Images de page
PDF
ePub

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

a 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 CosČ 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 TETR 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?

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. Since 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.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MCCLURE

Boron Neutron Capture Therapy

Question: Have you any preliminary information on the substance of the NCI report? When is this report expected?

Answer: No Sir, we have not been provided any preliminary information from NCI. However, the NCI report is expected to be completed in April and should be available to Congress in May.

Research Reactors

Question: The Office of Energy Research operates a number of reactors at various national laboratories. Doesn't operation of these reactors create a conflict of interest with the research and development program you conduct? For aren't you the user and the provider of services?

Answer: Energy Research is indeed both a user and provider of reactor services. We do not provide support for a reactor unless we have needs for the services of that reactor. Rarely, however, are we the sole user or sole reactor operations funding source. During periods of fiscal stringency, there is strong competition between research and facility operations for available funds and when needs or research output no longer justify the operating expense, the facility is shut down. Examples of the latter happening are: the Oak Ridge Research Reactor which was shut down last year, the Argonne CP-5 reactor shut down in 1979 and the Ames Laboratory Research Reactor shut down in 1977. With regard to the High Flux Isotope Reactor at Oak Ridge and the High Flux Beam Reactor at Brookhaven, we make time available to other qualified users from industry and universities without charge if we have an interest in the proposed research. Thereby we acquire added return for our operation's investment research we would otherwise not be able to afford.

Question: Please provide for the record each facility's budget, compared with those budgets requested by the national laboratories where the reactors are operated.

Answer: The comparison of the laboratory request versus the amount included in the FY 1989 President's budget is as follows:

FY 1989
Laboratory
Request

FY 1989 President's

Budget

High Flux Isotope Reactor
High Flux Beam Reactor

$ 9.4
13.5

$ 17.8

12.8

The amount shown in the laboratory request column for the High Flux Isotope Reactor was prepared prior to the completion of the assessment of improvements needed for restart of the reactor. This request was later modified by the laboratory and was changed to the same amount as is now requested by the Department for FY 1989.

« PrécédentContinuer »