1987 for causes related to aging. Additionally, the N Reactor, located at Richland (Hanford), Washington, was operated between 1964 and 1986, primarily for plutonium production. The N Reactor was shut down in January 1987 for safety upgrades and modifications, some of which are still underway. In February 1988, a decision was made to place N Reactor on cold standby.

In

In order to determine additional actions that should be taken, Secretary Herrington requested the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering (NAS/NAE) to study and report on the aging effects and safety concerns at the SRP reactors. The NAS/NAE report raised issues concerning the adequacy of emergency core cooling systems at SRP reactors. response, DOE reduced the power levels at the SRP reactors in March 1987 to 50 percent of their normal operating levels until. the necessary analyses and modifications are completed to support safe increases in operating power levels. If we encounter any additional problems at these reactors, our production capacity for tritium will be severely reduced and our need for new production capacity will become even more urgent.

In its report on "Safety Issues at the Defense Production Reactors," the NAS/NAE concluded, among other things, that the production reactors all display symptoms of acute aging and their remaining useful lives are likely to be equal to or shorter thañ the time needed to build new production facilities; and if the United States finds it necessary to have a reliable and safe production capability, then planning for new production reactor capacity should be accelerated.

Based on Administration concerns that new production capacity is needed, together with the NAS/NAE findings, the Secretary established a process dedicated to ensuring an objective and

thorough analysis of the issues concerning the acquisition process

for new production reactor capacity. The Secretary commissioned two evaluations, one on new production reactor technology and one on sites. This allowed the Secretary to assemble nationally known experts to evaluate the large amounts of data available on

technology and provide DOE with the best information available on which to base a decision. This process also provided for thorough consideration of a diversity of views.

To assist in the technology evaluation process, Secretary Herrington asked the Energy Research Advisory Board (ERAB), one of his standing advisory committees to conduct a review and assessment of four nuclear reactor technologies being considered by the Department as candidates for the new production reactor capacity. On January 7, 1988, the Secretary requested that ERAB review and assess: the DOE proposed selection criteria; the adequacy of each technology to meet the criteria; and the schedule, technical risks, benefits, and costs in implementing a production reactor program with each technology. The ERAB also was requested to include an assessment of duality, i.e., diversity of technologies and use of more than one site.

The reactor technologies considered in the ERAB evaluation process were: (1) Heavy Water Reactor; (2) High-Temperature, Gas-Cooled Reactor; (3) Light Water Reactor; and (4) Liquid Metal Reactor. These candidate technologies were chosen on the basis of their high potential to meet production requirements.

The ERAB panel of 19 experts included individuals with extensive experience in the management of reactor facilities, nuclear engineering, engineering of large energy systems, safety and environmental concerns, and physics. The panel used six additional technical experts to help evaluate the large amount of technical information that was presented by proponents for each of the reactor types. The Panel was divided into four subpanels,

each concentrating on one of the four technologies.

The ERAB panel has completed the technology evaluation and submitted its report to DOE. The evaluation provides a sound, independent review that will permit DOE to continue its decision

process.

5

To assist in the site evaluation process, a Site Evaluation Team (SET) composed of key DOE staff was established on January 28, 1988, and was charged with developing evaluation criteria and evaluating candidate DOE sites for new production reactor capacity. The three candidate DOE sites were: (1) the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington; (2) the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho; and (3) the Savannah River Plant, Aiken, South Carolina. The SET used the following criteria for evaluating these sites: experience base; site support facilities; environment, safety and health; transportation; cost and schedule; safeguards and security; utilities; and socio-economic factors.

In conducting the evaluation process, members of the team visited each site to receive a briefing on the site's capability to accommodate new production reactor capability. They also toured the support facilities and proposed sites.

The site evaluation team has completed the evaluation of candidate sites and submitted its report. The SET makes no recommendations as to siting an NPR. The report is intended as one of several inputs to permit DOE management to continue the decision process. The Department also is addressing the merits of the use of a second deployment site. A fundamental means for guaranteeing reliability in supply of tritium is to avoid dependence on a. single reactor. Multiple reactors also would provide some level of redundancy, although not necessarily 100 percent redundancy. The desired degree of redundancy would depend on strategic considerations, the technology of the reactor(s), fiscal constraints, and other factors.

The DOE decision process has also included consultations with several governmental agencies to obtain their views and recommendations regarding the acquisition strategy for replacement reactor production capacity. These consultations are taking place with representatives from the Department of Defense, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the National Security Council, the Nuclear Weapons Council, and the office of Management and Budget. The principal topics of concern are the requirements for assured supplies of tritium and plutonium and the concept of duality, including deployment of diverse technologies at more than one

site.

The DOE evaluation approach is to consider fully the results of all consultations. The acquisition strategy is consistent with the objectives and particular interests of each agency with respect to requirements for tritium and plutonium and production assurance. The consensus is that the achievement of production assurance on an urgent schedule and in a safe and environmentally sound manner are the key elements in the acquisition strategy.

The Secretary has directed the Energy Systems Acquisition Advisory Board (ESAAB) to evaluate the information provided by the Energy Research Advisory Board and the DOE Site Evaluation Team. The Department's ESAAB is an internal Assistant Secretary level corporate review group established to secure an objective analysis and evaluation of all relevant data. The ESAAB has met several times in this month (July 1988) to review information related to the designation of preferred technology(ies) and site(s) for new production reactor capacity. At these meetings, the findings of ERAB and the Site Evaluation Team were reviewed, and Defense Programs provided specific comments regarding the candidate technologies and sites. The ESAAB is currently assessing and evaluating all relevant data provided to date. The evaluations are expected to be completed and presented to the Secretary later this month (July 1988).

The Department submitted two status reports to the Congress on the acquisition strategy, one on February 25, 1988 and the other on

May 10, 1988.

The Department's final report is scheduled to be submitted to the Committees on Appropriations and Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives in early August. The report will describe the strategy for acquiring new reactor capacity for production of nuclear materials including evaluations of alternate technologies and sites, associated costs and schedules, and the Secretary's recommendations.

That concludes my prepared remarks and I would be pleased to respond to questions.

STATEMENT OF JOHN H. SCHOETTLER, CHAIRMAN, ENERGY RESEARCH ADVISORY BOARD

Senator JOHNSTON. Next we would like to call on Mr. Schoettler, who is Chairman of the ERAB.

Do you have to leave, Mr. Salgado?

Mr. SALGADO. I thought we were going to go in sequential order, but whatever is the chairman's prerogative.

Senator JOHNSTON. I think, if you have time, it would be better to go ahead and hear from all the panel members and then have questioning of each one, because we don't really have enough time this morning to take each witness one by one.

Mr. SCHOETTLER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

I am John Schoettler. Much of the testimony that you have already heard or that has been read by Deputy Secretary Salgado would be repetitive if I went through all of mine. I would ask that the transcript of my testimony be included in the record this morning.

The Energy Research Advisory Board was asked in January by the Secretary of Energy, John Herrington, to review and assess the Department's proposed selection criteria for the NPR, the adequacy of each of the four technologies to meet that criteria, and schedule and technical risks, benefits, and costs in implementing an NPR program with each technology. We were asked to report back to the Secretary by June 1, and we received an extension until July 1.

During this period of time, we submitted an interim report looking at the criteria, raising safety and environment to parity with reaching goal quantities of tritium and we also got clarification on the duality issue, which you have already discussed and which Deputy Secretary Salgado covered.