U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

23–408 PDF 2005

THE NEXT GENERATION OF NUCLEAR POWER

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND RESOURCES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 29, 2005

Serial No. 109–67

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

——— ———

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

MELISSA WOJCIAK, Staff Director

DAVID MARIN, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director

ROB BORDEN, Parliamentarian

TERESA AUSTIN, Chief Clerk

PHIL BARNETT, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND RESOURCES

DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, NORTH CAROLINA

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

DIANE E. WATSON, California

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

TOM LANTOS, California

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

EX OFFICIO

TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

LAWRENCE J. BRADY, Staff Director

DAVE SOLAN, Professional Staff Member

LORI GAVAGHAN, Clerk

RICHARD BUTCHER, Minority Professional Staff Member

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on June 29, 2005 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Johnson, Robert Shane, Acting Director, Nuclear Energy, Science and

Technology, U.S. Department of Energy; David Baldwin, senior vice

president, General Atomics; Rowan Rowntree, independent scientist,

visiting scholar, University of California-Berkeley; and David

Lochbaum, nuclear safety engineer, Union of Concerned Scientists ........ 10

Baldwin, David .......................................................................................... 19

Johnson, Robert Shane ............................................................................. 10

Lochbaum, David ....................................................................................... 45

Rowntree, Rowan ....................................................................................... 30

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Baldwin, David, senior vice president, General Atomics, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 23

Issa, Hon. Darrell E., a Representative in Congress from the State of

California, prepared statement of ................................................................ 3

Johnson, Robert Shane, Acting Director, Nuclear Energy, Science and

Technology, U.S. Department of Energy, prepared statement of ............. 14

Lochbaum, David, nuclear safety engineer, Union of Concerned Scientists,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 49

Rowntree, Rowan, independent scientist, visiting scholar, University of

California-Berkeley, prepared statement of ................................................ 33

Watson, Hon. Diane E., a Representative in Congress from the State

of California, prepared statement of ........................................................... 7

(1)

THE NEXT GENERATION OF NUCLEAR POWER

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 29, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND RESOURCES,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in room

2203, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Darrell E. Issa (chairman of the committee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Issa, Watson, and Kucinich.

Staff present: Larry Brady, staff director; Lori Gavaghan, legislative clerk; Dave Solan, Steve Cima, and Chase Huntley, professional staff members; Richard Butcher, minority professional staff

member; and Cecelia Morton, minority office manager.

Mr. ISSA. Good afternoon. Jointly, Congresswoman Watson and I

would like to apologize for the entire Congress and particularly our

voting schedule. We were notified that we would be voting so we

went over only to discover that they voiced it. So we should be uninterrupted going forward.

I am very excited today that we are going to be talking about

next generation nuclear power. Although, with the distinguished

panel we have here today, hopefully we will even go beyond that

and veer openly toward a lot of areas of the hydrogen society, fusion, and other areas of sustainable energy.

As we all know, nuclear energy is the subject of renewed interest

by the President, and Congress. Of course with it comes concerns

over security of energy supplies, fossil fuel prices, the volatility of

oil today, air quality, and our ability to reach our national goals of

developing a hydrogen economy.

At present, there are 103 licensed reactors still operating in 31

States. In 2004, nuclear generators produced a record 824 billion

kilowatt hours of electricity, accounting for approximately 20 percent of the Nation’s electricity. Anecdotally, we have been at about

20 percent of the Nation’s electricity coming from nuclear energy

for a number of years. So these increases in reliability have kept

pace with our need for power.

For more than four decades, the U.S. nuclear industry has focused on improving existing reactor technology. America’s nuclear

power plants have an excellent safety record and are among the

most efficient and reliable in the world. However, there are obvious

limits to continued expansion of existing capacity. In the 21st century our Nation needs more safe, clean, reliable electricity. The Department of Energy is currently engaged in an effort to advance reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:20 Sep 29, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\23408.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
2

search and development of next generation nuclear systems capable

of meeting this challenge.

The Generation IV program seeks to develop a much more advanced generation of nuclear energy reactors to commercial development by 2030. These reactors will have a dramatic improvement

in the areas of cost, safety, reliability and sustainability. The Department of Energy is supporting research in several reactor concepts, but priority has been placed on the Very High Temperature

Reactor. This technology is the favored design in the United States

due to its potential for competitive cost use in secondary industrial

activities such as hydrogen production and desalinization. This reactor design could also burn uranium, plutonium and other waste

products reprocessed from spent nuclear fuel or stockpiled warheads.

In 2004, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham launched the

Next Generation Nuclear Plant project to develop an advanced nuclear energy system to produce both inexpensive electric power and

large quantities of cost-effective hydrogen that could be used as an

alternative to fossil fuels. The Department of Energy has designated the Idaho National Laboratory to be the focal point for advanced reactor and fuel cycle development.

The NGNP is a key component of America’s energy future and

the Federal Government must take a leadership role to ensure that

a Generation IV reactor is built in the United States. The construction of a Generation IV reactor will ensure that the United States

regains its position as a world leader in nuclear energy technology.

Other nations are moving forward on Generation IV technologies,

and if we do nothing, we will miss a unique opportunity.

The purpose of this hearing is to evaluate the progress of the Department of Energy’s Nuclear Generation IV program. We also

want to get a better overall sense of the administration’s commitment to move forward with the Next Generation Nuclear Plant

project.

We look forward to hearing from our distinguished panel.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Darrell E. Issa follows:]

3

4

5

Mr. ISSA. Now I would like to recognize our distinguished ranking member, Ms. Watson.

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for convening

today’s hearing. As you have already said, this subcommittee is

systematically investigating each of the major energy issues that

our constituents are concerned about. Energy issues are of critical

importance, particularly to southern California, as well as the rest

of the Nation. So the subject for this hearing, ‘‘The Next Generation of Nuclear Power,’’ is very cogent and pertinent at this time.

In the United States, the rising costs of electricity generation

from natural gas and coal-fired power plants may make nuclear

power and renewable energy sources relatively more competitive.

No nuclear plants have been ordered in the United States since

1978. And more than 100 reactors have been canceled. Our aging

Generation II power plants have been working at tremendous

power generation levels, over 90 percent of capacity, to supply approximately 20 percent of the electricity needed for the Nation.

The Federal Government would be wise to intensely research the

next generations of nuclear power reactors and plan accordingly. It

has been argued that expanded nuclear generation could help substitute for some of the demand for natural gas. A very significant

aspect of reduced fossil fuel consumption is the reduction in carbon

dioxide emission. Nuclear energy does not produce substantial air

pollution. However, it could help reduce air pollution problems such

as smog and particulate matter and particle matter and global

warming.

The United States is responsible for about one-fourth of the

world’s total greenhouse gas emissions. America must do better.

Generation III Plus and Generation IV reactors may be the answer.

On the other hand, current nuclear power generation has several

downsides. Nuclear power produces large quantities of waste that

remain highly radioactive for thousands of years. A permanent, environmentally sensitive repository for high level waste or a way to

recycle nuclear waste is crucial to the future of nuclear feasibility.

Moreover, the United States must commit the scientific manpower and monetary resources necessary to educate the public and

provide the appropriate protection for the Nation’s environmental

and physical health. The Idaho National Laboratory, online since

February 2005, is a commendable step in the right direction. The

3,400 employees of the INL have a core mission to develop advanced next generation nuclear technologies, promote nuclear technology education, and apply their technical skills to enhance the

Nation’s security.

Another thought provoking issue regarding uranium and plutonium is domestic accidents and terrorist attacks. The potentially

catastrophic nature of an accident at a nuclear power plant makes

this a very serious concern. The last accident in the United States

was at Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania, in 1979. The general feeling of improved safety and acceptable standards in current operations is commendable.

However, in March 2002, leaking boric acid provided a large hole

in the nuclear reactor vessel head at the Davis-Besse nuclear plant

in Ohio. The corrosion stopped a quarter of an inch away from a

potentially dangerous loss of reactor cooling water.

6

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must hold the nuclear industry to the highest standards in order to prevent problems. So

Generation III Plus and Generation IV reactors must be safe for

the public and not just in theory.

Last, but not least, Mr. Chairman, I want to acknowledge the

current world political atmosphere. America presents a prime terrorist target on a site that contains radioactive materials. Now, all

commercial nuclear power plants licensed by the NRC have a series

of physical barriers to accessing the nuclear reactor area, and are

required to maintain a trained security force to protect them.

Following the terrorist attacks of September 11th, the NRC

began a review to improve defenses against terrorist attack. Several of the Generation IV reactor designs seemed to be prime candidates for energy production without weapons grade side effects.

The over-arching issue of nuclear proliferation has been around for

decades. The United Nations and other world organizations have

been vigilant and aggressive in monitoring non-civil applications of

nuclear energy. The United States must remain responsible and

conscientious in this regard as well.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening this hearing today. I look

forward to hearing from all of our witnesses. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Diane E. Watson follows:]

7

8

9

10

Mr. ISSA. Thank you very much, Ms. Watson.

The rules of the committee require that all witnesses and any

person that is going to provide advice to witnesses be sworn in. So

could I ask you to please rise for the oath.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. ISSA. Let the record show everyone answered in the affirmative.

I would ask unanimous consent that all opening statements beyond the ones already given be in the record. Additionally, I would

ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days

in which to revise or extend remarks or include extraneous material.

Additionally, I would ask that all of your statements be placed

into the record and any additional information you might choose to

supplement with. And again, 5 days would be appreciated. If you

need more time, let us know. But at this point, that will be entered

in as an order.

Having given you all those opening statements that were so carefully written, I will say this. Those are already in the record at this

moment. We give a normal allotment of 10 minutes, less if possible,

to say what you want to say and then go into question and answer.

Remember, you’ve already said everything that’s in front of you.

So feel free to give us additional information for the record. Because as you know, in spite of the large audience that is here

today, the record is everything that’s said and everything that’s

written. I know some of you will read your speech complete, but I

would suggest that the more you give us, the better.

With that, Mr. Johnson, you are first up. Thank you.

STATEMENTS OF ROBERT SHANE JOHNSON, ACTING DIRECTOR, NUCLEAR ENERGY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; DAVID BALDWIN, SENIOR VICE

PRESIDENT, GENERAL ATOMICS; ROWAN ROWNTREE, INDEPENDENT SCIENTIST; VISITING SCHOLAR, UNIVERSITY OF

CALIFORNIA-BERKELEY; AND DAVE LOCHBAUM, NUCLEAR

SAFETY ENGINEER, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS

STATEMENT OF ROBERT SHANE JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Watson, I am

Shane Johnson, Acting Director of the Department of Energy’s Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology. I would like to

thank you for the opportunity to speak today on the Department’s

advanced reactor programs.

I have submitted a statement for the record and I will briefly

summarize that statement.

The President’s National Energy Policy recommends expanded

use of nuclear energy to reduce dependence on imported fuels and

reduce harmful air emissions. To help achieve this vision, the Department launched two new nuclear programs: our Nuclear Power

2010 program and our Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative.

The Department’s Nuclear Power 2010 program is a partnership

between industry and Government aimed at removing barriers to

the licensing and the construction of new nuclear plants. The nuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:20 Sep 29, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\23408.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
11

clear reactor technology being pursued in the Nuclear Power 2010

program, often referred to as Generation III or Generation III Plus

reactors, represents an evolution in the basic reactor designs of the

103 designs in safe operation today in the United States. The evolutionary changes provided by Generation III reactors include the

use of passive safety systems and simplifications in the design and

layout of the various systems and components comprising the nuclear plan. We are hopeful that our country will see plant orders

for new nuclear power plants in the next 2 to 3 years.

The Department’s Generation IV nuclear energy systems initiative is an international partnership aimed at the development of

next generation reactor and fuel cycle technologies. These next generation technologies are expected to be revolutionary changes to the

basic reactor designs in operation today. These Generation IV reactor systems are envisioned to offer significant advances in proliferation resistance, safety, sustainability, and reduced waste generation over today’s reactor technologies. It is expected that these

technologies could be available for possible commercialization some

time between the years 2020 and 2030.

These advanced systems are also expected to include energy conversation capabilities that could produce commodities such as hydrogen, desalinated water, and processed heat. In 2001, the Department led the formation of the Generation IV international

forum, an international collective of 10 leading nuclear nations and

the European Union working together to develop these advanced

technologies.

In 2003, following a 2-year U.S.-led international effort to develop a technology road map for Generation IV systems, the member countries of the Generation IV International forum selected six

promising reactor concepts for future research and development.

These six concepts represent the reactor concepts with the highest

expectations for meeting the key objectives of the Generation IV

program.

To guide our Generation IV research activities and manage the

technology development and intellectual property issues associated

with international research collaboration, members of the Generation IV international forum signed a legally binding, intergovernmental framework agreement in February of this year. This agreement will further the development of advanced reactor technologies, enable the Department to access the world’s best expertise, and allow the United States to carry out Generation IV research and development more efficiently and effectively by

leveraging resources and capabilities.

Additionally, the Department also established a new central laboratory in February, the Idaho National Laboratory, to lead the

Government’s research and development on reactor and fuel cycle

technologies. The formation of the Idaho National Laboratory is a

key step forward for the nuclear energy program, enabling the establishment of a dedicated research site at which we can build the

expertise needed to develop these advanced technologies.

Today, working through the Idaho National Laboratory with

other national laboratories, universities, industry and the international research community, the United States is investing about

$40 million annually on advanced research into systems, materials

12

and fuels that are needed to bring Generation IV concepts to fruition. The Department is pursuing research and development on a

range of Generation IV technologies, including the Gas-Cooled Fast

Reactor, the Lead-Cooled Fast Reactor, the Super-Critical Water

Reactor, and the Very High Temperature Reactor.

Our efforts on these technologies include the investigation of

technical and economic challenges and risks, including waste products, developing core and fuel designs, and advanced materials for

these reactors. The Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor is a fast neutron spectrum reactor that has the potential to use recycled fuel in order to

maximize the value of our Nation’s uranium resources. The GasCooled Fast Reactor can also benefit future repository space requirements by burning long-lived spent fuel constituents.

The Lead-Cooled Fast Reactor is a fast neutron spectrum reactor

that operates similarly to the gas-cooled reactor. Instead of using

helium gas as the coolant, the Lead-Cooled Fast Reactor uses a liquid lead-based coolant to remove reactor heat. The Lead-Cooled Reactor can operate at atmospheric pressure, simplifying the design

of the primary reactor system. Like the Gas-Cooled Reactor, a key

benefit of the Lead-Cooled Fast Reactor is to operate in a more

fully closed fuel cycle. It is geared toward maximizing the utilization of uranium resources and minimizing nuclear waste.

The Super-Critical Water Reactor is a highly efficient, watercooled reactor that uses conventional, low-enriched uranium fuel

and operates at high pressures and temperatures when compared

to today’s light-water reactors. This allows for a far more efficient

plant, capable of generating electricity 30 percent more efficient

than today’s light-water reactors. In addition, it represents a simpler design that reduces the number of systems and components

that are required of Generation III reactors, resulting in improved

economics.

The Very High Temperature Reactor extends gas-cooled reactor

technologies that operate today between 650 and 850 degrees Celsius to operate at or near 950 degrees Celsius. The Very High Temperature Reactor is expected to produce electricity with 50 percent

higher efficiency than light-water reactors today. The Very High

Temperature Reactor is also expected to be capable of producing

the heat necessary for efficiently producing hydrogen gas, using

water as the only consumable resource. The Very High Temperature Reactor also incorporates passive safety characteristics, and

has enhanced safeguard and security features.

In addition to producing electricity, all four of these Generation

IV concepts have the potential to provide hydrogen generation.

While we are monitoring the progress of the international research

community on the other two Generation IV concepts, namely the

Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor and the Molten-Cooled Reactor, the

United States is not presently investing to any large extent in the

development of these technologies.

The Department’s Energy Information Administration estimates

the United States will need an additional 355,000 megawatts of

electricity production capacity over the next two decades to meet

our Nation’s growing demand for electricity. Nuclear energy will be

needed to help meet this demand. Generation III or Generation III

Plus reactor technologies can meet near-term demand for new

13

baseload electricity generation. We are seeing signs from industry

that these technologies will be deployed in the United States in the

very near future.

The United States and many other countries agree that Generation IV reactor concepts must offer improved economics, proliferation resistance, safety and sustainability over today’s reactor designs. In addition, these technologies need to be designed, developed and demonstrated before 2030, in order to support growing

United States and global energy needs and also to help achieve our

environmental objectives.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased

to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]

14

15

16

17

18

19

Mr. ISSA. Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson.

With that, we move to Dr. David Baldwin. Dr. Baldwin received

his Bachelor of Science and Ph.D. in plasma physics from MIT.

From 1962 to 1970, he held research and faculty positions at Stanford University and Culham Laboratory in England and Yale University. In 1988, he was named Professor of Physics and Director

of the Institute for Fusion Studies at the University of Texas, Austin. Since 1995, he has been a senior vice president of the Energy

Group for General Atomics in San Diego. General Atomic’s Energy

Group’s activities include high temperature gas reactor development for both electricity and hydrogen products together with necessary supporting technologies.

Thank you very much for being here, and we look forward to

your testimony, Dr. Baldwin.

STATEMENT OF DAVID E. BALDWIN

Mr. BALDWIN. Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I won’t introduce myself, you’ve done a very

nice job, thank you.

But I do want to thank you for the opportunity to talk to you

about the Generation IV technology, the impact it could have and

the role the Government could play. The previous speaker has just

talked a lot about the Generation IV program, so I will save some

time and not enter into that. But I want to focus in particular on

what he called the Very High Temperature Gas Reactor. It goes by

other names, High Temperature Gas Reactor or Modular-Helium

Reactor, they are all essentially the same thing.

Interestingly, this approach was inspired by a question from

Congress in the early 1980’s. We were basically asked, can’t you

make a reactor with all the virtues that are now called Generation

IV virtues? In many ways, the resulting design was an answer to

a maiden’s prayer. It is the first reactor that was designed from the

bottom up first to be safe, then to be economic, and then asked,

what other applications might it have. Safety was the first consideration.

One key to the safety is in the fuel. The reactor fuel is an engineered fuel particle which is, the fissile part, only about half a millimeter in diameter, wrapped in ceramic coatings, three layers of

ceramic coatings, which protect the fuel under all conditions from

both loss of fuel and loss of the radiation products in both normal

and off-normal operation.

In effect, the ceramic container is the containment vessel for the

little, tiny particle of fuel and a fully fueled reactor would contain

billions of these little particles.

The second key to this reactor’s attribute is the combination of

the chemically inert and neutron inert coolant gas, which is helium, and the graphite matrix into which this fuel is embedded.

The dimensions of the reactor is chosen so that under any conditions, loss of coolant or whatever, the core could cool by natural

conduction and conduction. That is, it does not require any form of

external or active cooling system.

The heat capacity of the graphite is such that the peak temperature, in which there is some small temperature rise, takes 2 or 3

days to reach, so there is time to react to the situation. The graphVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:20 Sep 29, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\23408.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
20

ite material is like diamond insofar as it is a form of carbon that

does not burn in the sense of generating heat and excessive losses.

If oxidation were to start, for example, if air flow replaced the helium gas flow, the result would actually be a slight cooling of the

system.

The resulting reactor has many attributes. Its physical characteristics of inherent safety of any kind mean that conditions like

prompt criticality and melt-down are simply not possible. The entire nuclear envelope is below grade by design. This was done for

economic reasons, but since September 11th, it is obviously important. The only thing above grade are things like cranes, which are

not nuclear in their character.

In operation, it burns 80 percent of its fuel load, compared to

around 5 percent for the light-water reactor. This means much less

high level waste for a given amount of electricity. And the resulting

spent fuel is in a form ideal for geologic burial. The gas temperature, as has already been mentioned, in the range of 900 to 950 degrees, is perfect for applications like electricity production or thermo-chemical hydrogen production.

And finally, looking at costs, once we have moved beyond the

startup costs of first-time engineering, the costs of these reactors

will compare very favorably, even with current Generation III reactors.

But the point I want to make here today is that the reactor is

also very flexible with regards to the kind of fuel burned in it. In

fact, exactly the same reactor can be fueled by several means. The

conventional way is low-enriched uranium, that is less than 20 percent. It will also burn a mix of thorium and enriched uranium. It

can burn weapons grade plutonium for the destruction of the plutonium. Or it can burn light-water reactor spent fuel for that destruction.

The combination of the graphite matrix and the coolant and the

fuel form enables these fuels to be burned safety, without dilution

in high burn-up, and then placed directly in geologic storage. A preliminary test at Oak Ridge indicates that this fuel will retain its

integrity for a few million years, which exceeds the lifetime of the

contents.

The important part I want to leave with you is that this capability for burning light-water reactor fuel opens a very attractive alternative to today’s once-through fuel cycles with subsequent geologic disposal. In fact, it presents a totally different way of thinking

about spent fuel. Licensing Yucca Mountain is certainly controversial today, and this issue must be solved, as the Congresswoman

said in her opening remarks.

At the current rate of generation of spent fuel, an additional

Yucca Mountain equivalent would be needed every 20 years or so.

And any increases would only make the situation worse.

As an alternative, by first removing the low-level unburned uranium and short-lived decay products from spent fuel and then

forming the remaining plutonium and actonides into TRISO particles, some 70 to 90 percent, it depends on the isotope, of this

spent fuel waste can be burned in one pass through a Very High

Temperature Reactor. Even more could be burned if you do a second pass.

21

This process is known as deep burn. In steady state, one reactor

could support five light-water reactors.

The final discharge is most unsuitable for weapons usage, because 90 percent of the plutonium isotope used in nuclear weapons

has been consumed and the volume and heat load have been much

reduced.

By burning the spent fuel from the light-water reactor fleet in

dedicated high temperature reactors, and gradually changing over

to those reactors as the light-water reactors reach their end of life,

the United States would need only one Yucca Mountain or its

equivalent to meet the spent fuel needs for the next 75 to 100

years, even with a 2 to 3 percent per year growth in nuclear power

that some people see today. This would be enough time to develop

fusion energy as an ultimate solution to the fuel problem. If fusion

were unable to reach its promise in that timeframe, and personally

I believe it will, then the limited number of Fast-Flux reactors

could be employed to process the quite modest discharge from the

High Temperature reactor fleet.

So with all this promise, why do we not see utilities flocking to

these reactors? There are several reasons. First, of course, nothing

has been moving in the nuclear arena for 30 years. At the end of

the first nuclear era, GA had booked orders for 12 earlier versions

of gas reactors that totaled over $11 billion. Those who say that the

technology is not ready often forget this fact.

Now that the tide may be changing, the first priority of utilities

has been Nuclear Power 2010 to restart LWR construction. The

utilities are also very aware of the spent fuel issue, as witnessed

by the urging of the Yucca Mountain licensing. GA has several of

them on its advisory board. We receive a lot of advice and encouragement from them.

Finally, what is really needed for the utility commitment and interest in investment is a successful operating demonstration facility. Such a facility would play the same role today that the many

reactors built in the 1950’s and 1960’s played, as part of the nuclear navy program, played for the light-water reactor program,

and there is no such equivalent today. The NGNP at Idaho has

been under discussion for 2 years now. Its purpose is to provide

just that demonstration function. It has received authorization support and some appropriation funding, but I think it is fair to say

we as a Nation have not really yet committed to carrying that out.

Needless to say, I strongly endorse that commitment.

So far its mission has been couched in terms of electricity and

hydrogen. But I would urge that a demonstration of deep burn be

added to that mission. This could be done with no alteration to the

facility itself, and only require fabrication of the appropriate fuel.

In these comments, I have not touched on some other comments

made in the written testimony which dealt with how the NGNP affected the revitalization of the nuclear industry. For purposes of

time I can’t cover them here. What I have covered, described as a

quite different vision of the future nuclear power development of

this country, particularly for addressing the important issue of

spent fuel distribution. It is one I believe can meet the Nation’s energy needs for the next several decades by addressing and resolving

22

all of the issues that nuclear power has raised over the last decades.

Providing this legacy for our children is a vision worthy of Government support, and I thank you for the opportunity to present

it.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Baldwin follows:]

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Dr. Baldwin.

We now move to Dr. Rowan Rowntree, who has just concluded

a 3-year appointment as a visiting scholar in the Department of

Environmental Science, Policy and Management at the University

of California-Berkeley. He taught courses in energy, technology and

society as an assistant and associate professor in the Maxwell

School of Public Policy at Syracuse University.

Three years ago, he retired from his position as National Research Program Leader in the research division of the U.S. Forest

Service. His advanced degrees are in the earth sciences, and were

taken at the University of California-Berkeley.

Before I allow Dr. Rowntree to speak, I have to own up to 25

years of, at times, having the opportunity to debate him about sustainable energy and other subjects, including the earth in every

possible sense. So it is with great pleasure that he agreed to be

here as the most independent scientist we could possibly get, and

you will see that demonstrated here today. Please, Dr. Rowntree.

STATEMENT OF ROWAN ROWNTREE

Mr. ROWNTREE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, for your invitation. This is an important

discussion.

I would like to address the second question in your briefing

memorandum: How can Government further promote the Generation IV nuclear power technology? I suggest there are six things

that Government can do. These suggestions address the public’s

aversion to nuclear power, and they also address the need to have

energy policymaking and management become more transparent.

Unless we can achieve this, support for Generation IV reactors will

be difficult. So these suggestions really focus on the interim 25

years until the Generation IV reactors can come online.

First, we have to educate the Nation as to why the 100 orders

for reactors were canceled, and why there have been no new orders

for reactors since about 1978 or 1980. This is the first step in building public confidence that, with new and advanced technology, the

Nation can safely consider continuing the nuclear component of our

energy program.

The second thing I suggest is that we educate the Nation as to

how safe the current 103 reactors are, at what rate they will be decommissioned, and what type of reactors will replace them. To

maintain the 20 percent nuclear contribution, we need to tell the

Nation whether it is better to extend the life of the current fleet

or replace a portion of that fleet with what I assume will be called

Generation III Plus reactors. Correct me if I am wrong on the terminology.

If it is the Government’s intention to increase the nuclear contribution above 20 percent during the next 25 years, then we must

explain what kinds of reactors and fuel cycles will be used and

what the tradeoffs are between starting these reactors up versus

just waiting for Generation IV reactors to come online.

The third suggestion is, we must solve two problems of critical

public safety: the disposal question and the posture of the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission. On the first one, is it better to move highlevel waste to Yucca Mountain or improve technology for onsite,

31

above-ground or below-ground disposal? Or should we get back into

reprocessing, and if we do, can we really manage the plutonium

proliferation problem?

On the second point, we must answer the question, is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission tilted toward public safety or toward

industry solvency?

My fourth suggestion is to provide the public with a plan and a

time line that takes us through the interim 25 years and through

the life span of Generation IV to fusion. Now, we read this morning

in the New York Times that France is going to get the first fusion

experimental reactor. We just need to have the public understand

what our plan is. A plan in itself builds confidence, structures discussion, and invites good ideas.

For example, the fusion education program at General Atomics,

in partnership with DOE, begins at the elementary school level.

Education programs like this, when placed in the context of a plan

and a time line, take on added power and meaning.

Fifth, make a concerted effort, that is a concerted effort, to reduce fossil fuel consumption by strengthening corporate average

fuel efficiency standards and supporting citizens’ conservation efforts. This builds public participation, builds citizen responsibility

and public interest in energy decisions. It also builds a sense of

credibility about what Government is doing.

This approach can convince the public the Government really is

making every effort to solve our energy dilemma. An example is

Congressman Issa’s efforts to make car pool lanes available to hybrid cars, which has been successful.

My last suggestion, and in my mind today, the most important,

is give careful consideration to renewables that can come online in

the next 5 years, or 10 years, to reduce the large fossil fuel component, promote solar, and take a new look at wind. I have just become more interested in wind last week, and I will tell you why.

Wind turbines currently contribute about 1 percent of our electricity. But they require low front-end investment, low operational

costs and they use established technology and have low environmental impacts.

But in terms of forging a national generation strategy that included wind, we really had no hard data on the wind resource.

Then in this coming month’s issue of the Journal of Geophysical

Research-Atmospheres, which is a publication of the American Geophysical Union, there will appear a comprehensive peer-reviewed

research report that establishes a calculus for wind. This study assesses the wind generation potential for all regions of the world.

The author is a tenured professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University and the study was funded by NASA.

It is a solid study and the citation appears at the end of my testimony.

The research that they did concludes that locations around the

world with sustainable Class III winds can produce about 72

terawatts of electricity. A terawatt is 1 trillion watts, the power

equivalent, I am led to believe, that is equivalent to generation by

more than about 500 nuclear reactors. The authors point out that

capturing 20 percent of the 72 terawatts would meet the world’s

electricity needs, including a good portion for hydrogen production.

32

The Great Lakes region in the United States is designated in

this study as one with many offshore sites for this type of wind

generation and the availability of fresh water at the site makes it

attractive for hydrogen production. I am concluding today that with

Government leadership and moderate subsidy we could attract capital to bring additional wind generation online quicker and possibly

with fewer costs than by building Generation III and III Plus reactors.

So to summarize, to successfully promote Generation IV reactors,

this requires convincing thought leaders, investors and governments that, No. 1, Generation IV solves most of the problems of

Generations I, II and III, and the testimony I have heard to this

point convinces me that they are very attractive. Second, that the

current reactor fleet be managed in a way that maximizes public

safety.

Third, that Government is looking at all options in a clear-eyed,

cost beneficial manner. Four, that Government will educate the

people about the costs and benefits of each option and then make

intelligent decisions about how to get us out of this dilemma.

Now, this subcommittee is taking the right step toward an open

and honest discussion. I commend the chairman and the members.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rowntree follows:]

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Dr. Rowntree.

We now move to Mr. David Lochbaum, nuclear safety engineer,

Union of Concerned Scientists.

Mr. Lochbaum received his bachelor of science in nuclear engineering from the University of Tennessee. He has more than 17

years of experience in commercial nuclear power plant start-up,

testing, operations, licensing, software development, training, and

design engineering. Since 1996, he has been a nuclear safety engineer for the Union of Concerned Scientists, UCS, not to be confused

with USC. UCS is a non-profit partnership for scientists and other

interested citizens, combining scientific analysis, policy development and citizen advocacy to achieve environmental solutions.

Mr. Lochbaum has also been a member of the American Nuclear

Society since 1978 and has written numerous articles on nuclear

safety. We look forward to your testimony. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF DAVID LOCHBAUM

Mr. LOCHBAUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this opportunity to share the vies of UCS with the subcommittee.

The role of the Department of Energy, which has been a key part

of today’s hearing, is an important one if there is to be a future

for Next Generation Nuclear Power in this country. To complement

that important role is that of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

which plays not as an immediate role, but is clearly a deeply important role if that next generation is to be successful.

As the chairman pointed out in his opening remarks, there hasn’t

been a serious accident at a U.S. nuclear power plant since 1979,

Three-Mile Island. There are several reasons for that. If you look

at the chance of failure versus time for nuclear power plants, or

cars or light bulbs or anything, it pretty much follows a bathtub

curve, named for its shape. The highest risk is early in life, the

break-in phase, and late in life, the wear-out phase.

The experience with nuclear power in this country, is that we

have a lot of accidents during the wear-in phase, Three Mile Island

being the most serious of those accidents, but we also have Browns

Ferry, SL–1, the Fermi 1 reactor accident and so on; accidents that

all happened in the first year or two of its lifetime. Once we got

out of that phase, past the break-in phase, where the chance of failure goes down, we are on in the peak middle health period of that

curve, heading toward the wear-out phase of the curve.

So the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the future faces the

two areas where the risk is the highest: from the existing reactors

as they enter or they head toward the wear-out phase, or the risk

of new reactors that by nature have to be put down in the left hand

part of the curve, which is the break-in part of the curve where

again the risk is higher. It doesn’t guarantee failure, but the risk

is higher in this portion of the curve.

We are concerned that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

hasn’t been reformed or its effectiveness hasn’t reached a point

where it can really deal with both of those challenges successfully.

Dr. Rowntree commented that maybe the NRC has a bias toward

industry. My personal belief is they don’t really have a bias, they

are asked to do an awful lot with limited resources. So we have too

many balls up in the air, and the chances of dropping them are alVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:20 Sep 29, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\23408.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
46

ways greater. Our concern that the focus has been on the DOE’s

role, at the sake of the NRC’s role, in making that agency effective

in dealing with the challenges it will face in the future.

Other evidence of the difficulty of meeting this challenge we

think are not quite as bad as accidents, but are equally suggestive

of the problem. Over its entire history, the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission has licensed a total of 132 nuclear power reactors.

Forty-four times one of the reactors has been shut down for a year

or more because of its safety levels. Those were not accidents, but

they were still break-downs, they cost the country billions of dollars

as ratepayers and stockholders paid for those safety levels to be restored.

An effective regulator would have seen signs of trouble sooner

and intervened sooner and brought about changes that allowed

problems to be fixed before it took a year for them to fix the problems. That resulted in lower safety levels and higher costs than

were necessary.

Over the last 20 years, there hasn’t been a single moment, where

a reactor in the United States hasn’t been shut down fixing safety

levels. We haven’t had an accident in 25 years, but we still have

these money drains that are costing billions of dollars. They are

also precursors to more serious accidents if we don’t correct the

performance that leads to these problems.

Other compelling evidence of the need for change at the NRC are

surveys conducted by the NRC’s own Inspector General. The most

recent of those surveys was released in 2002. That survey reported

that only slightly more than half the employees of the NRC feel

that it is safe to speak up in the NRC. That is simply unacceptable.

The agency that is in charge of safety cannot silence its own employees.

There is a safety culture at the NRC that the agency is aware

of and is taking steps to address. I think they are very sincere in

trying to fix those problems. Our concern is that they don’t have

the resources to bring about those changes fast enough, while they

are also dealing with the other issues that they face. These facts

should be troubling regardless of whether somebody loves or hates

nuclear power, whether you see nuclear power as having a role in

the future or not. The fact is that nuclear power is here today and

those problems that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission face need

to be addressed to ensure safety of the existing reactors and provide a real solid foundation for the next generation.

Mr. Johnson in his remarks spoke of the need to demonstrate the

technologies for the Generation IV reactors. We heartily endorse

that concept. The consequence of not doing full testing has been

lower safety levels and higher costs.

If you look at the existing fleet of reactors, we have had material

surprises that have caused costs to be much higher than they need

be. Right now, the industry, which is a fairly mature industry, is

facing problems with alloy 600 materials, that were supposed to

last for the life of the plants but are not. They are requiring steam

generators and other complements to be replaced at a higher cost

and also representing a greater risk until they are replaced. Better

testing years ago before these reactors were built and tested would

have identified these problems and allowed the materials being

47

used today to begin producing at a sooner time. Both safety and economics would benefit.

Another example is a material called ENON, which is a material

used as a fire protection barrier, so that a fire does not destroy the

cables in the emergency equipment in the back-ups. What we are

finding out through the testing done at Sandia earlier this year is

that this material does not last, does not perform, and does not

function. The fire burns it up.

For some reason, the safety tests were not done until years after

the material was deployed in a large number of our U.S. reactors.

This is not good from either a safety or economic standpoint. Testing is a way to ensure that the expectations that were set up for

the future in terms of safety and economics are demonstrated rather than just proven in cyberspace.

I would also like to address a point that Dr. Baldwin made, safety of the reactors. We hear a lot of talk about the improved safety

and have no reason to doubt the sincerity of this plan. At the same

time, we see the nuclear industry asking that Price Anderson liability protection be extended to nuclear reactors. If you look at the

efforts that have been underway for many of the reactor designs,

the attempt is to reduce the likelihood that the design has an accident, which is a commendable goal. But the second part of that,

should an accident occur in spite of all these nice efforts to reduce

the likelihood, will the public be protected? Will the containment

protect the public from release of radioactivity?

With Price Anderson in place, the second part of that equation

isn’t as important, because you pay the same insurance rates

whether you have a good containment, no containment or bad containment. If you disallowed, and didn’t renew Price Anderson on

nuclear reactors, it would be an incentive for vendors to come up

with safe designs. Because those safe designs would translate into

lower insurance premiums over the life of the plant. Whereas right

now, there is no safety incentive to come up with that great design

that protects the public.

Similar to cruise ships, the operators of cruise ships go to great

lengths to avoid wrecking those cruise ships. But should something

happen, there are also lifeboats and other things to protect the passengers in the unlikely event that a cruise ship accident occurs.

With Price Anderson, there is not the incentive to provide lifeboats and other things that nuclear power plants can have to protect the public. We are concerned that if Price Anderson is continued, there is a huge disincentive to make safety improvements. We

should not provide barriers to safety in the future.

Last, on the issue of the fuel cycles, we at UCS have long been

concerned about nuclear safety. We have also been concerned about

nuclear proliferation. One of our concerns with many of the nuclear

designs is the separation of plutonium does increase the likelihood

and potential for proliferation of the technology, making it easier

for rogue countries and terrorist groups to get their hands on the

material necessary to make a nuclear weapon. So we have a concern about proliferation in the processing. These are not necessarily showstoppers, but we are concerned about how that is

being done, what are the protections necessary to ensure that the

right material does not fall into the wrong hands.

48

I appreciate the opportunity to share our views, and I would be

glad to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lochbaum follows:]

49

50

51

52

53

54

Mr. ISSA. Thank you very much. I want to thank all of the witnesses for going well beyond their prepared statements. That does

us a lot of good and certainly makes the record more complete.

It is my custom to yield first to the ranking member. I am going

to break with that tradition ever so slightly, because I saw Dr.

Baldwin’s head moving very much in agreement on the discussion

of Price Anderson. I would like him to have an opportunity to

speak on that, and then will certainly yield to the ranking member.

Mr. BALDWIN. I was certainly agreeing with the point that the

disincentive for safety, the point we are making, provided by Price

Anderson is important. We would agree that over a period of time

these should be phased down. I think the first demonstration probably has to be covered. It is going to be in a Government installation anyway.

But the point is the one I was agreeing with, if we move into systems which are inherently safe, you don’t need the protection that

provides.

Mr. ISSA. Excellent. That helps clarify the issue for all of us.

With that, I would recognize the gentlelady from California for her

questions.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to raise

some of the issues as I listened to the panel. Let me direct my first

question to Dr. Rowntree. I would like you to talk very shortly

about fossil fuel consumption and what are the most critical environmental impacts of nuclear waste. I am concerned about global

change and weather change, global warming and so on. Would you

kind of tie in what impact the nuclear waste might have on that

effect?

Mr. ROWNTREE. May I ask for clarification? You asked about fossil fuel burning and climate change?

Ms. WATSON. Yes.

Mr. ROWNTREE. And also about nuclear?

Ms. WATSON. Yes.

Mr. ROWNTREE. My problem is, you asked for a brief discussion—

[laughter]—with all due respect, you have two professors here.

Ms. WATSON. Why don’t I talk about the origin of the galaxy?

[Laughter.]

Let’s just confine it then to the nuclear, fossil fuel versus nuclear

power, and its impact on the environment.

Mr. ROWNTREE. Thank you. I left my cottage in Maine on a lake

this morning where the loons are being infected by mercury. The

mercury comes to us from the fossil fuel plants of the Midwest and

the East. These loons are amazing birds. They came to their

present morphology about 60 million years ago, about the time that

dinosaurs were saying goodbye.

But I am afraid if we continue with fossil fuel use, we will not

only be putting carbon dioxide and some methane into the atmosphere, which if you took high school physics, you would learn that

when you change the chemical constituents of the atmosphere

through which radiation penetrates, you are going to change the

radiation balance. So I prefer not to talk not about global warming

as much as about climate change, because the increased incidence

of extreme events and things like that.

55

My taxi driver in from Dulles was from Bangladesh. If we drive

our SUVs, we have to think about sea level rise and storms that

flood those people out. If we are going to be citizens of the world,

leaders of the world, this is part of our metric.

At the same time, the people who live in Maine around me, and

I, were very, very happy to see the Maine Yankee nuclear power

plant closed down. Maine Yankee was an old plant. It broke, it was

too expensive to fix, it was then decommissioned at great cost. But

we are happy to say goodbye to that.

So you see the dilemma. Current fission is, I couldn’t say it better than Dave Lochbaum did about that curve, where we are now

moving into a very precarious phase of nuclear fission. If I were

king, I would bring Generation IV online, I would bring wind online, I would bring anything but the current, now outmoded, but

certain used-car level of reactors, take them out of production and

somehow get another system in place.

In terms of nuclear waste, I think you mentioned nuclear waste,

I have a question about, as I said, whether you are going to store

it onsite, all around the country, at 103 places, or if you are going

to combine it in Yucca Mountain. I don’t know the answer to that,

but I am presuming that a lot of good and smart people put a lot

of effort into deciding on, and then designing, Yucca Mountain. If

we can overcome the transportation problem, which is no small

problem, maybe we should subsidize the railroads so that they

could be safer and have fewer derailments, and get that stuff to

Yucca Mountain.

I am not the person to say which is the better way to go, but I

think we have run down this road with Yucca Mountain, we ought

to complete that task. I understand it has about 63,000 metric tons

technical capacity, with the increase that Dr. Baldwin mentioned,

how we are going to reduce that as we go to Generation IV.

But nuclear waste is obviously a big, big problem right now.

Ms. WATSON. As you know, with us, you always have the political

overlay. We have discussed time and time again whether we ought

to bury it in one location or leave it where it is and seal it. Of

course, transporting it to Yucca, I think it goes across 34 different

States. You are going to have a response from each one of those

States.

See we have some serious problems. What I am probably really

getting to, I think for the future, it looks like any kind of nuclear

energy would be much better than the waste that we have to deal

with at the current time. This is all in your province, in your domain, those of you sitting across the table. Dr. Baldwin, I see Dr.

Rowntree pointing to you. Dr. Baldwin, you might want to respond.

We are just really having some difficult problems, both scientifically, geographically, geologically, and politically in trying to do

away with the waste that we have now. I just want to know what

you see. Maybe you would comment on this for the future.

Mr. BALDWIN. I certainly don’t have an answer to the political

problem.

Ms. WATSON. Tell us what you know.

Mr. BALDWIN. I understand. What we have tried to address is

how to not have the problem we have today escalate several times

over, which it could well do. To hold this in bounds, it came out

56

in the earlier remarks, I have been in the fusion program most of

my professional life. I believe that some day there will be the answer. I don’t believe it will be in the very near future.

It will be on the order of 75 years before nuclear fusion power

could have an impact on the energy economy. We may have demonstrations much earlier than that, I am not arguing that. But to

really have an impact in the several tens of percent level, it is

going to take a long time. So we need a bridge to that point. I very

much believe that fission and fusion have to be looked at in combination, that the right kind of nuclear power, I believe Generation

IV provides that, provides a bridge to fusion. Fusion is the ultimate

solution to the spent fuel problem. But we have to look at it in the

whole, we have to make use of other sources of energy, I agree with

Dr. Rowntree very much, wherever they make sense.

But we have to stop looking at this energy problem through little

straws. We look at it a piece at a time. We have to think much

more strategically, over the time scale of the order of a century.

That is not a political answer, I know, because political answers

are short-term.

Ms. WATSON. Then that kind of is a nexus to a question I have

for Mr. Johnson. That is that scientists are saying that Generation

IV designs will be more effective in production and waste management. Where are these plants to be constructed and where would

they be tested? What kind of input would you have on that?

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. One of the cornerstones of the Generation IV program is enhancements in safety, proliferation resistance

and a reduction in the amount of waste generated from the operation of these facilities. But let me say that the Generation IV program is really in its infancy in terms of research and development

on some of the more critical issues associated with fuel, associated

with the materials necessary for the design of these facilities.

So not to belabor the point, but it is a bit early to be saying

where we would expect these to be deployed for commercial operation. We do see that the technologies do have the potential for

commercialization out into the future. One could expect that they

would be deployed in a manner not unlike the commercial plants

in operation today, that they would be deployed in localities where

the generation, the electrical capacity is needed.

Ms. WATSON. This is a very sensitive comment on my part, because a couple of years ago, we were in Kwajalein. As you know,

after we did the testing, nuclear testing, I think it was 1947, the

Government set up a situation where the people in the surrounding

islands could come together in, I guess it was called, it was a gathering where they would look at the results of their nuclear testing

in subsequent generations. I think there was $150 million that was

allocated for the people of the islands to come in and file for compensation as they are witnessing, generation after generation, the

effects of the nuclear fallout.

When we flew over the various islands, we looked down and we

could see this clear water and the beautiful white sands and the

palm trees. We wondered why we were testing that area so close

to land. We do know there was a shift in the winds at the time,

and it did carry the fallout over. But location, and how we are

going to evaluate that these particular processes will be effective

57

and will work, that came to my mind, the situation at Kwajalein

came to my mind because of the effect it has had on the land and

the people. The 14 inches of topsoil was completely destroyed, they

call it hot soil. So they can’t grow anything on those islands, it

completely destroyed islands, some of them disappeared under

water.

So I think to test and to evaluate is a very crucial consideration

that we must have, and I do hope that the thinking is going in

where you would test and among whom you would test and all the

matters and concerns that we might have affecting the populations

in that area. So that’s why I bring it up. I know that you are new,

but I would like you to think about it.

With that, I will turn it back to you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Ms. Watson.

I am going to start where the Congresswoman finished off. I

think it’s fair to ask the question, we have done, the Chinese have

done, the Russians, the Soviets, and other countries have done

above-ground nuclear testing in which they have taken relatively

significant amounts of enriched fuels and created an above-ground

event of X magnitude with the accompanying fallout radiation, and

so on.

It has always been a question, and I couldn’t be luckier than to

have this kind of a gathering of brain trust, when we look at the

unknown, what if we had another Three Mile Island in which nobody died, but it was somehow different, or a Chernobyl in which

we had a nuclear power plant that was nowhere close to the safety

standards that the United States would accept, and people did die?

What would be those releases, worst case, from a present generation facility here in the United States or around the world, relative

to what we did to ourselves and the world with above-ground nuclear testing for more than a decade?

Mr. BALDWIN. I’ll try to respond. There are several things to say

here that have occurred to me in the last couple of comments. One,

the word test means something different and is being used very differently. In the weapons test we were trying to design something

that would blow up and do damage, and in fact it did.

Mr. ISSA. A lot of fallout, lot of heat, lot of radiation.

Mr. BALDWIN. Lots of fallout and so on. What Mr. Johnson is

talking about is testing reactors. The test is supposed to, things

happen differently, I agree. What you are worried about is, what

happens if those tests fail and there is release. It is a quantitative

question. First of all, for the individual design, you have to look at

what is the credible kind of release. It is not literally just taking

everything there and supposing it is thrown up into the air. You

have to have some kind of idea of the mechanism, of how it would

work.

That is a little bit what I was trying to address in saying that

these high temperature gas cooled reactors are designing machines

which literally cannot melt down. That is a very important difference.

But the quantitative question as you posed it is, how much would

a failed test, that is, some kind of release, quantitatively compare

to what we already did to ourselves. I can’t answer that question

at this point.

58

Mr. ISSA. I will take a liberty and say that I personally believe

and would hope that we can quantify it going down the road, that

we already know the worst case. Chernobyl is a worst case. The

above-ground nuclear testing was certainly worst case, and the

world did not turn upside down. Kwajalein, where there was a series of above-ground explosions, designed to see how much damage

could be done, certainly is a worst case.

The strange thing that I find is that current generation nuclear

reactors are virtually impossible to have happen what happened in

Chernobyl, but even if it happened, and now I will pose the other

question, what are we doing to the loons? What are we doing to our

environment as we burn high volumes of fossil fuels, particularly

current coal—not just here, but in Vietnam where they burn it just

by taking high sulfur coal and just burning it? They make bricks

there by throwing coal into a furnace and the black smoke puffs

out.

What is the current damage versus, even if the worst case happened again, what is the trade-off? I would pose to each of you,

aren’t we better off even if the worst case happens, compared to

what is happening every day out of the smokestacks around the

world of high volumes of fossil fuels damaging our ecosystem?

Dr. Rowntree, we promised this was going to be controversial,

didn’t we?

Mr. ROWNTREE. I think you put it very well. I will comment on

perhaps my perception embedded in public perception of the tradeoff. Fossil fuel impacts on the one hand, fossil fuels in relation to

nuclear are incremental, they are slow. Sea level rises very slowly,

mercury up the food chain very slowly.

On the other hand, nuclear: we have this impression that it will

be a Chernobyl, an event. This is probably mistaken in the terms

of the kind of question that you are asking.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. ISSA. I was hoping for less bad. [Laughter.]

Mr. ROWNTREE. I’m a technology person. I would oppose any

quick fixes.

Mr. ISSA. I appreciate that. Dr. Baldwin.

Mr. BALDWIN. I would like to make a comment. I thought this

was where Dr. Rowntree was going, and it is a very important

point, and it may lay behind your question. It has to do almost

with human nature, psychology, what he called the fast event.

Human nature is more concerned about a small number of deaths

in a fast event than a large number of deaths over a very long period of time. I think that is where he was going.

We don’t have answers to those questions. They are political,

psychological and so on. But they are a little bit what we are wrestling with, that there is a certainty that we are doing damage to

ourselves, to our people, to our environment following our present

path.

We have a risk of following other paths that something might

happen. We are trying very hard to minimize that risk, but they

manifest in human psychology very, very differently.

Mr. ISSA. I appreciate that.

59

Moving to a subject closer to the administration, Mr. Johnson, in

this year’s budget, well, first of all, the President has been a champion for the hydrogen economy. Would that be fair to say?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.

As you heard here in testimony, and I think as we all know,

there are two major ways to get hydrogen. One is to have another

energy source, such as electricity, an abundance of electricity. Perhaps there is some way to get there besides nuclear. But for the

most part, the vast majority uses the fossil fuel.

The other one, which is more efficient, is what we do when we

crack petroleum, we tend to use natural gas, which fairly easily

gives us hydrogen, but of course we are talking about a fuel that

is primarily best for medicine, plastics, fertilizer, but it could be

turned for one of the lowest costs into hydrogen. And that is what

they do usually at oil refineries.

But from all that we have heard here today, the easiest, or let’s

say, the most efficient and least expensive way to get vast quantities of hydrogen will be Generation IV and beyond reactors, which

have shown a tremendous ability to produce that hydrogen. I have

to ask you, isn’t there an inconsistency, in that the administration

has offered zero for Next Generation in its budget?

How do we deal with that here in the Congress? The Senate has already put $40 million into Next Generation. In conference, I expect that most or all of that will be there. How do we see that

mixed message, or is it a mixed message?

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, I would answer that saying, it may

have the appearance of a mixed message, but it is not a mixed message. The administration’s budget has seen over the last 5 years

shows a steady increase in the funding request for our Generation

IV nuclear energy systems initiative. It has also seen increases in

funding requests for our hydrogen program.

The hydrogen program is being managed out of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewables. The Office of Nuclear Energy has

a role in the program as well. It is actually operated as a very wellintegrated program. We are working in the Office of Nuclear Energy consistent with the Department’s hydrogen posture plan, and

our funding requests and our activities, research activities, that we

are conducting as part of our nuclear hydrogen program are consistent with the funding requests in the posture plan, consistent

with the activities that we have committed to.

With respect to the Generation IV, again, over the last 5 years

we have seen our funding for the Generation IV program increase

by a factor of 10. I believe it was in 2002, funding for the program

was about $4 million. Our funding request is part of the 2006

budget, I believe it was $45 million.

What you are possibly seeing as a lack of commitment on the

part of the administration to moving forward with Generation IV

is perhaps due to the absence of specific text in our budget request

on the Next Generation Nuclear Plan. Based on conversations that

we had with industry resulting from a request for expressions of

interest that the Department issued late last spring, and also

based on the results of an independent technology review that was

conducted last year. Then upon further refinement of our R&D

plans, as we were developing our fiscal year 2006 Congressional

60

budget request, it was decided that we needed to increase our focus

on the core research and development activities necessary to see

these Generation IV technologies, whether the Very High Temperature Reactor or the Lead-Fast or the others, to address the critical

issues associated with those particular reactor designs.

So what you see in the 2006 budget request reflects the fact that

we have seen that there are several critical issues that need further development before committing to go forward with any kind

of procurement action for design and construction services. So

while our 2006 request lacks the words Next Generation Nuclear

Plan, it does include funding for all the concepts, including the

Very High Temperature Reactor, which could be coupled to a hydrogen production capability.

Mr. ISSA. OK. In the future, I will try to look in multiple line

items in groups, and perhaps that is the best way to look at it.

Thank you for clarifying that.

Dr. Baldwin, your CEO, I happen to know, is a pilot. I am also

in a very, very limited way alleged to be a long-time holder of a

pilot’s license. Whether it is airplane design or it is automobile design, this bathtub safety curve that Mr. Lochbaum talked about

clearly exists. But isn’t it true, or isn’t it fair to say that just when

you went from the Wright Brothers planes to the aircraft of today,

and you go from Henry Ford’s cars to the automobiles of today,

that it really is a series of those dips, but each one being at a lower

level?

The worst that could happen with the newest car of the lowest,

if you will, worst possible design today, isn’t it a lot better than a

car of just 20 or 30 years ago at its best? Aren’t we in a sense,

going to Generation IV, going to be going to dramatically safer

products?

Mr. BALDWIN. That is just what I was trying to say, is that we

are talking about different kinds of curves. That is also a learning

curve, which is just what you are saying.

To assess the credible accident, you asked what is the worst possible case, you have to ask what could happen. That has to be assessed. So these more advanced designs have done a better and

better job of eliminating the most destructive, of which Chernobyl

was the worst example we know.

Another comment I will make, which is very much related to

this, and it occurred to me during Mr. Lochbaum’s talking about

the NRC. In the early history of the light-water reactor development, the basic concept was laid down by the nuclear navy, as we

know. There were a number of smaller demonstration reactors

built.

But then it was basically turned over to industry. Industry did

two things. It went off in different directions, there were multiple,

different approaches to power. In a sense, every plant was designed

as a boutique item, a specialty item.

Mr. ISSA. I understand that is in the United States. In France,

they were organized.

Mr. BALDWIN. Yes, exactly. I am speaking of the United States.

The second is, they scaled up very fast in size. So they scaled up,

which increased the need for active systems and so on.

61

So the burden on NRC, I am not defending NRC or anything, I

am trying to explain. The burden on NRC was complicated by the

fact that there were many different types of designs, and that they

had been increased in the size of plants for economic reasons, driven by the utility or commercial interests. Other countries did it differently, you are absolutely right, have different records, standardization earlier on. I believe if we had done that in this country, it

would have been much more within the NRC’s ability to handle it.

Mr. Lochbaum may want to comment.

Mr. ISSA. Actually, I am going to make it even one better. Ms.

Watson would like to have another round of questioning. So perhaps you can combine those.

Ms. WATSON. I would like to direct my comments to Mr.

Lochbaum, a concerned scientist. We have concerns in common.

Then any of you can chime in.

But how do you think the NRC could be reformed in order to ensure that it effectively regulates the reactors and can promote the

safety of the Generation IV reactors? Then how can these Generation IV designs be more efficient in production and waste management? Why should they be reevaluated and reconsidered? Maybe

you could throw all that in together. Anyone who wants to respond,

please just jump in.

Mr. LOCHBAUM. [inaudible.]

Ms. WATSON. Let me just raise this with the Chair. We have an

oversight responsibility and I don’t know how far we can follow

this, Mr. Chairman. But I think our subcommittee, as long as you

are the Chair, and he has prerogative, I would some way, Mr.

Johnson, like to see those reports come in and we can kind of set

a schedule for taking a look, not all of the detailed policy issues.

But what are we doing to satisfy the public’s concern? What are we

doing in terms of safety measures? How are we addressing our environmental waste and so on?

So I would like to see an ongoing kind of oversight function on

the new generation advancements and technologies and so on. If

we can do that, I think we will really serve the interests of the general public. How do we sell nuclear powered energy to the public

in general? When you say atomic or nuclear, it all of a sudden puts

blinders up to so many people. I think the more we can, as Congress and as a subcommittee, get the word out to people that advancements are being made with protections and in terms of the

fallout, in terms of the processing and so on, I think we would see

a more massive acceptance of this type of energy, which we dearly

need.

Mr. ISSA. And if I can suggest, with Mr. Johnson’s cooperation,

majority and minority staff would prepare a list of those areas in

which there may already be briefings or materials. But if there

wasn’t, perhaps you could put something together. We will get it

to you within a week or so. We are leaving for the 4th of July

break. So I would say just after that.

Then if you could respond either with existing programs or literature, it would be very helpful and it would save us holding you

for a long time with those questions. Based on that response, Ms.

Watson and I would work together on seeing what we would like

62

to have continue and then submit that back to you, if that is acceptable?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir, that sounds very good.

Mr. ISSA. Excellent. Dr. Baldwin.

Mr. BALDWIN. We in thinking about our candidate for NGNP are

constantly reviewing and concerned with the safety questions as

they come up. One vehicle that we have found, we have not done

this in the safety, but I would like to, that is why I am suggesting

it, we have done it in other areas, is bring in advisory groups from

interest groups. I mentioned that we had utility advisory board of

some 10 or so utilities who over the years have steered us and advised us on our thinking and from their perspective.

I am suggesting that if the NGNP really becomes a project, a viable project, that it would valuably have an advisory board made up

of organizations like the Concerned Scientists, physics groups, utility representatives and so on, to advise how does this emerging

Generation IV technology fit against the standards which the various stakeholders would bring to this technology.

Mr. ISSA. Dr. Baldwin, I think that is an excellent suggestion.

Mr. BALDWIN. Rather than trying to develop it in isolation then

deal with it in hearings.

Mr. ISSA. I will take the liberty of suggesting that to the Senator

from Idaho when we work together to renew the funding that I personally, not in indifference to the administration, but personally believe needs to be in the budget to move the demonstration project

a little further, a little faster, if it becomes possible.

Ms. Johnson, as you know, we often authorize and/or appropriate

funds and then at the end of the year it goes back into the President’s discretionary slush fund of leftover money. So it is not all

bad if we give you the money and for some reason we are mistaken

and it can’t be used. I know you hate the word slush fund. But the

truth is that there are many of us here who believe that we need

to make sure that demonstration funds are available for fiscal year

2006, should opportunities occur to move that program.

Ms. Watson, do you have additional questions?

Ms. WATSON. I just want to say, I thank you, all of the panel for

coming and really educating us. As I have asked the chairman, I

do hope that we will stay on top of this as it starts to develop, Mr.

Johnson, and whichever way that we can be helpful in getting the

word out, not only through those of us on the committee, but

throughout Congress as to the development. Because these are

issues that we are going to be faced with from now on. Energy and

the environment, its impact on the environment, our ecosystem and

so on, we need to plan for it, and we need to save this planet, Dr.

Rowntree. Let’s get the galaxy. [Laughter.]

So I thank you for coming and sharing with us. I will hope that

we as a committee can stay on top of the information. Thank you

very much.

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Ms. Watson.

And I would like to thank the majority and minority staff who,

as Ms. Watson and I know, made this all possible. I would like to

thank our witnesses.

I will mention that we did have Mr. Kucinich come in and out,

we actually had several calls from other Members. Every single

63

subcommittee and the full Committee of Government Reform are

meeting here today. We are a busy group, regardless of what the

newspapers say about us. Because of the volume of information,

the additional requests, and to be honest, our hope that the record

be complete, we will hold the record open for 2 weeks from this

date for additional submissions and inclusions.

Again, I would like to thank the witnesses for being here. With

that, we conclude this hearing.

[Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

Æ