« PrécédentContinuer »
Question: Last year, Congress expressed support for the joint review by the States of Washington and Oregon of the potential impact of the Hanford site on the Columbia River. Can you give us a status report on those funds?
Answer: Through its grant to the State of Washington the Department provided funds to the State of Oregon in the amount of $20,000 for the last quarter of FY 1985 and $100,000 for FY 1986 for the purpose of reviewing potential impacts of the Hanford site.
Question: Under the First Repository, provide the Committee with a breakdown for each activity and funding levels for FY 84, 85, 86 and 87 with an explanation for the need of any increase proposed in 87.
Answer: The following table is a breakout of each activity and associated funding levels for FY 84, 85, 86, and 87 for the First Repository program.
FY 1985 FY 1986
Systems. .......... 15,000
Total, First Repository
The FY 1987 increase totaling $155,750,000 will provide funding for the continuation of intensive site characterization activities that were initiated in FY 1986. At the three sites, increased borehole drilling and geologic analyses will provide surface and subsurface data to help determine site suitability as well as provide information needed to assist in developing waste package and repository designs. Assuming the tuff and basalt sites are chosen, construction of exploratory shafts will begin. In addition, the increase will also provide for the accelerated repository design and equipment, licensing, and quality assurance activities.
Question: Under the Second Repository, provide the Committee with a breakdown for each activity and funding levels for FY 84, 85, 86, and 87 with an explanation for the need of any increase proposed in 87.
Answer: The following table is a breakout of each activity and associated funding levels for FY 84, 85, 86, and 87 for the Second Repository program.
The increase between FY 1986 and mY 1987 will provide for the preparation of area phase field studies, the expansion in the domestic and international cooperative programs, grants to affected States, and Indian Tribes, and engineering activities related to waste package and repository design.
Question: For the exploratory shaft work, provide a detailed breakdown of the funding proposed for each site in FY 86, 87, and 88 including the name of the contractors.
Answer: Provided below are three tables for the three sites identified in the December 1984 draft environmental assessments containing a detailed breakdown, by major category, for each Exploratory Shaft site and funding levels for FY 86, FY 87, and FY 88.
Question: Comment on the need for the increase from $21.3 million in FY 86 to $33.4 million in FY 87 for transportation and systems integration. Please provide a breakdown of all activities proposed with an explanation and FY 1986 and FY 1987 funding levels.
Answer: Of the total increase of $12.1 million between FY 1986 and FY 1987, $9.3 million is associated with the transportation program. Transportation cask development contracts will be executed and account for the largest portion of the increase. An increase in economic and environmental analysis is proposed to provide route specific EIS information Development of technology and data systems will continue and program management requirements will increase.
The remaining increase of $2.8 million is associated with the systems integration program. Increases are required primarily for prototype development and testing in the area of waste handling and packaging. Accelerated waste management systems integration activities are proposed to assure that the various parts of that system are integrated into an efficient and cost-effective system.
Proposed funding levels for FY 1986 and FY 1987 for transportation are $9.9 and $19.2 million respectively. Proposed funding levels for systems integration for FY 1986 and FY 1987 are $11.4
and $14.2 million respectively. Activities proposed within the transportation program are categorized into four major tasks: transportation systems acquisition; institutional programs; environmental and economic analysis; and technology development and testing support. The majority of funding proposed for FY 1987 will be used to complete preliminary cask design efforts initiated in late FY 1986, plan for testing, and develop needed data for cask design.
Activities proposed within the systems integration program include updating and further implementation of the Systems Engineering Management Plan to develop the technical baseline for the waste management concept. System performance assessments will be conducted. Assessments of system cost and performance models, risk analysis studies and alternative strategies will be performed. Engineering development of various waste handling and packaging concepts will be advanced. In FY 1987, efforts will also address interface and logistic problems between the waste generators, handling and packaging operations and repository operations. In FY 1987, prototypical demonstrations of dry rod consolidation techniques will be conducted as well as development of competitively selected projects for consolidation/packaging equipment and multipurpose canisters.
Question: Describe the progress in the MRS portion of the program.
Answer: The Department has included funding for the activities critical to the timely deployment of a Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) facility in the FY 1987 budget provided to the Congress on February 4, 1986. On February 5, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee issued a declaratory judgment that the NWPA required the Department to consult and cooperate with the State during siting studies conducted prior to Congressional authorization of construction of an MRS. This judgment permanently enjoins the Department "from making any proposal to Congress or filing any documents with Congress which rely on siting studies... already completed". The specific proposal for an MRS facility mandated in Section 141 (b) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was scheduled to be provided to the Congress in early February after the Department had received the comments from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency and the State of Tennessee to send to the Congress with the proposal. Although the proposal, its required supporting documentation, and the comments from the State and other federal agencies are ready for submission to the Congress, the District Court injunction prevents the Department from submitting the documents.