New Production Reactor Question: What is the status of work on a New Production Reactor? Answer: At present, new production reactor, NPR tasks have been initiated in four principal areas: preparation of cost estimates that are reactor concept specific and site specific, development of technology assessment and safety studies, evaluation of required support facilities, and compilation of environmental data. These studies have been initiated with the objective of compiling data and performing analyses for selection in mid-1985 of both a reactor concept and a site for future construction to be recommended by DOE to the President. This is necessary in order that the NPR issue can be considered fully during the FY 1986 budget cycle. Also, an NPR project office, staffed principally with supporting personnel from each of the candidate sites, has been established at DOE Headquarters to manage the study activities. The NPR tasks have been initiated using primarily a combination of the operating contractors at the candidate sites, temporary technical working groups including other DOE contractor personnel, and the NPR project office staff. With regard to the need date for the NPR, additional studies are currently aimed at reducing the uncertainty concerning the useful lifetimes of the existing Savannah River reactors and the Richland N Reactor. These studies address the design features and operating requirements that could be expected to limit reactor lifetime and the types of renovations and equipment modifications that would be required for these reactors to continue to operate reliably for as long as feasible. No specific design feature has been identified as yet that would end the useful life of the Savannah River reactors. However, they will be more than 40 years old by the time an NPR could be completed and there is an increasing risk that the operational reliability of these aging facilities will be inadequate by that time. The Richland N Reactor is expected to reach the end of its useful life by the time an NPR could be completed unless extensive and very costly renovations are undertaken to eliminate the fundamental design problem of irradiationinduced swelling of the graphite moderator. Additionally, the feasibility of such renovations has not been demonstrated. Although it previously has been possible to perform most of the NPR work using a combination of operating contractors at the candidate sites, temporary technical working groups, and special committees, we have reached the point where substantial additional support and expertise is required. We plan to contract for these services. Specialized support is required for assembling cost data and preparing the necessary reactor concept specific and site specific cost estimates to permit comparison of the alternatives on a uniform basis. Also, specialized additional support is required for compiling environmental impact data to permit comparison of the candidate sites on a uniform basis, performing safety analyses including risk assessments, and preparing environmental documentation such as the EIS. The total cost for these study activities will be $22.5 million, $17.5 million in FY 1984, and $5.0 million in FY 1985. In FY 1983 we used $2.0 million to perform some preliminary site characterization studies. Question: What is the expected TEC of such a reactor? Answer: Estimates for the total cost of the NPR range from $3 to 6 billion based on past studies of the concepts and the sites. A cost estimate study is currently planned to provide comparable improved cost estimates that include consideration of differences in both reactor concepts and sites. This information will be prepared by a single independent contractor based on design data supplied by the concept proponents and the sites. Question: What is the status of determining the site for a New Production Reactor and the type of reactor? Answer: Secretary of Energy Hodel initiated the new production reactor studies in his August 9, 1983, memorandum to the Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs to develop information on alternative reactor concepts and sites. DOE is now evaluating three candidate sites: Idaho, Hanford, and Savannah River. Three candidate reactor concepts are also being evaluated: heavy water reactor, light water reactor, and high temperature gas-cooled reactor. Studies have been initiated to provide the information needed for determining the site and reactor type including: development of cost estimates that are specific to both the reactor concept and site, preparation of reactor concept development issues studies and related safety studies, evaluation of facilities required to support the reactor concepts including differences in site specific environmental data. Highly Enriched Uranium Requirements Question: Please explain the requirements for enriched uranium for weapons production and the work underway in Nuclear Materials Production to provide the material. Answer: U.S. Government needs include enriched uranium for naval reactors, nuclear materials production reactors, research and test reactors, and nuclear weapons. DELETED It is based on meeting requirements that are equivalent top-product uranium that previously was available to the weapons program. The weapons program has not obtained any enriched uranium from the uranium enrichment complex since 1964, other than for naval reactors fuel. Presently, new highly enriched uranium metal not previously in the weapons stock pile is provided from the current DOE inventory at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant. Renovation of the Enriched Uranium Conversion Facility at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant is required to provide a capability to increase the supply of highly enriched uranium required for the Department's defense programs activities. DELETED Extensive refurbishment and equipment replacement will be required since the facility has been shut down since 1964. Based on recent engineering assessments, we now are able to estimate that 4 years will be required to renovate this facility for operation. Accordingly, DOE needs supplemental FY 1984 funding to initiate renovation of this facility. DELETED Question: Why can't this material be made available from weapons retired from the stockpile? Answers: The projected supply of highly enriched uranium shown in the FY 1984-1989 Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Memorandum does include material from weapon systems scheduled for retirement plus the existing Y-12 Plant inventory. DELETED Question: What weapons in the stockpile would be the most likely candidates for retirement to fulfill the needs for enriched uranium and what would be the impact if they were to be retired? Answer: A definitive answer to this question would require a significant joint study effort with the Department of Defense to adjust weapon system priorities DELETED Process Facility Modifications Project Question: What is the status of the Process Facility Modification Project at Richland? Answer: No funds are included in our FY 1985 budget request for the Process Facility Modification project since its near-term need is dependent on construction of a special isotope separation production facility. The Administration plans to revisit the issue of timing and need for both an SIS production facility and the Process Facility Modifications project in the FY 1986 budget. Activities planned for FY 1984 include the continuation and completion of the conceptual design effort, continuation of the process equipment development studies, initiation of the facility definitive design effort and continuation of the development of the appropriate environmental documentation. Question: Why were no funds requested for this project in FY 1985? Answer: The Process Facility Modifications project is being delayed 1 year consistent with the delay in consideration of a special isotope separation production facility. However, over the long term this facility would be needed to provide fuel-grade plutonium for blending even if a special isotope separation facility were not built. Question: Would this project be required to recover plutonium even if the SIS project was to be eliminated? Answer: In the long term, plutonium recovered in the Process Facility Modifications project could be utilized for continued blending with high-purity plutonium to increase the supply of weapon-grade plutonium. In addition, some of the recovered plutonium could be utilized as feed for the Breeder Reactor Development Program to offset future material purchases for this program. Question: Please explain the capabilities of the Process Facility Modifications project and the Breeder Reprocessing Engineering Test facility included in the FY 1984 Nuclear Energy Budget. Answer: A technical comparison of these two projects is as follows: Fuel Handling DELETED Truck and rail access with in-cell storage for 54 FFTF assemblies Breeder Reprocessing Engineering Test Material Question: Can the Breeder Reprocessing Engineering Test provide the material required for SIS separation? Answer: Material specifications for both the Breeder Reprocessing Engineering Test, BRET, product and the SIS feed are preliminary and not well-enough defined at this time to answer this question with certainty. Preliminary indications are that both processes could be designed to make the BRET product and SIS feed compatible. However, it is our understanding that the BRET product is to be recycled and reused in the breeder reactor development program. In particular, BRET, as part of the breeder Question: Please provide a table showing contractor employment at the various locations supported by Nuclear Materials Production for FY 1983, FY 1984, and FY 1985. Answer: A breakdown of contractor employment is as follows: |