the 1985 proposed budget. I would be very hard pressed to support and sustain a full budget construction request based on the information we now have.

ADDITIONAL PREPARED QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

Senator JOHNSTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. It is a pleasure to have you here.

There are some other questions that have been prepared for Senator Hatfield, which I will place in the record for your response. Also Senator DeConcini has submitted some questions as well.

Secretary HODEL. Thank you very much. We will be pleased to respond, Senator.

[The questions and answers follow:]

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR HATFIELD

Funding for Energy Defense Safeguards and Security

Question: Why is there a need for additional expenditures in nuclear safeguards and security activities?

Answer: Considerable progress has been made during the last year in identifying and correcting deficiencies and improving safeguards and security at key nuclear facilities. An increased appropriation is necessary to continue this progress in the face of constantly changing threats that are becoming increasingly sophisticated. We continue to apply state-of-the-art methods devised by experts in physical protection and nuclear safeguards in order to avert malevolent acts that might have catastrophic consequences.

A major portion of the budget request will support field implementation of improved safeguards and security methods and site upgrading. Major field assistance projects are planned to improve physical protection and material control and accountability at virtually all DOE facilities and special nuclear materials or vital operations. Comprehensive vulnerability analyses will be used to direct the most effective implementation of advanced access denial systems, stateof-the-art intrusion detection instruments, surveillance equipment, integrated security communications systems, and guard force response capabilities.

We are expanding and realigning our inspection and evaluation program so that we can conduct more frequent and comprehensive assessments of the effectiveness of the Department's protective programs at critical facilities. We are also requesting support to begin operation of a safeguards and security centralized training facility. Advanced guard force tactical training and a detailed curriculum on various aspects of physical security will be developed, implemented, and evaluated at the facility.

Nuclear Waste Program

Question: Why are there delays in meeting the program milestones and what is the Department doing to address this problem?

Answer: To date, the only major milestone which has not yet been met is that of issuing repository siting guidelines. While going through the review process with States and the public, DOE decided that it was essential to expand the process to properly meet the intent of the Act. In the preliminary draft of the Mission Plan, the proposed schedules indicated slippage in meeting certain interim milestones relative to the siting of the first repository. Some of the interim dates prescribed in the Act do not allow sufficient time to complete technical as well as process requirements. For example, the 2 to 3 years allowed in the Act for construction of the exploratory shafts, site characterization and completion of an environmental impact statement for the repository selection is insufficient. Nevertheless, DOE remains committed to meeting the 1998 date to begin accepting waste for permanent disposal.

Question: Is the availability of funding (from utility revenues--1 mil/kilowatt hour fee) slowing progress? we consider increasing the fee?

If so, should

Answer: DOE's objective in managing the nuclear waste program is to conduct the program activities within the revenues collected from the utilities. We do not believe that the availability of funding (revenues) is slowing the progress of the program. However, revenue constraints do add to the uncertainty of producing a licensable product within the current milestone for the site characterization phase. This could potentially delay the repository operation milestone. The annual Fee Adequacy Report will more fully address this when submitted to Congress in July 1984.

High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor (HTGR) Program

Question:

Congress has supported the HTGR program for many years even though there has been no budget request for funding.

During our hearings last year, you said that "in putting together a tight budget, we felt it was appropriate to withdraw from the HTGR."

This year, it appears that the Department has included $35 million for High Temperature Reactors.

Why the apparent change?

Answer: Several studies and assessments recently performed have indicated a need to evaluate the potential of small gas reactors for multiple applications. Advanced concepts including passive safety features that do not rely on engineered equipment in sizes which more nearly match utility needs to meet growth projections will be emphasized. As a result, the Administration is requesting funding beginning in 1985 to guide the development of small gas-cooled reactor systems which best meets the needs of the market.

Question: How much of the program will be directed at the new effort of evaluating the so-called small, inherently safe HTGR?

Answer: Essentially all of the requested funding will either be used in the efforts of evaluating the smaller, more passively safe HTGR ́s or in conducting supporting technology activities directly applicable to the development of such plants.

Question: What portions of the request, if any, will be applied for technology development for the New Production Reactor designed for Defense programs?

Answer: None of these requested funds will be directly applied to the New Production Reactor; however, essentially all of the supporting technology activities for this program will be of value to this activity in the event that the HTGR system is selected to meet the requirements of this defense program.

Clinch River Breeder Reactor

Question: Is there any funding requested in the FY 1985 budget for activities including termination of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor?

Answer: Funds are not requested in the Breeder Reactor Systems FY 1985 budget for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor project termination activities. It has been proposed to the appropriate Congressional Committees to fund termination activities by transferring funds from prior and current year Uranium Enrichment appropriations in excess of offsetting revenues.

Question: Why is no funding included for the breeder reprocessing facility BRET?

Answer: Although the development of breeder reprocessing technology lags both fuel fabrication and reactor technology by a substantial margin, the Department chose not to request funds for the Breeder Reprocessing Engineering Test (BRET) in FY 1985 due to higher priority requirements and a need for overall budget constraint. It is still the Department's plan to develop breeder reprocessing capabilities at an appropriate time in the future.

Extended Burnup

Question: What are the Department's plans for the extended burnup program?

Answer: The Department plans to complete the majority of the projects under the Extended Burnup Program, that is, it plans to complete those projects that are nearly complete now and/or which have low costs to completion. Three large, long-term, high cost-tocompletion projects are scheduled for cancella tion.

In addition, the Department is initiating a careful evaluation of the costs and of the benefits relative to waste management of this program, in response to a recent GAO report (GAO/RCED-84-111) and a similar request by a House of Representatives subcommittee. We have not yet established a schedule for completing this evaluation, but will attempt to complete it in time for Congressional action on the FY 1985 budget.

Question:

Funding For Remedial Action Program

Explain the need for the 54% increase in FY 1985 for

the remedial action program.

Answer: The changes in the remedial action program between FY 1984 and FY 1985 are summarized in the table provided for the record.

The increase of $26.1 million in the UMTRAP is needed to accelerate the pace to comply with the Congressionally mandated 7-year schedule for program completion. Remedial actions will include: completing 60 percent of the work at the Shiprock, New Mexico, processing site and initiating work at the Durango, Colorado, processing site; completing the remedial action at the Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, processing site; completing 30 percent of the remedial action at the Salt Lake City processing site by relocating the tailings to Clive, Utah, under State management; completing cleanup of about 215 vicinity properties at various sites; completing Remedial Action Plans for 5 sites and environmental documents for 4 sites.

The increase in the Surplus Facilities program provides $16.1 million to begin the dismantlement of the reactor plant systems and components under the Shippingport Station Decommissioning Project. This project fulfills the Department of Energy obligation under the terms of the lease to make the plant radiation safe after termination of operations. The decommissioning of this pressurized water reactor will demonstrate that such reactors can be safely dismantled at reasonable cost as compared to the cost of construction.

PR.CHONS

In accordance with Public Law 96-368, the West Valley Demonstration Project will demonstrate the solidification of the high-level waste stored at West Valley. The most effective demonstration will be the expeditious completion of waste solidification and preparation for permanent disposal.S! The inherent annual base cost for operations has been identified as the single most important element whereon cost cutting measures can be effective. Within reason, a 2-year change in schedule, while holding to essential project objectives and efforts, has been projected to mean a $20 to $50 million cost difference. A reduced funding level would result in a significant increase in the total project cost estimate and a significant delay in the programmatic goal of a public large-scale demonstration without gaining a meaningful annual budget reduction. Completion of the project on an as soon as practical basis will minimize costs to both the federal and New York State governments.

The increase in the West Valley Project is primarily for completion of the vitrification Component Test Stand so as to begin nonradioactive testing in 1985 of the key components in the solidification system and to initiate equipment design and procurements needed to maintain the schedule leading to processing of high-level waste in 1988. An increase is also required for treating--for