Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much. Dr. Till, did you have additional remarks that I did not make part of the record? Dr. TILL. No. Senator DOMENICI. You did not have a longer prepared statement? Dr. TILL. I have a longer prepared statement, Mr. Chairman. Dr. TILL. Thank you very much. Senator DOMENICI. Dr. Armijo, General Electric. STATEMENT OF DR. JOSEPH S. ARMIJO, MANAGER, NUCLEAR SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY OPERATION, GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. Dr. ARMIJO. My name is Sam Armijo. I am manager of General Electric's Nuclear Systems Technology Operation. I also would like to thank the subcommittee for its invitation to participate in these important hearings. My remarks will focus on the Department of Energy's Civilian Reactor Program. We believe there are two principal goals to be achieved by the program: Assurance of U.S. energy security for the long term; and the expeditious revival of the U.S. nuclear option. Achievement of the short term goal requires the use of the light water reactor, and the long term goal can best be satisfied with liquid metal reactor technology and the breeder. The LWR and LMR goals are complementary and both should be pursued. I have covered the rationale and approach to these goals in my written statement, and request that the statement be included in the record. Today I will limit my remarks to two programs that can provide major near-term progress for meeting these goals. First, I want to voice our support for the light water reactor program that DOE, in conjunction with the Electric Power Research Institute, has proposed for fiscal year 1987. An aggressive effort toward design verification of an advanced light water reactor can achieve results that reopen the U.S. nuclear option within 5 years. We and others have made great progress on advanced light water reactor design in cooperation with our overseas associates, and these designs are available for this U.S. effort. Now I would like to address the issue of the future of the liquid metal reactor, or LMR, program. The innovative LMR program can address technical, economic, public, and political concerns through technological innovations and proof of passive safety in a full scale reactor test. Currently we are under contract with DOE for a comprehensive assessment of our modular liquid metal reactor concept, which we call PRISM, and that stands for Power Reactor Inherently Safe Module. Rockwell International is pursuing a competing concept. Completion of these 3-year programs was scheduled for fiscal year 1987 with a fiscal year 1987 program cost of $19.3 million. The purpose of this effort is to determine if there is a technically and economically realistic solution to the unfavorable economics and very high demonstration costs of large liquid metal reactor plants. We believe the results of DOE's innovative LMR program are vital for effective program guidance and urge the subcommittee to provide the contract funds for completion of this work as planned. This effort should receive top priority in the LMR and breeder program since it is critical to the commercial application of the program's substantial technology investment and output. We are encouraged with the progress of the modular reactor concept. We believe this technology offers a unique potential for a fully self-protecting LMR. The recent tests that Mr. Till reported at EBR-II have demonstrated the technical feasibility of this passive safety approach. Since our PRISM reactor concept is a small pool reactor, it can be tested full scale and at moderate cost, and thus provide the basis for major reduction of regulatory constraints that have contributed to the high cost of large monolithic systems. With regulatory controls limited to a smaller portion of the plant, modular LMR's should have scaling-that is, cost-scalingcharacteristics similar to fossil plants, which show only a minor cost penalty with small unit sizes. Application of standard certified units of this type would greatly reduce utility financing risks and provide the flexibility to economically serve a wide range of load growth requirements. While the results to date of this program are promising, they are incomplete and cannot be concluded with the proposed DOE funding for 1987 of $6 million. However, with the originally planned effort we can deliver technical and economic assessments with sufficient depth to judge how this technology would fare in the marketplace. We will also be able to present a definitive plan for proceeding toward commercialization. Proceeding with the innovative LMR program is particularly important for its potential of demonstrating a fully self-protecting reactor assembly. As noted earlier, we have taken this approach to overcome the economic obstacles facing the LMR. Our approach has included and continues to include a reactor test that would full demonstrate the inability of external events to cause an excessive radiation release or even damage to the reactor assembly. In view of the events of the last 10 days, this type of demonstration is extremely important in our opinion for advanced LMR systems. In closing, the two issues I have addressed involve relatively modest resources, but will provide near-term conclusions and guidance for future direction of the program. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of Dr. Armijo follows:] STATEMENT. OF JOSEPH S. ARMIJO MANAGER NUCLEAR SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY OPERATION GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY ON CIVILIAN REACTOR PROGRAMS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT SENATE ENERGY & NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE MAY 5, 1986 My name is Joseph S. Armijo. I am Manager of General Electric's Nuclear Systems Technology Operation. I want to thank the subcommittee for your invitation to participate in these important hearings and will direct my statement to possible developments that could aid nuclear power in the future in the U.S. PRINCIPAL GOALS We believe there are two principal goals to be addressed in the DOE Civilian Reactor Program. 1. 2. A focused program that assures U.S. energy security for the long term, and to this end Revival of the U.S. nuclear option on an expeditious basis. A favorable solution to the short term goal implies the use of the light water reactor. The long term goal can be satisfied with Liquid Metal Reactor (LMR) technology and the breeder. The LWR and LMR goals are complimentary. A resumption of U.S. LWR orders will act as a constraint on fossil fuel prices and increase the commitment of uranium resources. Development of a U.S. LMR option will in the long run limit potential uranium price increases resulting from the expanded use of LWRS while providing a means for regaining U.S. nuclear leadership and influence in international nuclear policy. Both goals can and should be pursued. For the future we should also consider the High Temperature Gas Reactor (HTGR) technology for the ultimate purpose of providing an alternative to the fossil production of industrial process heat, thus allowing nuclear power to further contribute to the national well being. PROCESS AND RESPONSIBILITIES While there are many specific constraints to a viable U.S. nuclear option the most significant are institutional factors beyond the control of the private sector. To be more specific, the existing U.S. regulatory practices and procedures controlling the environment for construction of nuclear plants make their schedules too long, their cost too high, and their unpredicability too great. General Electric supports legislative reforms in the licensing of nuclear plants. We support one step licensing, limits to backfitting and pre-approval of sites. To be successful, these reforms require a standardized design entailing very large investments before it is clear that an environment necessary for successful nuclear power deployment has returned. We believe the Federal Government through the DOE should fulfill its responsibility in the current nuclear hiatus by providing a program that assures that nuclear power plants can be designed, constructed and operated in a reasonable and predictable environment in the U.S. Independent of the technology, key to this assurance is the final NRC certification of a plant design. The DOE program should be directed towards developing and proving designs with features that can reduce regulatory scope over the plant design, construction and operation. For this effort to be successful each reactor design effort must define the approach to meeting regulatory requirements that will allow sufficient freedom in the plant's construction and operation to control the excessive costs associated with recent U.S. nuclear plants. It must also define developments, analyses and demonstrations that will be necessary to achieve these goals. The DOE should carry out the specified program, at least to the point where there is NRC certification and an assurance of a reasonable U.S. environment to accept the risk of proceeding with new nuclear projects. Other institutional constraints such as financing and public acceptance will follow if we can gain control over the cost and schedules of our plants. Proposed LWR Programs We believe that the Government can help restore the LWR option in the U.S. by concentrating support in two areas licensing of the Advanced LWRs and advancement of the mid-size LWR program. Current U.S. licensing has large uncertainties for utilities that might be contemplating nuclear additions and our own experience with the GE Standard Safety Analysis Report (GESSAR) has not been good. We have been in favor of standardization from the beginning, and were the first to pursue a license for a standard BWR in 1973. However, continued changes in NRC rules leave us 13 years later still pursuing certification, after the expenditure of tens of millions of dollars in the licensing process alone. Our experience is by no means unique. Government sponsorship of NRC certification of Advanced LWR designs will provide the proof that institutional reform has really taken place and restore confidence in the licensing process. The process we see is as follows: An Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) requirements program is in A second way in which the Government can help the LWR option is through support of the mid-size LWR program. If successful, this program will permit economic nuclear deployment in smaller increments therefore at lower financial risks. The EPRI has initiated a modest conceptual study of mid-size LWRs with the primary objective of being cost-competitive with coal; employing passive safety features to the maximum extent possible, thus minimizing the safety envelope for review. This is viewed as a way to overcome the traditional scaling penalties associated with the smaller nuclear unit sizes. We are very encouraged at the results to date, which may be applicable not only in the U.S. and may also permit us to exercise leadership abroad. We believe a modest test and assessment program is appropriate to determine the potential of the mid-size concept. How industry would proceed beyond this to a final design and certification will depend not only on the test results but also on U.S. need and the environment for nuclear at the conclusion of the mid-size concept assessment. The type of program I have outlined can be completed and produce definitive results within a five year period and I believe could go far toward meeting the critical goal of reviving the nuclear option in the United States. Advanced Reactors The Advanced Reactor Subpanel Report of the Energy Resources Advisory Board (ERAB) has recommended three key goals for advanced reactors. |