Question #6 Is NRC doing enough in its safety research or its licensing areas to support the licensing of advanced reactors such as the modular HTGR? 1 Answer A near term program of needed interactions with the NRC on the MHTGR has been identified by the DOE program in a document known as the Licensing Plan for the Standard HTGR (HTGR-85-001). The NRC reviewed this plan and in a letter of July 1985 committed NRC resources to the accomplishment of the activities identified in the plan. In parallel, the NRC has also drafted an Advanced Reactor Licensing Policy which clearly advocates and supports early NRC interaction in reviewing designs such as the MHTGR. Consistent with this, a number of meetings have been held in FY85 and FY86 between the HTGR program and the NRC staff and the ACRS to familiarize each with the technology and to discuss approaches to developing licensing bases and requirements unique to the MHTGR. In February of 1986, however, the NRC issued a letter which retracted their former support to the review of advanced reactor concepts to the schedule identified in the DOE plans. This retraction, the letter states, owes to a reduction in NRC manpower and technical support budgets allocated to advanced necessitated by the Gramm-Rudmann-Hollings act. Accordingly, since February, there have been no further interactions with the NRC staff on the MHTGR. Work, however, is continuing on schedule under the DOE program to produce the licensing review documents as originally scheduled. We consider it essential to the further progress of work on the MHTGR to reinstate the relatively modest resources orginally committed by the NRC to continue interactions against the schedule of the licensing plan. reactors Enclosed are our responses to the Subcommittee's questions that were submitted on May 14, 1986. If there are any further questions or need for additional information, please contact me or Dan Mears, General Manager of GCRA. Enclosure Sincerely, R.r. Walker R. F. Walker, President FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS FOR R. F. WALKER (GCRA) FROM SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI HEARING BEFORE THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 4/29/86 Question #1 One of the arguments used by the Administration to support reduced funding for civilian nuclear research in favor of research on military (Strategic Defense Initiative) applications, is that the Strategic Defense Initiative research will also have significant applications in the civilian reactor area. Do you agree with this argument? Why or why not? If there are areas of research with civilian applications, please describe generally and provide an assessment of how significant these research areas are to your particular R&D program. Answer In principle, any non-civilian application of advanced nuclear technology will have technology transfer benefits to civilian applications. While the potential civilian benefits from SDI applications of advanced nuclear power systems are obvious, they are viewed as premature bases for reducing civilian reactor development programs. There are no known areas of specific SDI "research" that are applicable to the HTGR program. However, there are broad considerations of power needs within the SDI program for which some could be met by an HTGR. However, the SDI requirements, plans and commitments are viewed as too speculative at this time to warrant funding reductions in any of the civilian reactor development program. Question #2 - The development of a second generation of nuclear plant designs simplified licensable designs which are inherently safer than current reactors would appear to be essential to the success of an NRC licensing regime which incorporates the preapproved standardized design concept. Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not? The development success of an inherently safe, second generation Question #3 Assuming the Administration's requested level of funding for civilian reactor research, what is your estimate of the timetable for NRC certification of the ALWR, LMR and HTGR (individual panelists should respond regarding reactor with which they are most familiar)? the timetable be assuming the levels of funding requested in your testimony? Answer With the Administration's requested level of funding for the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS-FISCAL YEAR 1987 (Energy Research and Environment, Safety and Health) MONDAY, JUNE 23, 1986 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel J. Evans, presiding. Present: Senators Evans, Domenici, Warner, Hecht, and Ford. Also present: Marilyn Meigs, professional staff member; Benjamin S. Cooper, professional staff member for the minority; and James T. Bruce, counsel for the minority. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL J. EVANS, A U.S. Senator EVANS. This hearing of the Senate Subcommittee on Energy Research and Development, will please come to order. This hearing is on the Department of Energy fiscal year 1987 budget authority for the Office of Energy Research and Office of Environment, Safety and Health. Senator Domenici is expected sometime soon. However, if the Department of Energy Research would inform us as to how we could better, and more quickly, get the Eastern shuttle to fly on time, he would have been here before this. With that, the first panel is Mary Walker, assistant secretary for Environment, Safety and Health, and Dr. Trivelpiece, director of the Office of Energy Research of the Department of Energy. I would ask Ms. Walker to go first, so that we can deal with the subjects that she has under her responsibility, and then Dr. Trivelpiece will go next. That leads into the second panel, and the subject on which we will spend the rest of the afternoon. With that, Senator Ford, do you have any initial comments? Senator FORD. If you are talking about airlines, when I came in, they own the rain and fog. They can cancel and delay anything. Senator EVANS. How well do I know. Ms. Walker, you may proceed. (963) |