Images de page
PDF
ePub

Question: Please provide a table showing the FY 84, 85, 86, and 87 funding by each location for operating expenses and PACE.

Answer: A table providing inertial fusion funding by site is submitted for the record.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Supplemental Request

Question: Can you provide us with a list of the major items of capital equipment at each location and the full cost of the equipment?

Answer: Of the $62 million requested appropriation transfer, $32.3 million will be used to purchase capital equipment as shown in the following table:

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

Capital equipment includes test-related hardware such as diagnostic trailers and measuring-instrument calibration devices as well as equipment to support laboratory experiments and materials research, fabrication, and characterization. Most of the capital equipment is sufficiently generic that it could also be used to support other laboratory programs. Virtually all the weapons research programs underway at the national laboratories have need for test-related and materials development equipment.

Question: Please provide us with a breakdown of the additional personnel needs at each location and the estimated cost for each.

Answer: The fully loaded estimated costs for additional research and development laboratory personnel at each location is provided in the following table:

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

Question: Please provide us with an estimate on how these funds would affect the number of tests, the complexity of these tests and the timing of the individual tests.

Answer: Prospects for improved technical content and timely execution of the DELETED planned advanced development category strategic defense initiative related tests in FY 1987 should improve. We do not believe it is feasible at this late date to attempt to add another test to our schedule for this fiscal year or alter the current complexity of test experiments.

Question: For the record, please provide a breakdown of the full operating expense request which includes the amount for FTE'S at each location, and the amount for contract studies/contract activities with a description of each major activity.

Answer: The operating expense breakdown, and the associated laboratory research and development FTES, are shown in the following table:

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

These funds will be used to accelerate the highest priority nuclear directed energy weapons research toward a technologylimited pace. Funds will be used to accelerate critical underground nuclear tests and to add additional people to the research efforts and support outside contracts. As a result of the overall increased level of effort, support activities will be augmented in the areas of design physics, computational modeling, diagnostics development, laboratory experiments, advanced materials development, and advanced engineering. A relatively minor amount of approximately 10 percent would be provided to outside contractors for activities such as materials development and procurements.

Production Reactors at Savannah River

Question: What is the status of the production reactors at Savannah River?

Answer: Five reactors -- R, P, L, K, and C, vere constructed at the Savannah River Plant and placed in operation beginning in December 1953. R Reactor was shut down in June 1964 and placed in an inactive status. L Reactor was shut down in February 1968 at a tfre when there was insufficient demand for nuclear materials to justify operation of four reactors. Following extensive renovations, it was restarted in October 1985, when the projected demand for nuclear materials showed an additional reactor would be needed. P, K, and C Reactors have operated continuously since startup in the mid-1950's. At this time, C Reactor is undergoing extensive repairs, but it should be operational in a few months.

Environmental Problems of Production Reactors

Question: Please describe the environmental problems associated with the operation of the production reactors.

Answer: The major environmental problem due to the Savannah River Plant, SRP, reactor operation is the direct discharge of reactor cooling water to onsite creeks. Under the Federal and State of South Carolina implementing regulations for the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, as amended, the reactor cooling water, which is 160°F, would have to be cooled to 90°F prior to discharge to surface waters. The Department of Energy, DOE, entered Into a Consent Order with the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, SCDHEC, to comply with conditions specified in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systen permit for SRP. Engineering studies identified several options to cool the reactor thermal discharges. Based on topographic and cost considerations, DOE has recommended, and SCDHEC has indicated concurrence with, the construction of once-through cooling towers for C and K Reactors. On March 28, 1986, DOE issued a draft environmental impact statement on alternative cooling water systems at the Savannah River Plant for public comment.

Another potential environmental problem associated with production reactor operation is the use of seepage basins to dispose of slightly radioactively contaminated process waste water. Although direct release of this water to the site streams would be acceptable, the seepage basins are used to delay the transport of radionuclides to surface water, thus allowing radioactive decay and a reduction in the quantity of radionuclides reaching the surface water. DOE is analyzing the continued usage of the seepage basins together with other treatment alternatives for the production reactors and is obtaining public inputs on this proposal through the public involvement process for the environmental impact statement on waste management activities for groundwater protection at the Savannah River Plant, draft document expected by the end of 1986.

Construction of Cooling Lake at Savannah River

Question: What is the status of the construction of the cooling lake at Savannah River?

Answer: Construction of L Pond was completed in October 1985, and it was immediately placed in operation with the restart of L Reactor. Temperature probes to monitor the ability of the pond to cool the reactor effluent are in operation with further refinements planned.

Cooling Towers at Savannah River

Question: Describe the need and cost of additional cooling towers at the Savannah River site.

Answer: Since the early 1950's, the C, K, and L production reactors at the Savannah River Plant, SRP, have used onsite streams and the Savannah River swamp for cooling of reactor thermal effluents. Provisions of early National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, NPDES, permits for SRP under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act designated the point of thermal compliance at the Savannah River, thus allowing this type of operation. It should be noted that P Reactor utilizes an existing onsite cooling lake which we believe the State of South Carolina will find acceptable, based on studies we recently completed. In November 1982, during negotiations on a new NPDES permit, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control determined that, to conform to existing laws and regulations, the point of technical compliance would be changed to the point where the reactors discharge into the onsite streams which are near the reactor buildings. Consequently, a cooling lake was constructed for L Reactor prior to restart of the reactor. In a Consent Order associated with the new NPDES permit, the Department of Energy committed to evaluate and recommend to the State, methods of thermal mitigation for the C and K Reactors, and, subsequently support implementation of the selected alternative. Changes in Environmental Protection Agency regulations on stream reclassification in late 1983 prevented DOE from considering potential partial mitigation options for these reactors, thus once-through cooling towers were the lowest cost option evaluated and were recommended to the State by the Savannah River Operations Office. If funding is approved by Congress, $ 109 million is required to complete construction of the cooling towers and $7 million annually to operate them.

Thermal Discharge Off Savannah River Site

Question: What is the thermal discharge off the Savannah River site, with and without the cooling lake?

Answer: Based on 30-year average values for meteorological conditions, the temperature of the L Reactor effluent at the site boundary, which is the Savannah River, would range from 29 degrees Celsius, C, in the summer to 13 degrees. C in the winter with L Pond. Without L Pond, the temperature at the same location would range

« PrécédentContinuer »