contributions, including creative financing schemes, as part of the site selection process but the Domenici amendment has prohibited us from doing that. Some alternate financing has been suggested by industry, but the cost effectiveness of such arrangements has yet to be studied. For example, industry might sell us liquid helium and liquid nitrogen as needed, rather than our constructing the large refrigeration facilities as part of the project.

Question: In FY 88, $25 million was appropriated to continue preparation activities relative to selection of a site for the SSC. I understand that earlier estimates of need for environmental analysis, testing and review were lower than now envisioned. Does the Department have a shortfall of funds to complete the environmental work necessary to select a site for the SSC later this year? If so, what is the shortfall and how do you expect to complete your activities?

Answer: Yes, there is a shortfall. The Administration's FY 1988 budget request proposed $25 million for operating expenses and $10 million for construction for the SSC. Congress appropriated $25 million of operating expenses for two purposes: research and development and site selection costs. DOE had underestimated site selection costs. Upon availability of more definite information and a careful analysis it has been determined there is a need for a total of $33 million in FY 1988, including $8 million for site selection cost and $25 million for research and development. If held to a total of $25 million, research and development would receive $20 million and site selection would get only $5 million. Therefore, there would be a shortfall for site selection activities in FY 1988 of $3 million and in order to stay on the research and development schedule an additional $5 million is required for research and development. In February, we requested an additional $8 million for necessary research and development and site selection activities during FY 1988.

Virtually all of the $3 million for site selection would be directed to the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement. The additional $5 million required for research and development is necessary to continue the momentum principally on development of superconducting magnets which are a critical technical aspect of the program and a major element of the total cost.

If the reprogramming request is not approved, we would still identify a preferred site in November, but would need to defer completion of the Environmental Impact Statement and the identification of the final site until late 1989. Research and development would be severely curtailed to $20 million instead of the $25 million required to continue.

Solar Buildings

Question: As you know, I have been very interested in completion of the open cycle solar cooling project at Arizona State University. I understand the FY 88 need for this project is about $214,000. Has this amount been funded by DOE this year? If not, why not?

Answer: The Solar Buildings Program has been funding research in open cycle solar cooling at the Arizona State University since 1981. As a result of the project's research findings, the direction of the work has been modified to concentrate on essential fundamental issues, such as evaluating corrosion effects and the resulting environmental impacts of entrained contaminants. The focus has been on modeling and experimenting with materials and components, such as film absorbers, low cost sorbents, and glazed or unglazed collector/regenerators. A total of $110,000 has been allocated to this project in FY 1988.

Question: I see the Administration is again requesting a reduction in funding for solar buildings. How much funding will be necessary to maintain a continued research effort on the level of that in FY 88 for open cycle solar cooling? Will that amount allow the DOE to continue the ASU contract at the FY 88 rate?

Answer: The Solar Buildings Program intends to continue funding the open cycle solar cooling research at Arizona State University in FY 1989 at the same level as FY 1988. Private industry cost-sharing will be solicited for this research endeavor which, if successful, could reduce the DOE requirement.

BORON NEUTRON CAPTURE THERAPY

Senator JOHNSTON. I am going to have to go to another meeting, so if you would take over.

Senator DOMENICI. I have finished, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator JOHNSTON. Senator McClure.

Senator MCCLURE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I only have a couple of questions. I may submit some for response in writing. I want to talk for just a brief moment on the boron/neutron capture therapy.

Last year, the Department of Energy committed to support the BNCT project with necessary funding, $9.9 million in fiscal year 1988. The committee strongly supported that statement of support for BNCT and it also reprogrammed $5 million from a decommissioning account in the Nuclear Energy Office to the project. The Office of Energy Research was to provide the remaining $4.9 million for this fiscal year. The National Cancer Institute has made a visit to the site, talked to various people who are involved in the project, and are to submit a report.

Have you any preliminary information on the substance of the NCI report?

Dr. DECKER. Not really, Senator. My understanding is that their report will come out about April 1.

Senator MCCLURE. I am a little bit concerned. Obviously, we want the best information we can get, but I am a little bit concerned because we are always slipping behind the schedule, which maybe the schedule was too optimistic to start out. But we are talking about human experiments starting 3 years from the time they were talking about, and we are probably at last 6 months behind that schedule now, if I understand that correctly. Am I about right?

Dr. DECKER. That could well be, Senator. I am not sure exactly where we are on that schedule. Review committees always seem to take a little bit longer than any of us would like.

Senator MCCLURE. I understand that. I am very interested, as you know, and I do intend to follow that very vigorously. I want to be as helpful as I can be in that process.

Dr. DECKER. Thank you.

ADDITIONAL PREPARED QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Senator MCCLURE. I have some further questions, as do Senator Johnston and Senator Inouye, which I will make part of the record. [The questions and answers follow:]

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JOHNSTON

Compact Ignition Tokamak

Question: With regard to the Compact Ignition Tokamak, has this proposed concept been reviewed by the U.S. and international fusion communities? Are they supportive of the project as it is currently envisioned?

Answer: In January 1988, the CIT was reviewed by an international panel of senior scientists from the U.S.A., Europe, Japan, and U.S.S.R. The panelists strongly endorsed proceeding with the CIT on an expeditious schedule. They noted that CIT will be the only DT fusion experiment in the world between the completion of TFTR and JET in the early 1990's, and the start-up of an engineering test reactor, after the year 2000. Most of the specific technical recommendations from the international panel members are now being incorporated in the CIT design.

From its inception, the CIT project has been guided by an Ignition Technical Oversight Committee (ITOC) that is made up of leading scientists and engineers from the U.S. fusion program. The national CIT team has followed the ITOC guidelines throughout the design evolution. In addition, an ignition physics study group composed of over 100 scientists from across the U.S. and foreign fusion programs developed the physics basis of the design.

Finally, both the Magnetic Fusion Advisory Committee and the Energy Research Advisory Board have urged timely completion of this project as the most important next scientific step in fusion development.

Question: Research projects have historically cost more and have longer schedules than predicted. TFTR is certainly an example in the fusion program. Do you have confidence you can meet the CIT cost and schedule? If so, on what is this confidence based?

Answer: The program is confident that the cost and schedule baselines for the CIT construction project can be met. The CIT conceptual design exceeds all other projects in the fusion program's history in terms of the level of detailed analysis and refinements for this stage of the project. In addition, the CIT national team is making full use of cost data based on the past fusion projects of similar size such as Doublet III-D and TFTR. The FY 1996 completion date is realistic, assuming the requested funding profile is provided.

Question: Your testimony indicates you plan to achieve DT breakeven in TFTR in 1991. As you know, this country has a serious deficit problem. Since CIT promises much more than TFTR (ignition rather than less than breakeven) and there are limited funds available, is there any way to divert the TFTR program into CIT this year?

Answer: Due to the strong support which the TFTR D-T program provides for CIT, it would not be prudent to slow down or divert the TFTR D-T program funding in favor of CIT. The DT program in TFTR will confirm the satisfactory performance of tritium handling

systems, qualify operational procedures for handling tritium safely, and begin to investigate alpha particle physics. This program is a fundamental step in systematically preparing for CIT construction and operation. The TFTR tritium systems will actually be reused on CIT. The Magnetic Fusion Advisory Committee, which reviewed the TFTR DT program, concluded that even at relatively modest performance levels TFTR would provide important experience in dealing with tritium and neutron activation that will directly benefit CIT. They also pointed out that, at performance levels nearer to breakeven, TFTR will provide the first preliminary information on alpha particle physics.

Question: Your testimony speaks of CIT as "utilizing the scientific personnel and infrastructure at Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL)." You further state "the CIT schedule should allow the facilities and personnel at PPPL . . . to be productively employed in addressing the important issue of understanding burning plasma physics." Do you foresee continued involvement in this project by the rest of the fusion community? If so, how do you think they will be involved 3 to 5 years from now?

Since

Answer: Involvement of the rest of the fusion community in the project will continue through the life of the project. The CIT is a national project with many major fusion institutions participating in it. Their involvement at present includes the design and development of CIT systems and they will begin procurement of major CIT systems in FY 1989 and FY 1990. they are responsible for providing many of the CIT hardware systems, their level of involvement is expected to remain approximately constant throughout the construction phase, which extends to 1996. During the construction period, we also anticipate many universities and other contractors will be involved with developing and building CIT diagnostics. During CIT operations, scientists from throughout the U.S. and foreign fusion programs will undoubtedly participate in CIT experiments.

Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor

Question: Congress is very concerned about the clean-up of radioactive facilities. Is there any funding in your budget for clean-up of the TFTR site after the completion of DT operation?

Answer: Funding has been included in the 5-year budget recently submitted to Congress for anticipated TFTR decommissioning costs during this period. Decommissioning has always been considered a part of the DT program in TFTR; however, only preliminary planning has been carried out to date. Since the majority of the activation of TFTR will be due to isotopes with short half-lives, the most cost effective approach to decommissioning will involve a cooling off period prior to disassembly and disposal of the major tokamak components. In the meantime, TFTR subsystems will be restored or modified for future laboratory use wherever possible. With the DT experiments in TFTR scheduled to be completed in 1991, the Office of Fusion Energy has recently requested that Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory begin detailed planning for the decommissioning of TFTR.