infractions in light of the accident in Japan as an incentive 

to force better compliance from the nuclear operators? 

Mr. JACZKO. Well, as I said, we intend to do a very systematic 

and methodical look at any lessons we can learn from this Japanese incident. And I certainly will keep your suggestion in mind as 

something for us to take a look at. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Finally, I would like you to address some safety 

issues in the event of an earthquake and a simultaneous accident 

110 

in a nuclear plant. Diablo Canyon has a workable evacuation plan. 

They would not be able to operate without one. But as you may 

know, there is basically only one way in and out of San Luis 

Obispo, narrow Highway 1 along the coast. The NRC has ruled 

that it was non-credible that there could ever be multiple catastrophes such as an earthquake and a meltdown at the plant. This 

is the quote from the NRC. ‘‘The commission has determined that 

the chance of such a bizarre concentration of events occurring is extremely small. Not only is this conclusion well supported by the 

record evidence, it accords most imminently with common-sense notions of statistic probability.’’ That is the end of their quote. 

Now, we have just witnessed an earthquake, a tsunami, and a 

nuclear meltdown all occurring sequence. I want to ask the commission, if you would on my behalf, do they still believe the chance 

of this bizarre concentration of events is merely hypothetical? Do 

you think this decision should be revisited in light of the events in 

Japan? 

Mr. JACZKO. Well, I certainly will take your suggestion back to 

the commission. I would want to review that entire document in its 

entirety because certainly we do examine the possibility of earthquakes as an initiating event for a possible reactor problem. Of 

course, we believe we have systems in place that would, (1), really 

prevent any kind of core damage from that but (2), if there is subsequent problems, we have mitigating strategies in other ways to 

cope with those. So I would be happy to take a look at that document in its entirety. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you. And just in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, 

that is what they said 2 weeks ago, no doubt, in Japan as well. I 

have enormous anxiety and sadness over the events that happened 

there. And here we have seen in the past year our three major 

sources of energy that this country uses, coal, oil, and nuclear, all 

experiencing tragic accidents. And I do look forward to working 

with your commission on the number-one goal of keeping our energy sources safe. Thank you. 

Mr. JACZKO. Thank you. And Congresswoman, if I could just add, 

of course, you understand we have not had any nuclear incidents 

in the last year in this country. The incidents were another country. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. McKinley, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In light of what has 

happened in Japan, I assume the NRC still has the authority to 

grant the permits for continuing the design implementation of nuclear facility? 

Mr. JACZKO. Certainly. The Agency is an independent regulatory 

agency. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Is there any delay or are you hearing anything 

that would set up—I would expect some extension might be necessary but what would you suggest is a reasonable time frame for 

someone making an application? 

Mr. JACZKO. Well, as I said, I think the process of reviewing an 

application for a nuclear power plant is a very complicated process. 

And this is the first time we are doing this, the first time we have 

done it in a long time. So I think there is going to be some lessons 

111 

that we learned, both the applicant and the Agency. I am sorry. I 

don’t want to get into kind of speculating how long or surmising 

how long I think it should happen. I would just say that we will 

do the thorough job we need to—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. OK. 

Mr. JACZKO [continuing]. Do to ensure safety of—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Given that this also is for budgeting, do you have 

some R&D money allocated for researching alternate uses for spent 

fuel rods? 

Mr. JACZKO. We currently in our budget right now have significant resources that we are using to look at spent fuel, the safety 

and security of spent fuel and transportation. We have a small 

piece of our budget that is looking at reprocessing and developing 

a framework for reprocessing, which would be perhaps what you 

are referring to—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. If you could send more to me, I would like to 

know a little bit more about it. 

And let us go to the Yucca Mountain just for a moment. I don’t 

know whether it is anecdotal or I know, of course, the application 

has been withdrawn but it was my understanding that consumers 

are still paying on their utility bills funds for that project. Is that 

accurate? 

Mr. JACZKO. I believe it is, although I would add that that is not 

an area that the NRC has authority over. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. But is that accurate? 

Mr. JACZKO. I believe it is, but again, I don’t follow that very 

closely other than generally what I read in the press. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. OK. I am just curious because from what I understand that we are collecting money for something that is never 

going to happen. You don’t understand that? 

What about Shippingport? I think that was the first facility we 

had in this country, isn’t it? Was that ’65? ’63? When was 

Shippingport opened? 

Mr. JACZKO. I don’t have the exact date of the initial license but 

it was very early on in the U.S. Nuclear Program. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. In light of the circumstances—and maybe I don’t 

want to do a knee-jerk reaction at all to this —but will you be looking at some of the older facilities what new technology or has 

Shippingport been upgraded all along? 

Mr. JACZKO. Shippingport is no longer an operating reactor. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. It is no longer in operation at all? So what happens when Shippingport goes out? 

Mr. JACZKO. Any of the reactors when they go out of service are 

eventually decommissioned. And we have decommissioned a large 

number of reactors in this country. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. OK. There was also a story in the media that one 

of our naval vessels sailed through a cloud out off Japan’s—were 

you aware of that? 

Mr. JACZKO. Yes. We did have indications that the early days of 

this incident the reactor was going through a process that involves 

venting steam that accumulates in the reactor containment structure. And that steam needs to be released in order to reduce the 

pressures in that containment vessel, which is one of the important 

barriers to—— 

112 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Could that have been avoided, the ship going 

through that? Could that have been avoided? 

Mr. JACZKO. Well, my understanding was they were performing 

activities to support search-and-rescue efforts in Japan and that 

the doses that they were experiencing were from that particular 

plume were not doses that would have a significant impact to 

health and safety. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. That is all. I yield back my time. Thank you very 

much. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. At this time I recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome. 

What interim safety measures are you going to require while you 

study the issue? In Germany they are taking interim steps right 

now, as well as Switzerland, China, Venezuela. Are there any steps 

you would like to announce that you are going to take in order to 

ensure that the plants in our country are safe? 

Mr. JACZKO. Well, Congressman, we continue every day to make 

sure that the plants are safe. And at this time we don’t have any 

specific actions that we think are necessary to add to the safety of 

the facilities beyond what we do. 

Mr. MARKEY. Are there any interim advisories that you are going 

to send out? After 9/11 the NRC sent out some interim advisories. 

After Fukushima are you planning on doing that? 

Mr. JACZKO. We do intend to send out what we refer to as a Regulatory Information Summary. That will generally characterize the 

event in Japan. Again, at this point we don’t have detailed information. But that will remind licensees of, of course, their obligations under their existing license, but as well as these additional 

measures that I talked about to these severe accident types of 

strategies, as well as the efforts that we implemented after 9/11 to 

put in place these systems and procedures to ensure that they 

could provide emergency cooling to the reactor if necessary. 

Mr. MARKEY. Going back to the question which Chairman 

Whitfield asked you about, Dr. Ma and his concern about the 

AP1000 design, you said with your vote that ‘‘while it is clear that 

the use of ductile material in all areas of the shield building would 

provide an additional enhancement to safety, that I am not convinced that such a design requirement exists.’’ After what is going 

on in Japan right now, would you reconsider that in order to perhaps consider adding that ductile material as part of the process 

of the construction of AP1000 plants? 

Mr. JACZKO. As I said, I think we will do a very thorough review 

of the information from Japan. And we don’t anticipate getting to 

a final decision on that design at least until the end of the summer. 

So I think there will be plenty of information from our review at 

that time to inform that decision. 

Mr. MARKEY. Yes. As you know, I authored legislation in 2002 

that required the distribution of a potassium iodide to residents living within a 20-mile radius of nuclear power plants based upon a 

Sandia study, because we learned after Chernobyl that this cheap 

medication can prevent cancers caused by radioactive iodine. The 

Bush White House ignored my language and blocked an effort by 

HHS to implement it. In fact, they even took away HHS’ power to 

113 

complete its KI distribution guidelines. The Obama administration 

has not implemented it even though the surgeon general has just 

said yesterday that she thought it was a worthwhile precaution for 

West Coast residents. Don’t you think that distribution of potassium iodide to residents within 20 miles of nuclear power plants is 

a common-sense measure that should be implemented? 

Mr. JACZKO. Well, the particular protective actions that would be 

issued for any nuclear power plant incident are ultimately the responsibilities of the state and local governments. They have that 

primary on-the-ground responsibility to decide how to deal with an 

accident. So—— 

Mr. MARKEY. But the plants are licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, not by the states. You are the Agency of expertise in terms of the spread of nuclear materials, not state officials. 

Do you believe that it is advisable to look at a 20-mile radius for 

distribution of potassium iodide? 

Mr. JACZKO. The current policy of the commission is that potassium iodide would be one of the protective action that could be considered within what we call our emergency—— 

Mr. MARKEY. The Bush guideline was that for 10 to 20 miles, 

people should just start running or ducking under their bed. There 

is no other medicine. So is there a recommendation from you that 

they should look at potassium iodide for the 10- to 20-mile radius? 

Mr. JACZKO. Again, I would really in many ways defer to state 

and local governments as they believe that that is appropriate. I 

think there certainly are many protective actions that could be 

taken. 

Mr. MARKEY. I just don’t think that they have the expertise looking at the probabilistic risk assessment of the likelihood of an accident in terms of having KI there. Now, the San Onofre reactor is 

also rated to withstand a 7.0 earthquake. Should we be retrofitting 

those reactors to ensure that they can withstand much stronger 

earthquakes? The IAEA warned Japan 2 years ago that their nuclear power plants were not designed well enough to withstand a 

strong earthquake and they were only able to withstand a 7.0 

earthquake. That is what San Onofre is designed to withstand. 

Should we be looking at retrofitting of the San Onofre plant and 

plants like that? 

Mr. JACZKO. Well, as I said, the plants are actually designed to 

the ground motion and the shaking that you would get at any facility. And that is based on what we think is the maximum earthquake that has occurred in any particular area. So it doesn’t directly necessarily mean a 7.0 earthquake. It is what we think is 

the maximum credible earthquake. And I continue to believe that 

that is the appropriate standard for the Agency. But again, we will 

take a look at all of the information we have from Japan as that 

comes in and if we have to make modifications to our requirements, 

we will. 

Mr. MARKEY. I would just hope that maximum credible earthquake would be reexamined after what has happened in Chile, 

New Zealand, and Japan, we being in the other part of that earthquake zone that is yet to have an earthquake so that we do have 

the proper protections. 

114 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Cassidy, is 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Thank you, sir. I am a physician so I am going to 

speak about it and sound like a physician. In effect, there is going 

to be a postmortem done on that accident and folks are going to 

go in there and see what went wrong and learn from it to ideally 

keep it from occurring again. Now, are there going to be people 

from industry invited to that party if you will or to that postmortem or will it only be academia and government? It seems all 

3 need to be there. And so I don’t think I have heard you mentioned having industry there to kind of, well, what do we do? 

Thoughts? 

Mr. JACZKO. Well, we haven’t yet decided how we will go about 

our review but I want it to be systematic and methodical. Those 

are the two words that I think are most important right now. And 

in our normal practice as an Agency, we always reach out to—there 

is not just industry but public interest groups and other members 

of the public. So I would expect that whatever we do as part of this 

process will have a significant public involvement. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Now, let me ask because when I toured the nuclear 

power plant near my home—I am from Louisiana so it is the River 

Bend Nuclear Power Plant—and as I recall they were coming up 

with a failsafe mechanisms to keep the generators running even if 

there was something dire that happened to the plant. I gather 

what has happened here is that the tsunami, because the diesel 

was on the ground, washed away the diesel so they were unable 

to run the generators. So just for the reassurance to folks here and 

frankly my city if you will, it seems that we have been proactive 

on that particular issue so that there is a backup to the backup to 

the backup to keep the generators running to pump the water in 

case—you see where I am going with that. 

Mr. JACZKO. Well, we do. And again, I don’t want to speculate 

on exactly what happened in Japan because we really just don’t 

know yet. 

Mr. CASSIDY. I think I am channeling CNN right now. 

Mr. JACZKO. All the diesel generators at nuclear power plants in 

this country are considered vital equipment. The emergency diesel 

generators are vital pieces of equipment, so they are designed as 

with the other safety-significant structures and components to be 

able to withstand the natural phenomenon. So depending on the 

plant that could be hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, earthquakes, 

whatever the natural phenomena are that are relevant to a particular site. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Knowing that we are not speculating on what happened in Japan but just to go to the point, the backup generators, 

to keep those cooling units running, we have proactively addressed 

this in this country and there is a way if Hurricane Katrina comes 

through and hits my State and 1 system goes out, there is another 

system to keep it running. Is that my understanding? 

Mr. JACZKO. That is correct. Each reactor has at least two diesel 

generators. In the event that one of them can’t perform its function, there will be an additional. In addition to that, many sites 

have what we call a station blackout diesel or some other type of 

electrical power supply that can function in the event that those 

115 

primary emergency diesel generators are not operating. And then, 

of course, in addition to that, as I have referred to, all of the plants 

in this country have been required to look at pre-staging other additional emergency equipment that could deal with this kind of situation. 

Mr. CASSIDY. You mentioned that. 

Mr. JACZKO. In some cases that would be electrical power supplies or portable generators and things like that. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Got you. You may have answered this next question. I am sorry I was out of the room for a bit. Clearly, we are 

talking not just natural disasters but manmade. Do I understand 

the new nuclear power plants or do I not understand correctly that 

they have to be built so that if there is a terrorist attack and a 

plane is driven into them that somehow it is still protected? 

Mr. JACZKO. For the existing fleet of reactors, we have required 

them to be able to deal with large fires and explosions that could 

occur at the plant. And some of that was related to the possibilities 

of terrorist attacks involving aircraft. For new plants the new designs are required to be able to withstand an aircraft-type impact 

at the site. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Again, you may have said this. The containment 

structure, though, even if there is a meltdown, how effectively can 

a containment structure keep it contained? 

Mr. JACZKO. Well, that is the purpose of the containment structure is, again, in the very unlikely event that all of the safety systems fail and we are not able to keep cooling to the core and it 

were to eventually have significant fuel damage or some kind of 

melting that any radiological material would be contained within 

that structure. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Given that there is some that will be vented off but 

nonetheless, if there is a disaster, it is a disaster within the containment? 

Mr. JACZKO. That is the design goal and the expectation. And of 

course, if that were to fail, we have very robust programs in place 

to do emergency evacuations—— 

Mr. CASSIDY. So this is the 1970s-circa plants, so I presume since 

it dates from the ’70s since we have even more robust protections? 

Mr. JACZKO. We have looked at all of these plants over the years 

and in some cases—well, actually in the late ’80s and early ’90s we 

did systematic evaluations of the plants to see how they would deal 

with these kind of very severe accidents. In some cases, plants took 

the step of low-cost modifications that would deal with these more 

severe kinds of events. So we have a lot of things that have been 

done. The plants are certainly not the same plants that they were 

when they were originally built and designed. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Dingell, is 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your courtesy. 

Mr. Chairman, I am sure you are making a careful review of the 

events that are going forward in Japan with regard to the nuclear 

facility over there and the attendant circumstances. Will you make 

such a review? 

116 

Mr. JACZKO. We certainly do intend to. Once we have good, credible information we will do a thorough and systematic review. 

Mr. DINGELL. Good. Well, first of all, (1), would you submit to 

this committee your plans with regard to that as to how you intend 

to go into that to ascertain what happened? 

Mr. JACZKO. We certainly will. We will make those available. 

Mr. DINGELL. And would you see that we are informed as events 

go forward so we know what is taking place over there? 

Mr. JACZKO. We will certainly do that. 

Mr. DINGELL. And would you also submit to us for the record 

how NRC is going to go about defining the lessons that you have 

learned about events in Japan and how you will incorporate them 

into your regulatory requirements? You would do that for us? 

Mr. JACZKO. We will certainly do that. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, does the NRC regularly use new information 

about the different types of risk as these different types of risks 

and information become available? Yes or no? 

Mr. JACZKO. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Would you provide for the record the process by 

which NRC does this risk assessment? 

Mr. JACZKO. Well, there is a variety of—— 

Mr. DINGELL. No, just for the record. 

Mr. JACZKO. Oh, well, of course. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Our time, Mr. Chairman, is very limited. 

Mr. JACZKO. Of course. 

Mr. DINGELL. I have a lot of questions here. Mr. Chairman, do 

the NRC’s licensing standards for nuclear plants take into account 

the risk of earthquake or tsunami? 

Mr. JACZKO. They incorporate all natural hazards, including 

earthquakes and tsunamis. 

Mr. DINGELL. I would note with distress, I think you probably remember Diablo Canyon some years ago where they were going to 

build right on a fault. Are you more careful about that than your 

predecessors were in that particular—— 

Mr. JACZKO. Right now we look at all the nuclear power plants 

in the country. We look at seismic activity from all of them because 

while not all plants are in high seismic areas, almost all plants 

could experience some seismic activity from lower-level earthquake 

activity. So we consider that for all plants. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, Mr. Chairman, would you provide a list of 

the kinds of disasters for which NRC takes account of in terms of 

its licensing standards? Just submit that for the record, please. 

Mr. JACZKO. We will provide that. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that 

one of the main problems in Japan has been inadequate access to 

emergency power to keep the reactors cool and that that poses 

some substantial ongoing risk. Do NRC’s licensing standards include adequate access to emergency power and are you satisfied 

that they do so? 

Mr. JACZKO. We believe that our requirements are very strong in 

this area and we continue actively in our inspection program to ensure that licensees have the appropriate equipment such as diesel 

generator and that it operates successfully. 

117 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, Mr. Chairman, you have an unholy mess on 

your hands, you and the Department of Energy, with regard to 

Yucca Mountain. You have spent near as I can gather something 

like 17 billion on this that has been collected from ratepayers for 

long-term storage of nuclear waste. The administration opposes 

going forward. You have got this nuclear waste that is piling up 

all over the country. Some of it is going in to cooling ponds. You 

are talking about putting the rest in dry cask storage. Do you have 

any kind of long-term plan to address what you are going to do 

with this infernal mess and how you are going to deal with the 

problem? 

Mr. JACZKO. Well, right now we are looking at a longer time 

frame for storage of spent fuel than we have in the past. But right 

now we believe that that spent fuel certainly can be stored safely 

and securely with the existing systems—— 

Mr. DINGELL. But you don’t have—— 

Mr. JACZKO [continuing]. For storing several decades’ worth—— 

Mr. DINGELL [continuing]. A plan for how you are going to deal 

with it. You are being sued by the electrical utilities because they 

are collecting monies from their ratepayers that are not being 

spent on the purposes for which they are being collected. The stuff 

keeps piling up and you have doubled the amount that you can 

store in a single pool but that is running out. You are running out 

of pools in which to store it. And as these plants close, you are 

going to perhaps lose the responsibility of the persons who are storing this thing and the stuff just keeps piling up. Is there a longterm plan anywhere in government, in your Agency, in the Department of Energy, in the Office of Management and Budget, or in any 

other Agency of Federal Government as to what we are going to do 

about this infernal mess? 

Mr. JACZKO. Well, although it is not an area that we are directly 

working, the Secretary of Energy has convened a Blue Ribbon Commission to look at some of those longer-term options and see what 

an optimal approach will be. 

Mr. DINGELL. The answer, Mr. Chairman, is no, is it not? 

Mr. JACZKO. I believe there are plans through this Blue Ribbon 

Commission to look long-term. And we believe certainly from the 

Agency that the existing systems are—— 

Mr. DINGELL. The answer, my beloved friend, is no. And I say 

this with respect and affection. But the simple fact of the matter 

is you are sitting on a mighty fine mess that nobody knows what 

to do with and each and every one of those situations offers unique 

opportunity for terrifying mischief to the proud public interest and 

to the people in the area and the cost of this whole sorry-ass mess 

keeps going up and going up. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And we agree with you, Mr. Dingell. At this 

point I would like to recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Burgess, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Chairman, 

thank you for being here and spending so long with us today. 

Thank you for speaking with me yesterday at the end of, obviously, 

what was a very long day for you. And I appreciate your willingness to make yourself to Members of both sides of the dais during 

this crisis in Japan. 

118 

Recently, an email has been circulating and I think it came to 

the committee staff that suggested a much higher level of radioactivity at one of the plants that had previously been reported. Do 

you know anything about that? 

Mr. JACZKO. Well, we are continuing to monitor the situation as 

best we can. Again, I am not familiar with the email that you are 

talking about but we do believe that certainly with one of the spent 

fuel pools, that there have been certainly elevated radiation readings. And over the last several days there have been times based 

on certain incidents in the site where radiation levels have gone up 

and come back down. 

Mr. BURGESS. Well, when you say elevated, ballpark, are you 

talking about chest x-ray, CAT scan, multiple CAT scans? What 

sort of numbers are you talking about? 

Mr. JACZKO. Right now we have indications at the site of radiation levels that would be levels that would be lethal within a fairly short period of time. So they are very significant radiation levels. 

Mr. BURGESS. Very significant. OK. And that is different from 

kind of what we have been hearing before, is that correct? 

Mr. JACZKO. Again, I would say it is certainly a more recent development that we have seen these very, very high readings. 

Mr. BURGESS. OK. Now, you were very good to provide us with 

written testimony. You were very good to provide us with some updates on the situation. It is obviously a very fluid situation in 

Japan. Would you be good enough to give us in written form what 

you have described to us as you were finishing up your prepared 

testimony this afternoon so that there is no confusion over what— 

when we quote you, the press is here and we will all be asked questions as you finish up. Could you provide us the written information that you would like us to have? 

Mr. JACZKO. We will provide that for you. 

Mr. BURGESS. And I think Mrs. Capps on the other side talked 

about a little bit, I mean, you talked about spent fuel pool being 

dry and radiation being high, again, things that were different 

from what I had been gathering from just the press reports just 

prior to coming in here. And it would be good to see that, again, 

what is factual and what is not. 

Mr. JACZKO. We would be happy to provide that. And I would 

just say that our information is limited so we have been very careful to only provide information that we believe is very reliable. 

Mr. BURGESS. Well, now, we are here to talk about the budget 

and the budget you prepared obviously was before all this happened. Do you anticipate submitting an addendum to the request 

in light of things that have happened this past week? 

Mr. JACZKO. That is something we will review. At this point I 

don’t have an answer for you, but I will certainly come back to the 

committee if we do. 

Mr. BURGESS. Can you give us just kind of a back-to-the-envelope 

estimate, in a perfect world what would be the percentage of electricity in this country produced by nuclear power? 

Mr. JACZKO. It is approximately 20 percent. 

Mr. BURGESS. What is being produced now? 

119 

Mr. JACZKO. Currently, I would have to look but I would take an 

estimate of probably about that number. I am not aware of any significant planned outages right now. 

Mr. BURGESS. So it would be your position as chairman of the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission that the percentage of electricity 

produced in America would not increase over what it is today? Do 

I understand that correctly? 

Mr. JACZKO. I am sorry. 

Mr. BURGESS. In an ideal world this country, maximizing all of 

the different energy-production possibilities that we have, what 

percentage would be nuclear? 

Mr. JACZKO. Well, it is really not up to us to decide that. I think 

the Agency’s responsibility is to make sure that if there are nuclear 

power plants in this country that they continue to operate safely 

and securely. 

Mr. BURGESS. Do you have a concept of what would be the ideal 

number of nuclear power plants in this country in the next 10, 20, 

30 years. 

Mr. JACZKO. Certainly, as an Agency we don’t have a concept of 

an ideal number. Our job is to make sure it is safe and secure. 

Mr. BURGESS. How many would be too many for you to keep up 

with to ensure that they were safe? 

Mr. JACZKO. Right now we think certainly we are planning for 

the possibility of new plants to be under construction in the next 

several years, so we believe with the budgets that we have developed, we would have the resources we need to handle those additional units if they are licensed. 

Mr. BURGESS. All right. Chairman Dingell described in very 

colorful terms an infernal mess at Yucca Mountain. If you were the 

king of the nuclear regulatory world, the sole decision-maker on 

nuclear waste, what would be the ideal solution? The cynic went 

on. What would you do? 

Mr. JACZKO. Well, as I said, I can’t get too much into that because we do have an ongoing proceeding with regard to Yucca 

Mountain. And the job of keeping plants and the materials and all 

the things that we regulate safe is pretty much a job that, in particular these days, keeps me awake almost 24 hours a day. So I 

will let somebody else worry about some of those other broader policy questions. 

Mr. BURGESS. We thank you for your activities during this crisis. 

Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize the gentleman from 

Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman, thanks for 

your patience and endurance today. 

Given what has happened in Japan, I am sure this has been a 

reminder to all of us that everyone agrees that certifying new nuclear designs is a crucial and important task to make sure these 

reactors are durable and can be safely operated. And I understand 

that the new reactor design certification process involves not only 

professional and accredited NRC staff but there is also an outside 

expert advisory committee that oversees the review and recommendations of the NRC staff, is that correct? 

Mr. JACZKO. It is an Agency Independent Advisory Committee. 

120 

Mr. DOYLE. That is right, the ACRS. 

Mr. JACZKO. Right. 

Mr. DOYLE. And then, ultimately, you and your colleagues also 

evaluate and make your own independent judgments, correct? 

Mr. JACZKO. Correct. 

Mr. DOYLE. So I want to address this situation to get more clarification and more on the record about concerns raised by my good 

friend, Ed Markey, regarding Westinghouse’s AP1000. I want you 

to hopefully provide some more clarification to the process that was 

involved certifying this reactor. 

Now, is it true that Dr. Ma’s non-concurrence issues during the 

deliberation for the Westinghouse AP1000 Advanced Final Safety 

Report Evaluation were in fact given due consideration by his NRC 

staff colleagues? 

Mr. JACZKO. I believe that they were. 

Mr. DOYLE. And also the members of the Independent Advisory 

Committee for Reactor Safeguards? 

Mr. JACZKO. As part of their review, they did specifically receive 

a presentation from Mr. Ma about the situation. 

Mr. DOYLE. And you and your commission colleagues? 

Mr. JACZKO. I don’t want to speak for the actions of all of my colleagues, but I personally met with him and talked to him about his 

concerns. 

Mr. DOYLE. And can you tell us, what happened after Dr. Ma 

made his presentation and raised his concerns? So he raised these 

concerns and tell us what happened after that. 

Mr. JACZKO. Well, I think they were looked at by certainly all of 

the staff at the Agency that were reviewing the design. This advisory committee also did look at his perspective and they came to 

their own conclusions that I think, ultimately, no one disputes that 

the recommendations that he had would make the design safer, but 

we think the design as it is right now would appear to meet our 

standards. But I would add that it was also Mr. Ma who originally 

raised concerns with a previous iteration of the design. And as a 

result of those concerns, the Agency did indicate to Westinghouse 

that significant changes would need to be made. They, in fact, did 

make significant changes and again, I don’t want to speak for him 

directly, but my understanding of Dr. Ma’s position is that he 

thinks that those changes are not necessarily enough to satisfy his 

initial concerns. 

Mr. DOYLE. But it is true that his concerns were put forward and 

that the NRC team of reviewers that, throughout the drafting of 

the AFSCR, they evaluated it and they basically overruled his concerns, basically, as did the subcommittee. I mean, this went 

through a process. I just want to make clear for the record that we 

don’t have a person at the Department who has raised concerns 

and they were swept under the rug or ignored. I mean, these concerns were addressed. Is that not correct? 

Mr. JACZKO. Yes, I feel very strongly that we create an environment at the Agency where people can raise concerns and those concerns can be thoroughly reviewed and vetted. And I believe in this 

that that is what happened. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you very much. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. 

121 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Terry, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you for being here. I am just curious, there 

are two power plants. Mr. Barton talked about one in Georgia but 

there is one in Georgia, one in South Carolina that sometime this 

year, early next year should be issued their combined construction 

and operating licensure. My question, first, is there are any discussions occurring to delay that CO well now because of the Japanese 

disaster? 

Mr. JACZKO. Well, right now, those two potential plants that you 

referenced are all based around the AP1000 design. That design is 

currently undergoing a public review process. I expect we will get 

comments as a result of that public process related to the situation 

in Japan. So we will evaluate those as we get them. 

Mr. TERRY. So it is yes and maybe no? 

Mr. JACZKO. At this point we are following our normal path with 

the reviews at this point. 

Mr. TERRY. All right. It sounds like there may be some uncertainty in that process of whether they will get their combined construction operating license in ’11 or early ’12. 

Mr. JACZKO. Well, we are proceeding down a path to continue the 

reviews. As I said earlier—— 

Mr. TERRY. There is no reason to repeat the answer. I am curious 

to how many other applications have been made for the early site 

permits? Do you know how many are sitting with you all? 

Mr. JACZKO. We currently have, I believe, 1 or 2 new early site 

permits in front of the Agency or expected to come. 

Mr. TERRY. All right. Are there any that have been provided the 

early site permit and now on course to go to the next level of permitting? I am just trying to figure out how many are in the pipeline. 

Mr. JACZKO. Right now, we have 12 applications in front of us 

for approximately 20 reactors. Those are actual combined license 

applications, and then we have I believe it is two early site permits 

that are not yet tied specifically to an actual license for a plant. 

Mr. TERRY. All right. I have studied a lot over the past couple 

years the small modular reactors. Just want to know what your 

personal opinion is, where the process is in reviewing the technology, how close we are to perhaps even rolling out a pilot project. 

Mr. JACZKO. Well, I like to think of the small modular reactors 

in three groupings. We have the small modular reactors, which are 

very much based on the existing type of reactors that we have now 

but smaller. For that type of design, which we call integral light 

water reactors, we would anticipate in the next year or so an application for the construction of a small modular reactor type. We also 

anticipate one or more applications for designs related to those 

smaller modular reactors. 

The second category we have are what are basically called hightemperature gas fractures, so it is a slightly different technology. 

That is mostly work that is tied to the Next Generation Nuclear 

Plant project and that is an activity that is a little bit farther 

away, probably more like 2013 where we might see an application. 

The area in which probably there is the least certainty is with 

more of the nontraditional reactor types—— 

122 

Mr. TERRY. The one that—— 

Mr. JACZKO [continuing]. Sodium-cooled reactors—— 

Mr. TERRY [continuing]. The chairman may have raised earlier 

with you? 

Mr. JACZKO. Exactly. Those are much more right now in what I 

would call the conceptual stage. So they haven’t progressed to the 

point where we really have detailed discussions about possible reviews of applications. 

Mr. TERRY. All right. I appreciate that. I will yield my 59 seconds 

back to the Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. At this time I recognize the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Scalise, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Jaczko. I appreciate you being before our committee. I know we have some votes 

on the House floor so I will try to be brief and ask direct questions. 

I think the secretary had indicated that the United States was 

helping Japan doing some testing on contamination on the ground. 

Are you familiar with what types of testing that is currently being 

done that we are involved in and have you all found anything right 

now that is a concern? 

Mr. JACZKO. Well, right now my understanding is we are working to provide the ability to do air sampling of radiation. We have 

some readings, as I said, of very high levels of contamination 

around some of the reactor sites. And at this point I am not sure 

of the origin of that, whether that is coming from U.S. assistance 

in Japan or whether that is coming directly from the Japanese. 

Mr. SCALISE. OK, thanks. I would imagine right now there are 

a number of applications that are pending before your Agency at 

various levels awaiting decisions. Do you anticipate that those decisions will still go forward at the current pace or do you see anything changing there? 

Mr. JACZKO. Right now we don’t have any intention to change 

the approach we are taking. But as I said, we are going to do a 

very systematic and methodical review of the information coming 

from Japan. And if there is some information that would require 

us to revise our approach, then we will certainly do that. 

Mr. SCALISE. And I would imagine, you know, as with any crisis 

and, you know, we have experienced more than our fair share in 

South Louisiana, but there will be an evaluation in general just to 

see what lessons can be learned. And I would imagine, you know, 

we will make sure that if we learn some things from how they did 

things right, maybe how they did things wrong if they did, that we 

can incorporate that but in the end still move forward and not retreat from energy production in this country. 

Mr. JACZKO. Well, we will certainly do that type of review. And 

again, I don’t want to prejudge what comes out of it. If we get information that tells us we need to make a change, we will. If we 

get information that tells us things are good, then we will continue 

to proceed as we are. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you for your time. I appreciate it. Thank 

you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Commissioner, I just want to ask in response to Mr. Terry’s question you talked about on these small 

modulars there are three or four different categories, the exiting 

123 

type, the third type is NGNP 2013 conceptual. What determines 

what category a design would be in? Is that based on actual applications or is that just on general knowledge? 

Mr. JACZKO. It is really I would say the state of readiness of the 

designers and the venders themselves. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. 

Mr. JACZKO. So—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The state of readiness of the vendors and the designers. 

Mr. JACZKO. Yes. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. Thank you. Mr. Rush, do you have anything 

else? 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Administrator, I would like to 

know if, in fact, over the last 5 years, can you furnish this committee with the infractions or violations or emergency where the 

NRC had to send an emergency crew to any of the facilities that 

operates within the continental United States? 

Mr. JACZKO. We can certainly send you that information. 

Mr. RUSH. Yes, I would like to just know what level of responses 

and what level of issues that you have dealt with over the last 5 

years. 

Mr. JACZKO. We will send you that information. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much. Mr. Rush, you and I have 

3 minutes to go. Mr. Commissioner, thank you for your time today. 

We appreciate it very much. We look forward to working with you 

as we move forward in nuclear energy and safety. And we look forward to future opportunities. 

Mr. JACZKO. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. With that, the hearing is ended. 

[Whereupon, at 3:35 p.m., the subcommittees were adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARY BONO MACK

Secretary Chu and Director Jaczko, I appreciate you being here today to talk 

about your respective Agency’s budget. 

As we closely monitor the tragic events unfolding in Japan, I’d like to take a moment to express my sincere condolences for those impacted. 

Friday’s massive earthquake in Japan is the latest in a series of major quakes 

in the recent past: the 6.3 magnitude quake in New Zealand this past February and 

the 8.8-magnitude quake in Chile last year. These incidences will undoubtedly raise 

questions about what it means for our nation’s nuclear energy industry but particularly for those plants most vulnerable—those located near earthquake fault lines in 

California. These are important questions that must be addressed. I believe that in 

a state like California, with areas of high population coupled with the lingering risk 

of a major earthquake, it is particularly important for nuclear power operators to 

be held to the highest level of safety standards. 

While the fault geology may be different in California than Japan, we all know 

that the San Andreas Fault—which runs through my district—is due to rupture one 

day and we must do everything we can to be prepared. Earthquake experts predict 

that the next earthquake could register a magnitude of 7.5 or greater. It is my understanding that San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant was built to withstand a 7.0 

quake, and the Diablo Canyon is engineered to withstand a 7.5 earthquake, and 

that many safety measures have been taken to address potential hazards. However, 

we must learn from the tragedy in Japan and apply the lessons learned to our nuclear facilities in order to ensure that the potential risks are fully evaluated. It is 

important to note that Japan thought their plants were prepared to deal with the 

worst possible scenarios, yet the magnitude of the disaster overwhelmed their precautions. I look forward to working with the Department of Energy and the Nuclear 

124 

Regulatory Commission to ensure that the San Onofre and Diablo Canyon plants 

are built and operated based on the strictest safety standards. 

While we learn from the tragedy in Japan, we cannot lose site of the important 

role nuclear energy plays in our energy security and our future efforts to achieve 

energy independence. As we move forward, we still need to address the issues facing 

the disposal of spent nuclear waste. I look forward to hearing the Administration’s 

plan. 

Mr. Secretary, on a separate note, I look forward to working with you regarding 

renewable energy projects—many of which are being developed in my congressional 

district and are awaiting DOE Loan Guarantees. It is my understanding that there 

are more than 70 projects worth more than $30 billion waiting loan guarantees. 

Given that the sunset date of the Section 1705 Program is just months away [September 30, 2011], I’m interested in learning more about how you plan to have these 

loans closed. Many of the projects in my congressional district have gone through 

a lengthy and costly process. All the while, the unemployment rate in Riverside 

County is above 14 percent and people are waiting to be put to work. 

Secretary Chu and Director Jaczko, thank you for being here today to discuss 

your proposed budgets. It is critical that the federal government prioritizes our 

spending. Just as families in my congressional district are making tough budget sacrifices, we too must make fiscally responsible decisions here in Washington. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GREGG HARPER

Mr. Chairman: 

Nuclear power is vital to meeting America’s future energy needs. I support the 

effective low-cost programs that Congress has established in recent years to facilitate development of the next generation of nuclear power facilities. 

Congress has discussed on many occasions the need for energy security. Two elements of energy security do not enter frequently enough into our discussions of energy security: the diversity of domestic fuel sources we use, and workforce experience in developing new facilities. 

It is not enough to say that nuclear is important because we have a ready domestic supply of nuclear fuel, or because it constitutes nearly 20 percent of U.S. electric 

generation, or because it is a clean energy source. We need to facilitate the commercial nuclear renaissance because having a diverse generation mix is in the interest 

of energy security, and it is in the interest of customers because diversity helps to 

maintain lower prices for consumers. And in a country that has now gone more than 

two decades without completing a new nuclear generation facility, we need to rebuild a skilled workforce if nuclear is to maintain its vital position as part of America’s diverse electric generation mix. 

The Department of Energy (DOE) Loan Guarantee program is a very cost effective 

way for the federal government preserve nuclear energy’s role in our diverse energy 

portfolio and bring into operation new, more efficient, and even safer plant designs 

than those that have safely served the nation for the past five decades. At minimal 

(virtually no) cost to the government, the DOE loan guarantee program very significantly reduces the cost of borrowing to construct nuclear facilities. The program will 

save consumers billions of dollars with the overwhelming likelihood that taxpayers 

will bear only the modest costs of administering the program, and much of those 

costs are offset through application fees. 

Given the serious economic trough of the past several years and the recent twin 

natural disasters in Japan affecting the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear facility, it is 

natural that concerns could arise about repayment of any loans that are guaranteed. 

Is there a new significant risk to the government? No. 

Take the example of Southern Company’s Vogtle Units 3 and 4 project, through 

which two new reactors are being constructed by Georgia Power Company, a Southern Company operating company. DOE has agreed to guarantee $8.3 billion in loans 

for the project, again, substantially reducing the interest paid on the money loaned 

by private sources. Characteristic of the entities that have applied for the guarantees, Southern Company’s market value far exceeds the amount guaranteed, as do 

the assets of Georgia Power. In the unlikely event of a default on the loan, DOE 

has a first lien on the plant and full recourse to all of Georgia Power’s $25 billion 

in assets along with its other debt holders. The loan is expected to be less than 15 

percent of Georgia Power’s projected book capitalization and less than 10 percent 

of Southern Company’s projected book capitalization at the time of commercial operation. 

Furthermore, the Georgia Public Service Commission, which regulates Georgia 

Power, certified the construction project, which certification includes cost recovery 

125 

in customer rates as the facility is being constructed. The cost recovery process included in the certification requires semi-annual verification and approval of costs. 

This further reduces DOE’s minimal risk. 

Neither the economic downturn nor Japan’s emergency have changed materially 

the factors on which DOE’s loan guarantee was premised: a large, well-capitalized, 

regulated company borrowing a small fraction of its net worth to construct facilities 

required to meet future needs. 

The situation in Japan demands that we consider whether existing and new nuclear reactors will be operated safely in the U.S. To what extent is it relevant to 

apply the circumstances of one of the most powerful earthquakes in recorded history 

and a resulting tsunami when we review the safety of our fleet? Many have discussed the existing fleet; again, let me concentrate on the future. 

Vogtle Units 3 and 4 will be constructed using the Westinghouse AP1000 design. 

This and other new designs incorporate a variety of safety advances beyond those 

in the existing domestic nuclear fleet, which as noted above has operated with a 

very strong safety record for a half-century. As an example, the AP1000 design will 

shut down in the event of a design-basis accident in the absence of power or pumps. 

It depends on natural circulation and gravity to maintain containment and prevent 

the reactor from overheating. 

In closing, I repeat for emphasis two statements made by Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission Chairman Greg Jaczko at the hearing on March 16: 

We review all designs against a wide range of natural disasters—tsunamis, earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes—it just depends on the geographic location. 

All the plants have a requirement to be designed to deal with the kinds of earthquakes we would expect in about a 200 mile radius from that nuclear power plant. 

. . . They all have to withstand what we think is the maximum expected earthquake 

from the historical record within about 200 miles of that site. 

I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to submit these materials for the 

record. 

126 


68480.001
127 


68480.002
128 


68480.003
129 


68480.004
130 


68480.065
131 


68480.066
132 


68480.067
133 


68480.068
134 


68480.069
135 


68480.070
136 


68480.071
137 


68480.072
138 


68480.073
139 


68480.074
140 


68480.075
141 


68480.076
142 


68480.077
143 


68480.078
144 


68480.079
145 


68480.080
146 


68480.081
147 


68480.082
148 


68480.083
149 


68480.084
150 


68480.085
151 


68480.086
152 


68480.087
153 


68480.088
154 


68480.089
155 


68480.090
156 


68480.091
157 


68480.092
158 


68480.093
159 


68480.094
160 


68480.095
161 


68480.096
162 


68480.097
163 


68480.098
164 


68480.099
165 


68480.100
166 


68480.101
167 


68480.102
168 


68480.103
169 


68480.104
170 


68480.105
171 


68480.106
172 


68480.107
173 


68480.108
174 


68480.109
175 


68480.046
176 


68480.047
177 


68480.048
178 


68480.049
179 


68480.050
180 


68480.051
181 


68480.052
182 


68480.053
183 


68480.054
184 


68480.055
185 


68480.056
186 


68480.057
187 


68480.058
188 


68480.059
189 


68480.060
190 


68480.061
191 


68480.062
192 


68480.063
193 

Æ 


68480.064