Question: Provide a breakdown in the form of a table showing each activity in MRS with funding levels for FY 86, 87, and 88.

Answer: The FY 86, 87, and 88 MRS funding levels are as

Question: What would be the funding impact of a 6 month/1 year delay in the submittal to and/or approval by Congress of the MRS proposal?

Answer: A six month/1 year delay in the submittal to and/or approval by Congress of the MRS proposal would have an immediate funding impact in that program and project funding levels for each year in the ten year period of design and construction would change according to the length of delay in approving the MRS. Additionally, due to inflation, MRS life-cycle costs would increase as a function of the length of delay.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MCCLURE

Nuclear Fission

Question: The Department's 1987 budget submittal discusses the "significant shift in nuclear energy research and development program emphasis and priorities towards supporting national security requirements, including the Strategic Defense Initiative." This shift reduces advanced reactor R&D funding by $79 million, and increases the space and defense power systems to $72 million.

Has a separate office been established within the department to direct this increased effort or does the department intend to establish such an office?

Answer: In July 1985, the Department's Nuclear Energy activities were reorganized. As part of this reorganization, an Office of Defense Energy Projects and Special Applications was formally established under the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Reactor Systems, Development and Technology. This office is composed of two divisions: The Division of Defense Energy Projects, whose prime focus is on space and terrestrial reactor systems for defense, and the Division of Special Applications, with a similar focus on isotopic systems. This office has served to provide the required focus to the Department's defense nuclear energy activities as well as to centralize technical and management expertise on various joint projects where multi-agency interaction is essential.

Question: With the growing number of military space application projects currently planned by the department, is an effort being made to center project management offices at specific nacional laboratories, such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is doing in its newly developed "technical integration centers"?

Answer: The Department is indeed moving to center project management activities at its field offices and laboratories. For example, a project office has been established for the SP-100 program which jointly involves NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and DOE's Los Alamos National Laboratory. A project office has also been established at the Idaho Operations Office to manage the Multimegawatt Terrestrial Powerplant (MTP) and efforts are underway to establish a field Project Integration Office for the multimegawatt space power program.

Question: It is envisioned a number of existing resources developed as part of the nuclear energy program at DOE will be used to support the SDI program. What steps is the department taking to define SDI requirements to guide application of DOE resources?

Answer: The basic approach used by the Department to define Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) and Air Force requirements is to work closely with the ultimate mission users of both land-based and space-based power sources.

For example, within the SP-100 program, efforts are focused on a 300 KWe electric propulsion orbital transfer reference mission. This reference mission was established by the SDI Office and defines the.

requirement for the reactor design and hardware to be built and tested.

For the multimegawatt program, SDI has defined three modes of power use--continuous, alert and burst--with specific durations and levels of power for each. Power producing concepts have been defined with the potential to meet these requirements. These requirements, in turn, identify the technology development programs required to support the various concepts. Typical technical areas are: Materials, Heat Rejection and Transport, Thermal Hydraulics, Instrumentation and Control, Energy Conversion and Storage, and Safety. These development programs specify the DOE resources needed to meet the SDI needs.

Fuels,

In a related activity to guide application of DOE resources, Department is currently correlating user needs and surveying available test facilities to ensure that the SDI program testing needs are being met in a cost effective manner and without duplication of effort.

the

Question: The shift from civilian to military nuclear R&D could have vitally important international ramifications that will directly affect our nation. Internationally, the use of nuclear energy is growing and further growth is inevitable. The U.S. has so clearly shaped and led the world in the responsible use of nuclear energy, what will be the long term international impact of the U.S. opting out of civilian development and applying its resources to military requirements?

Answer: The United States is not opting out of civilian nuclear development. The Department has provided R&D support to both defense and civilian areas and will continue to do so in the proposed programs. It is our intention to integrate and coordinate those efforts to the maximum extent so as to minimize the overall Federal cost. The priority of military programs has not changed; programs have expanded and moved ahead as planned while the overall funding stringencies have tightened. The U.S. still possesses broadly based and advanced liquid metal reactor technology in the world and continues to exhibit leadership in this arena.

Question: Will international research agreements continue under this new policy if other countries would have to agree essentially to be part of U.S. military research?

Answer: Providing support for defense activities through utilization of common facilities, technology, and manpower will not detract from the Department's ability to engage in civilian advanced nuclear reactor cooperation with foreign partners. While there is a commonality in technology and facility requirements, current and prospective joint cooperative activities are sufficiently different from anticipated domestic defense program efforts that we see little difficulty in maintaining a separation between these activities, and in conducting distinct joint international collaborative programs. Thus, foreign partners will not have to agree to be part

U.S. military research, and we are confident that we will be able to continue and expand collaborative research with others.

Question: Can the U.S. continue to encourage and support joint cooperation research between our country and other nations such as Japan, France and Germany?

Answer: Yes. The proposed FY 1987 civilian program continues joint cooperative programs on research between our country and other nations. Although the majority of our current international effort is with the Japanese, we will continue efforts for greater involvement with Germany and France. Public domain information on our advanced Liquid Metal Reactor and High Temperature Gas Reactor concepts has been received with great interest in Japan and France and may well become the basis for the United States establishing future collaborative agreements.

Question: A number of countries are forging ahead in nuclear R&D, and these have challenged our lead in the nuclear energy market. Will not this shift further erode our nation's marketing capability?

Answer: In FY 1987, our efforts within the civilian program regarding defense will be limited to determining the suitability of advanced civilian designs for defense applications. The Department's primary effort will remain focused on advanced civilian reactor concept development and supporting R&D with emphasis on competitive economics, passive safety, and improved licensability. To date, progress has been encouraging; costs appear to be competitive with LWR's and coal plants, innovative passive safety features have been designed and will be tested, NRC interactions have been positive, and plant availability estimates are high. Public domain information available on these advanced designs is creating a great deal of interest in Japan and France. We believe that these designs will provide the basis for the United States retaining its leadership role in the nuclear field and potentially recapturing some overseas markets.

Question:

Low-Level Waste

Last year, Congress enacted the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act (P.L. 99-240), which requires the development of regional low-level waste disposal facilities while extending access to the existing facilities until 1993. What are the major responsibilities assigned to DOE by this recent act to ensure these LLW facilities are operating by 1993?

Answer: The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-240) assigns several new responsibilities to the Department of Energy (DOE). These include responsibility for disposal of "greater-than-Class C" commercial low-level waste; management of an interest-bearing escrow account to rebate to unsited States and regions 25 percent of disposal fee surcharges where those States or regions meet certain milestones; and the allocation of up to 800,000 cubit feet of disposal capacity among the three commercially-operated disposal sites for low-level radioactive waste generated by utilities as a result of unusual or unexpected operating, maintenance, repair, or safety activities.

In addition, DOE is required to prepare several reports for Congress, including (1) a report due in January 1987 on how it will ensure the safe disposal of greater-than-Class C low-level waste; (2) an annual report on (a) the progress of States and compact regions in

developing new disposal capacity; (b) the practices of industry to manage, store, treat, ship and reduce in volume low-level radioactive waste; and (c) projections for storage and disposal requirements for the following year; and (3) a report on how applicable States and regions expended the rebates from the escrow account of 25 percent of the disposal fee surcharges.

Finally, the Department is to provide assistance to States and compact regions to help them in developing new disposal facilities. It should be noted that DOE does not believe that it has any responsibilities which are sufficient to ensure the development of new facilities.

Question: of surcharges?

ready?

Has DOE established the escrow account for collection
If not, when does DOE expect that the account will be

Answer: The Department has established an escrow account for the collection of surcharges with the Treasury Department. Currently, DOE is working with the three States that host operating low-level waste disposal facilities, Nevada, South Carolina, and Washington, regarding receipt of surcharges for deposit to the

account.

Question: Is DOE's budget sufficient to execute the added responsibilities assigned to it since passage of the Act?

Answer: The Department will meet the added responsibilities of greater-than-Class C waste disposal, management of the escrow account, allocation of unusual waste volumes, and the several annual reports required by the Act. The extent to which DOE's informational and analytical capabilities can be expanded to help generate the annual reports is contingent on resources available. Funding is requested for technical activities furthering the nationwide development of disposal capacity.

Question: Will DOE continue financial and technical assistance to States for the development of their compacts?

Answer: The Department has not requested any funds to provide financial assistance to States or regions in FY 1987. The Department feels that Federal support of State and regional disposal facility development should be limited to the provision of technical data and information, general technical assistance, and the evaluation of improved technologies for treating, packaging and disposing of lowlevel waste. Technical assistance will be provided from within the Department's system of scientific and technical personnel, national laboratories, and other contractors. Technical information will be made available to help States and compact regions plan and conduct each required phase of low-level waste disposal facility development according to the milestone requirements in the Act.

DOE believes that since the disposal of low-level waste is the responsibility of the States, those States who want increased Federal Government assistance should be prepared to reimburse the Federal Government for any expanded role. There are a number of mechanisms by which States and compact regions may be able to raise funds to develop low-level waste disposal sites without relying on the Federal