example, low-level radioactive waste treatement system--and handling of the increased quantities of low-level and transuranic waste produced by decontamination activities for preparing existing cells for re-use by the project.

Budget for Acid Rain Research

Question: As I understand it, there is $6.5 million included in the environment portion of the budget for acid rain research. What is the total amount requested in FY 85 by DOE for acid rain related activities? Please provide a breakdown and comparison with FY 84.

Answer: The total acid rain budget request for acid rain related activities is $66.06 M. DOE's principal efforts in acid rain are in:

DOE Interagency Task Force Funding Profile (in thousands)

Question: What is the total funding included for supercomputers in the Departments FY 1985 budget? Please provide a breakdown of all activities, amounts, and comparison with FY 1984.

Answer: The Department's funding for supercomputers in FY 1984 is estimated at $20,891,000 in operating expenses and $8,126,000 in capital equipment. For FY 1985, the request is $39,128,000 in operating expenses and $7,650,000 in capital equipment. provided in the following table.

Details are

Supporting Research and Technical Analysis

Question: Why is a 22% increase needed in these activities?

Answer: The increase we are proposing in the Supporting Research and Technical Analysis program budget reflects the Administration's strong support and commitment to long-term basic research even in these times of severe budget stringencies focused on reducing the deficit.

As you are aware a number of programs make up the budget category which we refer to as Supporting Research and Technical Analysis. These include: Basic Energy Sciences, Energy Research Analysis, Advisory and Oversight Program Direction, University Research Support, University Research Instrumentation, Multiprogram General Purpose Facilities, and Policy and Management.

The increase you are referring to occurs in three of the programs. They are Basic Energy Sciences, University Research Support and University Research Instrumentation.

In the case of the Basic Energy Sciences program, the major increases are for (a) operational costs at major facilities, including research reactors and synchrotron radiation sources and associated research at these facilities; (b) continuation of construction authorized in FY 1984, and (c) a new initiative in applied mathematics utilizing advanced computers. Other increases include providing General Purpose Equipment and General Purpose Facilities to Argonne National Laboratory, an activity previously provided by the Nuclear Energy program and modest research program increases for nuclear data, heavy ion fusion and biological energy research.

In the University Research Support program the increase will permit a doubling of the number of faculty and student research and special training opportunities at the Department's national laboratories. This includes institutes and workshops for high school science and math teachers.

The increase we are proposing in the University Research Instrumentation program will provide for approximately 10 additional research instrumentation awards. These awards are needed in order to provide the Department's university researchers with state-of-the-art scientific instrumentation needed in energy research.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DECONCINI

Terminal Nuclear Waste Program

Question: The entire Arizona Congressional Delegation was pleased to learn of your recent decision to re-evaluate the utilization of copper in the waste package of the Department's geologic repository deployment program. Could you detail for the Committee what this re-evaluation will include and when we can expect a final Departmental decision on the use of copper? Further, could you explain for the record what made you change your mind on the use of copper?

Answer: The Department is considering the use of copper as a possible waste package material in a geologic repository. In particular, copper will be evaluated for the non-salt media under consideration for the first repository, along with other candidate materials, based on structural and corrosion performance, cost, availability, and fabrication. At this time, the Department is in the process of formulating the detailed plans for evaluating copper as an option for the first repository. We are currently reviewing the screening studies which led to the initial selection of candidate and alternate materials in light of recent comments concerning the performance of copper versus steel in the expected repository environments. It is expected that the current contractors involved in waste package activities at the two non-salt first repository projects will conduct the evaluation; namely, Rockwell Hanford Operations for basalt and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory for tuff. We currently anticipate that the evaluation will occur over the next few years, consistent with the materials test program being planned for other candidate waste package materials. This program could involve the testing of materials in situ within the exploratory shaft test facilities at the candidate sites, which will not be available until the 1987-1988 time frame. Also, the Department currently plans to initiate a waste package design and materials study for granitic host rocks in 1985 as part of the second repository program that will include an evaluation of copper. Consistent with the 1998 schedule for initial receipt of waste at the first repository, the Department currently anticipates that package material would not need to be available until 1994 or later.

Question: Do you have sufficient funding in the FY 85 budget to complete this re-evaluation? Will the study effect your overall schedule in keeping with the dates set forth in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act?

Answer: DOE believes there is sufficient funding in the FY 1985 budget to evaluate the use of copper as a possible waste package. This evaluation will be part of the materials test program being planned for other candidate waste package materials and should not affect the overall schedule set forth in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.

Question: Does the Department have the authority to simultaneously consider the design of a terminal waste package and a geologic repository? If not, what authority would this require? Would this have any impact on state primacy plans and the national guidelines? Could you detail that impact.

Answer: DOE has the authority to simultaneously consider different waste packages; and in so doing, this activity would have no impact on the state primacy plans and the national guidelines.