« PrécédentContinuer »
For technical support the additional funds are required for increased level of effort on technical support integration and coordination of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program, defense waste studies including waste package design and development testing, and to initiate technical services to support preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement for the first repository and environmental analysis. Other increases include information activities, technical support for policy issues and evaluation of waste package designs, financial assistance to national organizations, siting analysis/assessment and development and analysis of performance assessment models used by the repository projects.
Program management funding levels remained virtually unchanged.
A breakdown of funding at the three proposed sites is attached.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
FY 1987 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET .
NUCLEAR WASTE FUND
SALT-COLUMBUS PROJECT OFFICE
AUSTIN, TX - 10
TOTAL SALT OPERATING
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
FY 1987 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET
NUCLEAR WASTE FUND
TUFF-NEVADA OPS OFFICE
LAS VEGAS, NV-2
TUFF-NEVADA OPS OFFICE
TOTAL TUFF CAPITAL
Question: What is the total estimated cost of the program?
Answer: The current total estimated cost of the program without the MRS ranges from $23.6 billion to $32.3 depending on which media pair is finally selected for the first and second repositories.
Question: Do you anticipate the need in the future for an increase in the fee?
Answer: The Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires that an analysis of the adequacy of 1 mill/kWh fee be performed annually and that a report of the results of that analysis be submitted to the Congress. The report, "Nuclear Waste Fund Fee Adequacy: An Assessment", has been completed and is to be submitted to the Congress in March 1986. It indicates that no adjustment to the fee is expected to be required this year. Until we have selected the repository sites and other facets of the program are clarified, including the fee for defense costs, it is premature to conclude that any adjustment to the fee will be required.
Question: What is the status of the MRS facility? (Monitored Retrievable Storage)
Answer: The Department has included funding for the activities critical to the timely deployment of a Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) facility in the fiscal 1987 budget provided to the Congress on February 5, 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 was followed on February 7, by an injunction from the same court which 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 review copies were provided to interested parties in December, and the formal 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 proposal.
Question: When will DOE send to Congress the proposal for an MRS facility to be sited, I believe, at the former clinch River reactor site in Tennessee?
Answer: At present, submission of the formal MRS proposal to Congress depends upon the outcome of current judicial proceedings. The Department has appealed the decision issued by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Submittal of the formal MRS proposal to the Congress will depend upon the schedule of the Circuit Court to expeditiously hear the case, as well as what the content and effect the ruling will have on the proposal. Submittal of all briefs to the Court is scheduled to be completed by May 2, 1986.
Funding Deferral for Mod-5B Wind Turbine
Question: The budget requests for the wind energy program for fiscal year 1987 do not contain any funds for the Mod-5B multi-megawatt wind turbine development program. In addition, the Administration has announced deferral of the majority of the $12 million appropriated by Congress for the Mod-5B program in fiscal year 1986.
More than $60 million in federal funds have already been spent on the Mod-5B program. We are near completion of this development program. The Mod-5B is the "centerpiece" of our lengthy efforts to see that a large wind machine is developed. Equipment has been ordered, and the necessary hardware is now warehoused on the West Coast, ready for transportation to and assembly in Hawaii. The site for the windmill has been prepared, and all that remains is for the hardware to be assembled and the windmill tested. The private contractor and the government have both indicated that no technical problems are expected. A private buyer for the windmill has entered into a contract with the government. In view of the advanced stage of this project and the significant amount of federal resources already committed to it, why has your Department deferred fiscal 1986 funding and failed to request additional funding to complete the program in fiscal 1987?
Answer: Both the government and industry have a substantial investment in the Mod-5B program. Much of the value from this program will be derived from the engineering studies and detailed design of the machine. This information be will published and available to the entire wind industry. In addition we have already learned much from the extended testing of the Boeing-designed Mod-2 turbines. We believe that more fundamental research on aerodynamics and structural modeling, as supported in the FY 1987 Budget Request, is of higher priority and will benefit a broader segment of industry than would proceeding with installation and testing of a single piece of hardware. This is reinforced by generally declining interest in the commercialization of very large wind turbines at this time.