Education: Ph.D. in Chemistry
Case Institute of Technology, Cleveland, Ohio
Non DOE Experience: W. R. Grace & Co.
Dr. Haberman's 6 years' experience at W.R. Grace included development of processes for the production of nuclear fuels. His activities encompassed fundamental investigations as to the nature of the processes through pilot planting of one process which has been commercialized.
Dr. Haberman joined the Atomic Energy Commission in 1967 and, in the past 18 years, has held positions of increasing responsibility in the area of the nuclear fuel cycle. In 1976, he was named manager of ERDA's Advanced Isotope Separation (AIS) program, which included three processes that were being pursued for uranium enrichment. In 1982, his responsibilities were increased to include management of the Advanced Gas Centrifuge Program. In 1982, Dr. Haberman was a member of the Process Evaluation Board that assessed the potential of three AIS processes in meeting the DOE's long term enrichment needs. The charter of this Process Evaluation Board was to evaluate 3 competing advanced isotope separation technologies and to narrow the number considered by DOE for future development from 3 to 1. The Board was not involved in making a decision as to whether that technology was superior to, or should be placed in competition with the ongoing centrifuge program. The recommendations of this board were widely accepted, due to a large measure because of the recognized objectivity and competence of Dr. Haberman and other members of the PEB. Prior to the time he became involved with the uranium enrichment programs, he had served on numerous committees that evaluated and made recommendations to management about various nuclear reactor and fuel cycle programs.
M.A. in Public Policy and Administration University of Wisconsin, Madison
Ms. Peske began her career with the Atomic Energy Commission in 1974 and has over 10 years' experience in the business related activities of the uranium enrichment program. From 1974-1977, Ms. Peske was the principal budget and financial officer in the Office of the Controller for the uranium enrichment program. From 1977-1978, she was the principal financial and contract analyst in the enrichment program office and conducted extensive analysis and evaluations of the commercial and financial aspects of production operations, proposed capacity expansion and supply contracts. From 1978-1980, Ms. Peske was the Special Assistant to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Uranium Resources and Enrichment. In this capacity, Ms. Peske was responsible for analyses and resolution of key program issues, and the development of integrated policy and strategy alternatives involving all aspects of the enrichment program.
Since December 1980, Ms. Peske has been the Director, Office of Marketing and Business Operations, in the enrichment program, directing enrichment financial management, strategic planning, contracting and marketing functions. She is specifically responsible for developing official estimates of enrichment demand to be supplied by DOE, evaluating market developments and competitor actions, establishing DOE marketing strategies and programs, the terms of DOE sales contracts, and sales prices. Ms. Peske directs extensive economic analyses to identify and assess production alternatives, including the evaluation of advanced technology deployment options and their sensitivity to changes in demand, performance, costs, and schedules. Ms. Peske has chaired and participated in numerous intra- and inter-agency task forces on such subjects as enrichment contract forms and advanced technology deployment alternatives. During 1984, Ms. Peske was responsible for the development of the Utility Services Enrichment Contract and management of contract conversion activities.
Mr. Parks entire professional career of 17 years has been at DOE and its predecessor agencies. He is currently responsible for planning activities at the Oak Ridge Operations Office with special emphasis on uranium enrichment and national defense programs. He joined the AEC in 1968 and has continually been given assignments with increased responsibility. His planning activities have included evaluations of gas centrifuge and AVLIS economics and deployment strategies with emphasis on providing DOE customers with an assured supply of enriched uranium in the most cost effective manner. These evaluations have been utilized by DOE management in formulating strategies and plans for the total UE program.
SENIOR ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR RESOURCES, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT OF 1982
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
We appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss the Department of Energy's efforts to implement the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. The act requires us to report to the Congress on the results of an annual audit of DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. Energy and Natural Resources Committee, we prepare quarterly status reports on DOE's program activities. based on our recently issued annual and quarterly reports.1
Also, at the request of the Senate
Department of Energy's Initial Efforts to Implement the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, GAO/RCED-85-27, January 10, 1985.
Status of the Department of Energy's Implementation of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 as of September 30, 1984, GAO/RCED-85-42, October 19, 1984, and Status of the Department of Energy's Implementation of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 as of December 31, 1984, GAO/RCED-85-65, January 31, 1985.
In those reports, we noted that DOE has made significant progress toward implementing major legislative requirements. however, faces a difficult challenge in meeting repository siting deadlines mandated by the act, ensuring adequate financing for the high cost of the program, and enhancing management controls over repository planning and execution. In regard to program financing, we noted the potential for earlier collection of millions of dollars in user fees, and our January 1985 report to the Congress made specific recommendations to the Secretary of Energy to reexamine program financing arrangements.
Before discussing these areas, perhaps some perspective on
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act would be useful.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act established a range of federal programs and facilities to deal with storage and permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive wastes.2 Because of their long radioactive life, these materials must be isolated from the environment for a period of time in excess of 10,000 years. Consequently, the repository program authorized by the act will be a high-cost, long-term effort. DOE estimates that it will cost over $20 billion in the next 50 years to site, construct, and operate two repositories and related activities. The act places the responsibility for paying program
2spent nuclear fuel is the used uranium fuel that has been removed from a nuclear reactor. High-level wastes result from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel from commercial reactors, or from defense reactors that are used to produce nuclear weapons material.
« PrécédentContinuer » |