That takes a considerable design effort and when you bring forward this new concept to the NRC, they are going to be looking for a technology base, say, in the area of fuel performance. We say this reactor is passively safe. You take this design basis accident, a very severe accident condition, very low probability and it says that the fuel will not release its fission products. It goes to a temperature and it may stay there for several hundreds of hours at an elevated temperature above steady state. We need to demonstrate this fuel will perform at this temperature for hundreds of hours, still containing its fission products. We are confident, from other tests, that maximum temperature I am referring to here is about 1,600 degrees centigrade. Now, we have short-term tests that for tens of hours, the fuel integrity is maintained for tens of hours at 2,000 degrees-say. And we are confident from that, that this fuel will contain the fission products at 1,600, a much lower temperature, for a much longer period. But that data was never required in the earlier designs. So this is some of the research-or I refer to it more as development—that is required in this. And the total design-to complete the design and the technology programs-we think is going to require about $350 million. Mr. LUJAN. From now on? Mr. DEAN. Well, yes, sir. From now on. And that would give us the licensing statement or the review by the NRC to construct a demonstration plant. Mr. LUJAN. Which means that-and it gets me to my final question-if we were to put in, say, $20 million, is the figure that I see being bandied around, what about 1988, 1989, 1990, and on and on? What do you see? And when is the end? Mr. DEAN. Well, this is to be addressed in this project initiative. Mr. Walker talked about it first started with TVA and now has been picked up by GCRA; that in the rest of this year, to come together with a program and these are the objectives. At $20 million, you will really never get there. We need the industry, the private sector must come up and volunteer to support certain costs of this project. Mr. LUJAN. I understand that. What I am talking about is the Government portion. Mr. DEAN. So therefore, we come back to—with the private commitment, this is the Government commitment we need to make it happen and it will be more than $20 million a year. For $20 million a year, I just do not think we will ever get there. Mr. LUJAN. For how many years? Mr. DEAN. Well Mr. LUJAN. Say it is 28-or your 32. Mr. DEAN. Well, if you start getting in that range, now, that is significant and, you know, as I say, for the $350 million of front end of design and technology, if you are in the $35 million range, or where the program has been supported in the last few years, we see this stretching out, this project stretching out from, maybe, the shortest of 8 or 9 years to 12 years. But at those levels, we would be able to make significant progress. But at the 20, it would tide us over till we get a package put together but, in the long term, we will need more than that. Mr. LUJAN. So you are saying, in the final analysis, that at best, we would not have a modular HTGR for 10, 12 years. Mr. DEAN. Ten years. Yes, sir. Mr. LUJAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. VALENTINE. Thank you, Mr. Lujan. We had kind of gotten out of order. Do either one of you have any time constraints that we can accommodate? Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, my time needs are best served if Mr. Chernock makes his presentation and we get on with the concluding panel. Mr. VALENTINE. Please proceed, Mr. Chernock. STATEMENT OF WARREN P. CHERNOCK, VICE PRESIDENT, R&D NUCLEAR POWER SYSTEMS, COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC. Mr. CHERNOCK. Before I do, I might make a comment with respect to foreign participation. If you look at my written testimony-and I would like to call the committee's attention to the written testimony-I do make some comments about the problems associated with foreign participation with a very weak U.S. program. The problems are severe. I do not think it is a panacea and I think that with a weak U.S. program, one can look at the automobile industry and ask themselves some very interesting questions. With that brief comment on the previous questions, I would like to open my oral testimony by indicating that, one, I am pleased to have this opportunity to comment on the modular high-temperature gas-cooled reactor program. My written testimony includes comments on other aspects of the DOE nuclear energy programs as well and I request that my written testimony be made part of the record. As you have requested, my oral comments will concentrate on the modular HTGR, a program for which your committee has provided support and leadership. However, before I comment on the modular HTGR program, I would like to support the position that, 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 LWR's and certification of designs incorporating these new requirements. This combined DOE-EPRI 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 DOÊ, EPRI, NRC, 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 LWR technology. Combustion Engineering is totally supportive of this program and we recommend that the proposed funding level for fiscal year 1987 remain intact, even in light of our recommended increases in fiscal year 1987 funding for the modular HTGR. I am pleased to testify again this year in support of the modular HTGR. As you will recall, my testimony last year commended the foresight which your committee recognized concerning the inherent safety characteristics of the modular HTGR. I indicated at that time that, in times of budget restraints, we cannot afford the luxury of individual pursuits or multiple HTGR programs. I recommended that all HTGR program participants pool their efforts to arrive at a consensus to become the focal point of a unified national HTGR program. I recommended at that time that we either fish or cut bait. I am pleased to report that we do, indeed have a live fish on the line. A consensus design has been developed by DOE program participants. 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. An objective to obtain an initial statement of licensability from the NRC will require adequate funding for both DOE and NRC in fiscal year 1987. The currently proposed level of funding is inadequate to achieve this objective. The selection process emphasized utility user and regulatory requirements against which design concepts were evaluated. These requirements now form the bases for continued modular HTGR design efforts. This integrated approach resulted in the consensus design selection described earlier. In addition, a licensing plan for the modular HTGR was accepted by the NRC and forms the bases for the PSID submittal to NRC in fiscal year 1986. Details of these efforts and others are contained in testimony provided by my colleagues, Dr. Dean, from GA Technologies, and Mr. Walker, chairman of Gas-Cooled Reactor Associates. Last year I emphasized the need for 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 in project and systems management of nuclear systems, combined with a strong HTGR technology base provided by GA Technology, provides the basis for formation of such a team. Combustion Engineering and GA Technologies have exercised a memorandum of understanding concerning a joint venture HTGR company. However, as a result of the sale of General Atomics Technologies by Chevron, this memorandum of understanding requires assessment by the new owners. We feel confident that this industrial team will emerge as a flagship for the HTGR program, both with respect to design, development and construction of a demonstration plant as well as future commercialization of HTGR's. The will of this committee has been heard. A consensus design has been established. A PSID is in progress and the program is focused. 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. In conclusion, let me reiterate Combustion Engineering support of the modular HTGR program and Combustion Engineering's willingness to apply its demonstrated excellence in engineering design and project and systems management to this 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 Participant Statement which is attached to Mr. Walker's written testimony without impacting the DOE-EPRI joint lightwater reactor program. I thank you for the opportunity to provide comments to this committee. [The prepared statement of Mr. Chernock follows:] STATEMENT SUBMITTED TO SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY RESEARCH AND PRODUCTION COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FY 1987 DOE BUDGET REQUEST FOR NUCLEAR FISSION R&D. PROGRAMS Warren P. Chernock |