John Kelly
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Reactor Technologies, U.S. Department of Energy
Steven Chalk
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy

 

President, American Nuclear Society

Senior Policy Researcher, RAND Corporation

Policy Analyst, Natural Resources Defense Council

 

Committee Members Present
Jeff Bingaman, Chairman (D-NM)
Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member (R-AK)
John Barrasso (R-WY)

Al Franken (D-MN)

Mary Landrieu (D-LA)

Joe Manchin (D-WV)

Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)

 

On June 7, 2011 the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held a hearing regarding bills S.512, the Nuclear Power 2021 Act; S.937, the American Alternative Fuels Act of 2011; and S.1067, the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative Improvement Act of 2011. 

 

Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) began the hearing with a brief statement naming the three bills on the agenda as well indicating that topics such as the Clean Air Act and other pollution issues are beyond the jurisdiction of the committee.

 

Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), ranking member, provided an overview of the benefits and possibilities small modular reactors (SMRs) could provide. These benefits include smaller up-front costs, safer power levels, as well as the ability to incrementally add capacity to the reactors. As the price per barrel of petroleum hovers around $100 she stressed the importance of S.937, which reduces regulations for alternative energy by repealing Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (42 USC 17001). Section 526 states that emissions from alternative fuel sources must be less than or equal to the emissions from equivalent conventional petroleum sources.

 

In the first testimony, John Kelly gave insight into the possibilities SMRs could provide for the United States. He stated that SMRs are “inspiring American innovation” and could become a great way to replace the aging fossil fuel plants. Due to their smaller size, SMRs can be stored underground which lowers their seismic risks. In his testimony, Steven Chalk emphasized the transportation sector’s goals. He expressed the need for improvements within the sector and is hopeful of the President’s goal to cut U.S. fuel imports by a third by 2025. Additionally, he stressed the importance of more efficient cars and trucks. Chalk provided background on domestic biofuels and stressed the business opportunities these present, especially for rural areas. Chalk’s hope is for the U.S. to lead the “21st century green economy.”

 

During the question and answer period, Bingaman raised concerns about a feasible timeline for the Department of Energy (DOE) to implement SMR’s, especially as other countries are increasing their developments. Kelly stated that within a decade he foresees American light water nuclear plants to be operating fully. Kelly believed development in other countries is not likely to occur at a faster rate due to extensive licensing processes overseas. Tensions grew as Senator Landrieu pressed for a realistic timeline in which some of the technologies would be fully operational. Further frustrations arose regarding whose responsibility, industry’s or DOE’s, it is to take the lead in development of technologies and implementation of such. 

 

Bingaman disapproved of the triple credits algae based biofuels would receive relative to other developments in S.937. Senator Franken additionally expressed some concern for the high emphasis algae based fuels would receive.

 

Contrasting the first panel, the second panel presented objections to reducing regulations in order to speed up the process of developing nuclear power. During his testimony, Edwin Lyman argued against easing regulations in light of the Fukushima events. Joe Colvin stated support for S.512 and S.1067, arguing these would bring about job growth and long term development in the country. In his testimony, James Bartis argued for greater emphasis on development and extraction of oil shale, notably in Western Colorado and Eastern Utah, stating that the potential yield is triple the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. Bartis also supported continuing our nation’s coal development. Additionally, he regretted the loss of biodiversity and water contamination with biofuels. Bartis urged Congress to focus on the final outcome rather than taking a resource specific approach, which might limit diversification. Brian Siu expressed support of Section 526 in the final testimony, stressing the importance of safety and maintaining the regulations set forth in Energy Policy of 2005 (42 USC 15801).

 

A short period of questioning followed the testimonies, emphasizing the importance of preparing for the worst case scenarios and any natural hazards that might affect the reactors.

 

Testimonies from the witnesses, as well as a video webcast are available on the committee website.