Page 5

achieve 100 to 200 MW(e) and an innovative burst power concept that can produce 100 MW(e) in a closed cycle thermionic system. We at GA firmly believe that nuclear thermionic technology has the potential for application in a broad power spectrum that can enable space missions that require compact, lightweight and survivable power systems.

the

GA is developing the TRIGA Power System (TPS) to provide a compact, inherently safe, and reliable power plant for the Multimegawatt Terrestrial Powerplant (MTP) Project. The TPS combines two well-established and ideally-suited technologies: TRIGA research reactor and the organic Rankine cycle power conversion system. We were joined by Chicago Bridge & Iron, Gilbert-Commonwealth, and Mechanical Technologies Inc. for the conceptual design study completed last year. The study showed that the concept, like the TRIGA research reactor, can provide a fully automated plant that can be operated by a small technician-level staff. Both fuel logistics and site requirements are minimized resulting in power generation costs competitive with similar sized fossil-fired plants. We fully support continuation of this program which will lead to the demonstration of a nuclear system which will satisfy the requirement for secure and reliable power for ground-based SDI systems and other mission-critical military

installations.

Page 6

GA is also involved in the manufacture and supply of nuclear fuel for the Small Nuclear Power Source Demonstration Project and we would encourage the Committee to continue its support for this project. We believe the application of Small Nuclear Power Sources is quite broad and will extend beyond potential use with the North Warning System.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to express the appreciation of GA's management and employees for past support your Committee has provided for the programs I have discussed here today. Your program guidance and direction have been helpful in achieving many milestones in the advancement of nuclear research.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be

pleased to answer any questions you may have.

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Dean.

Warren P. Chernock, we are delighted to have you here and we will make your testimony a part of the record in its entirety.

STATEMENT OF WARREN P. CHERNOCK, VICE PRESIDENT, ADVANCED NUCLEAR SYSTEMS, NUCLEAR POWER SYSTEMS, COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC.

Mr. CHERNOCK. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have this opportunity to comment on some aspects of the DOE fiscal year 1987 budget request for fission research and development programs.

I also request that my written statement be made part of the record.

Senator DOMENICI. It will be, without objection.

Mr. CHERNOCK. Mr. Chairman, I am going to digress from what I had planned to say for just 1 minute or 2, if you will indulge me. You are, if you pardon the expression, a little bit unwilling to take credit for something that you were instrumental in in my testimony or as a result of my testimony in front of your Committee in 1982.

When I look at the results of the first panel discussion, if you will recall, you and I had a discussion in 1982 in which I indicated to you that I did not think that there was any R&D program that was being pursued by the Government that had a greater benefit/ cost analysis than the program that was being pursued by DOE in the area of extended or high burnup fuel.

I emphasized at that time that it would have important aspects on the waste program. I think that the results of that program have borne fruit and I think that you will find that it has had an important impact of the waste program. With high burnup fuel, you have fewer fuel assemblies to be concerned about in the waste program, and I believe that if we could refer back to that testimony and possibly think about including it as part of this record, I think you will find it will have impact on your deliberations with respect to panel number one.

Senator DOMENICI. The staff will find that for us. While we almost always accept recommendations of distinguished people like you, we will reserve judgment and read it first, and then we will decide. Is that all right with you?

Mr. CHERNOCK. Yes, that is fine. I believe your distinguished help was extremely helpful in pursuing that program.

Senator DOMENICI. We will do that.

Mr. CHERNOCK. In the near term, the best opportunity to restore the nuclear option is to build upon proven light water reactor technology. Thus, we are pleased to note the cooperative effort between DOE and EPRI in the development of detailed requirements for future light water reactors and the certification of designs incorporating these new requirements.

This combined effort aims at ensuring that lessons learned during the operation of light water reactors are fed back into design requirements and that resultant design changes will involve NRC early in the design process to achieve design certification in an efficient, responsible, and expeditious fashion.

This cooperative effort between DOE, EPRI, NRC, the utilities, reactor vendors, and architect-engineers represents a unified and cooperative national program which will be vital in restoring the nuclear option by building on proven light water reactor technology.

Combustion engineering is totally supportive of this program and we recommend that the proposed funding level for this effort for fiscal year 1987 remain intact, even in light of our recommendation on increases in fiscal year 1987 funding for the modular HTGR.

However, we recommend that the direction of the DOE effort in support of the EPRI light water reactor program be more heavily focused on additional support of the EPRI requirements and DOE design verification efforts, even at the expense of application of Government funds for additional design and development of socalled advanced light water reactors being designed in conjunction with foreign partners overseas.

I would like to again commend the foresight which your Committee has recognized concerning the inherent safety characteristics of the modular HTGR and the importance of this program to this Nation. HTGR program participants have pooled their efforts to arrive at a consensus design to become the focal point of a unified national HTGR program. This design is a 350 megawatt thermal side by side steel vessel reactor with prismatic fuel and an annular core. It is this design which now forms the basis of a PSID being pursued by DOE.

The selection process emphasized the utility user and regulatory requirements against which design concepts were evaluated. These requirements now form the basis for continued modular HTGR design efforts. In addition, a licensing plan for the modular HTGR was accepted by the NRC and forms the basis for the PSID submittal to NRC in fiscal year 1986.

There is a need for the formation of a strong industrial team with clear responsibility and authority to design and construct the demonstration plant. The combustion engineering record for engineering excellence and project and systems management of nuclear systems, combined with the strong HTGR technology base provided by GA technologies, provided the basis for formation of such a

team.

Combustion Engineering and GA Technologies have exercised a memorandum of understanding on the joint venture HTGR company. However, as a result of the sale of GAT by Chevron this memorandum of understanding requires assessment by the new owners. We feel confident that this industrial team will emerge as the flagship for the HTGR program both with respect to design, development, and construction of the demonstration plant, as well as future commercialization of HTGR's. Although budget restraints are severe, this program deserves your attention for increased funding in fiscal year 1987 to maintain the momentum which was difficult to achieve and for which your Committee should be proud. Mr. Chairman, let me reiterate Combustion Engineering's support of the modular HTGR program. We recommend that the budget for fiscal year 1987 for the modular HTGR be increased to the $32 million level recommended in the joint participants' statement which is attached to Mr. Walker's written testimony.

We also recommend that $2 million be provided to the NRC to provide a basis for adequate licensing review and the issuance of a licensability statement.

The modular HTGR and the liquid metal reactor have different roles within the DOE advanced reactor program, and we recommend that development of both concepts be continued. This recommendation to continue current development of both concepts is in agreement with the recommendations made in the April 1986 executive summary of the advanced reactor development subpanel of the Energy Research Advisory Board's Civilian Nuclear Power Panel.

We support the testimony of John McDonald of Rockwell International concerning the benefits and advantages of the SAFR modular LMFR concept which now can incorporate the advantages of metal fuel described by Dr. Till of Argonne National Laboratory in his testimony.

We recommend that the modular LMR funding level proposed by the House Subcommittee on Energy Research and Production, chaired by Representative Lloyd, be maintained.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to provide comments to this committee.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Chernock follows:]