Images de page
PDF
ePub

First, Mr. Rusche, I think you look very, very good, considering what you have been through. Are you feeling all right. [Laughter.]

Mr. RUSCHE. My health seems to be in good shape, sir.

Senator DOMENICI. No effect from all this radioactivity that is going around the country?

Mr. RUSCHE. No; others say I must be wasting away. [Laughter.]
But so far, I have seen no effects of it.

Senator DOMENICI. Let me indicate to you that while I am concerned about the progress or the lack of progress in the high-level waste program, particularly as I have expressed in the authorizing committee with the consultation and cooperation agreements or lack thereof, I must compliment you; under your leadership, the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, as I see it, is making a sincere effort to work with the States, and I believe you are making a sincere effort to work with the Indian tribes. I understand the difficult job you have, and I compliment you for both of those.

Mr. RUSCHE. Thank you.

SUBSEABED Disposal

Senator DOMENICI. With reference to alternative disposal means of high-level waste other than the deep geological disposal, you allude to a termination of the seabed alternative concept. In the 1987 budget, you have zero for it. Last year, I believe, what was it, $7 million?

Mr. RUSCHE. I believe it was about $8 million; yes, sir.

Senator DOMENICI. About $8 million. Could you just quickly tell us why you zeroed that out, and what other alternative concept we should pursue with reference to the NWPA?

Mr. RUSCHE. Senator, the act denies use of the Nuclear Waste Fund for generic research. We considered whether or not the subseabed work could be, by some means, funded under the Nuclear Waste Fund, and we thought we might find a rationale to consider it. We were led to this consideration, because heretofore, we haven't had funding under the general fund activity as generic research.

The fact is, when we looked at the budget stringencies for general fund appropriations, our priorities were such that there just was not money to do it.

What we have attempted to do so far is to change the direction of the program for this year and in the international community in which we are working, invite the members to bring the research to a point of consolidation so that in the future, if we desire to go back, we would have a valid place to start from. I think it is simply a matter of availability of funds. At the moment, we are looking at crystalline rock. We are looking at argillaceous rock in the United States. I think the institutional and political vehicle questions with respect to subseabed disposal, which had been deferred intentionally until some technical feasibility was established, are very major considerations.

Senator DOMENICI. Was there international collaboration in that seabed activity?

Mr. RUSCHE. Yes, indeed; over the last several years. In fact, we have provided about one-half the total funding.

Senator DOMENICI. If we go out, will that stop?

Mr. RUSCHE. I think the answer to that is unclear at the moment. We certainly are a major contributor. I think a number of countries have come to the same conclusion; that this is a good time to hold things together and let's see how the London Dumping Convention goes and get a better feel for the institutional matter and perhaps later on reinstitute that work.

LOW-LEVEL WASTE

Senator DOMENICI. I have two brief questions and then I will go to Secretary Vaughan.

In the Low Level Waste Act that we adopted last year, you were asked to make a study of low-level orphan waste and report back to Congress within a year. What is the status of the study? Is it proceeding?

Mr. RUSCHE. Mr. Vaughan and I both are involved in that study, as well as the principal program people. The study is beginning, and we hope to have a report before Congress before that time.

TIMING OF MRS PROPOSAL

Senator DOMENICI. My last question has to do with the injunction that you alluded to in Tennessee. Clearly, I don't intend in any way to ask you questions that would violate the injunction. I am not aware of its breadth or content, but when do you anticipate to receive a resolution so that you could proceed to submit the proposal to Congress?

Mr. RUSCHE. Senator, our attorneys suggest that the earliest we might receive such resolution might be by about the beginning of the summer. We have received a ruling granting an expedited procedure before the sixth circuit. I think that. I am no better predictor than anybody else, but that is on hold for perhaps 3 or 4 months.

URANIUM ENRICHMENT BILATERAL TALKS

Senator DOMENICI. Mr. Vaughan, as you know, I am concerned with both uranium enrichment and uranium mining in the United States. I think we have reached a point where it is now concluded that we have no viable uranium mining industry in the United States. Even the Secretary had to make that finding.

As the President's trade ambassador contemplates and begins the bilateral negotiations with Canada for a treaty, I wonder if the Department has considered requesting that any specific activities take place in those bilateral discussions regarding Canadian uranium and its impact on the United States' capability to produce uranium domestically?

Mr. VAUGHAN. Senator, I would prefer to provide you a more detailed answer to that question for the record, since I don't have it at my fingertips, the precise considerations that the U.S. Trade Representative is considering for those talks. We are certainly mindful of the considerations which you raised.

As you well know, we have long considered Canada a very friendly trading partner, no oceans to cross, but I would like to have the appropriate people in the Department who are working on that subject assist me in providing you a detailed answer for the record.

Senator DOMENICI. Why don't I put the question this way: Would you provide to the committee, if it is the chairman's pleasure, at your earliest convenience, with a statement as to whether or not the Secretary of Energy has requested anything specific out of the bilateral talks regarding uranium, and if so, what? If not, why not?

Mr. VAUGHAN. We will be pleased to respond to that request.
Senator DOMENICI. I would thank you for doing that.
[The information follows:]

BILATERAL TALKS REGARDING URANIUM

We have discussed this matter with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. The trade declaration, which resulted from the 1985 meeting between Canadian Prime Minister Mulroney and President Reagan, included a specific commitment on energy trade between the two countries. Both leaders pledged to rely on market forces to the maximum degree regarding energy trade. In any trade talks with Canada, the United States will seek to affirm and strengthen this approach in our bilateral energy trade. In particular, the United States will seek an end to the Canadian uranium export restriction which requires conversion to uranium hexafluoride in Canada prior to export. We have taken the free and fair trade approach, and we expect the Canadians to do likewise.

URANIUM ENRICHMENT

Senator DOMENICI. Mr. Chairman, I have a series of questions for Mr. Vaughan regarding the Uranium Enrichment Program. I believe in the interest of time that I would submit them and ask him to respond. I believe he could answer them rather quickly for the record. So could I submit them and ask about the accounting processes that have gone on with the various estimates of what is owed to the Federal Government with reference to uranium, enrichment activity since the transfer over in 1970. If I give you a series of questions as far as the Department's dollar numbers, inventories, capital, could you reply in a reasonably short period of time?

Mr. VAUGHAN. I would expect we could supply that within no more than a few days and would be pleased to do that. If you want to take the time now, I would guess we could probably respond to a number of them now. I will defer to your judgment.

Chairman HATFIELD. I would be very happy to have the Senator extend his questioning if he wishes.

Senator DOMENICI. Why don't we. I can rest a little and then I will come back and ask about it in a little bit.

NUCLEAR SAFETY AND LICENSING

Chairman HATFIELD. Mr. Secretary, the budget proposal before us has an LWR Safety and Licensing Program listed, I believe, for the figure of about $11 million. What is the fiscal year 1986 figure for this program?

Mr. VAUGHAN. $12.5 million.

Chairman HATFIELD. $12.5 million. What is the timeframe that you anticipate for this program in terms of the duration and the total multiyear costs that you expect to acquire?

Mr. VAUGHAN. Mr. Chairman, that is a generic effort, which the Department has supported for a number of years. I would certainly expect, for the next 5 years, let's say, for that to be an approximately level funded effort.

The key activities in that program deal with some independent evaluation and analysis of risk-based licensing techniques, zero accident assessment, reliability of plants, the capability as to whether the plants that are now operating may be safe to extend beyond their 40-year lifetime, and a number of other generic-type safety and licensing support efforts, where we feel that the technical base is necessary to complement the institutional efforts that are underway to achieve a more rational licensing and regulation process in this country and the kind of benefits that could add to our emergency planning efforts.

I am sure you are aware that the Department has submitte licensing reform legislation which has been recently introduced in the Senate by Senator McClure-it was previously introduced in the House last year. While much of that is legislative, there is also a good deal of technical support needed to make it work. The NRC generally concentrates on particular, specific problems relating to the reactors being built or operating, whereas the Department of Energy historically more generic safety-related research. It dates back to the time of the Atomic Energy Act.

Chairman HATFIELD. But the LOFT portion of this program was compieted in fiscal year 1986.

Mr. VAUGHAN. The LOFT portion, in terms of the testing efforts, was completed in 1986. In order to get use of the LOFT test results it is necessary to do postirradiation examination to translate those test results into some practical models and scenarios which can then be used for a severe accident assessment of risk-based licensing. Those activities will continue. And they are a part of that program that you cited.

We are continuing a supplemental international agreement, whereby other countries will participate with us in that effort.

Chairman HATFIELD. Could you break down that expenditure for the record?

Mr. VAUGHAN, Yes.

Chairman HATFIELD. What portion of that program is completed and what remains in terms of both the delineations that you have made and in terms of the LOFT portion, particularly?

Mr. VAUGHAN. I would be pleased to do that.

[The information follows:]

LOSS-OF-FLUID-TEST [LOFT] PROGRAM COSTS

The total funding for the eight experiments comprising the international LOFT project is set at $91.96 million in the international LOFT Project Agreement, as amended. Of this, the U.S. Government committed $70 million ($25 million from the

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and $45 million from the U.S. Department of Energy). These amounts were obligated in the fiscal year 1983 to fiscal year 1986 budgets, and no additional funds are needed to complete the agreement work scope.

In achieving the objective of the final experiment of this program, it was necessary to subject a fuel bundle to severe damage. It is believed that this fuel is representative of the condition of the TMI-2 core during its evolution toward its final condition, and that an examination of this LOFT fuel would provide important information in the interpretation of the TMI-2 accident as well as the areas of severe accident and source

terms.

Therefore, the international consortium has agreed to extend the current agreement by including the examination of the LOFT bundle within the scope of the project. Cost of this additional work is estimated at $3.85 million, of which the U.S. portion is $1.28 million, to be provided at $640,000 per year in fiscal years 1987 and 1988. This will be made up in contributions from the NRC, DOE, and the Electric Power Research Institute. The DOE portion of this work will be funded as part of our generic efforts under the safety and licensing subelement of the LWR Program.

Chairman HATFIELD. You indicated a distinction between this program and that which is being conducted by the NRC which, according to my recollection, I think was established 10 or so years ago. It was charged with the licensing and the public safety. I am not quite sure I understand why, then, this program is necessary with that responsibility being assigned to the NRC by its generic legislation?

Mr. VAUGHAN. If you go back to specific legislation which is approximately 5 years old-and I can't recall the name of the particular public law, but I will supply that for the record-there was a clear delineation that both the Department of Energy, as the successor to the Atomic Energy Commission, as well as the NRC, had continuing and supplementary roles to play in safety-related activities. I am sure you are also aware that we need to do some safety-related activities for our own facilities, and I can also assure you that on a staff-to-staff basis as on a management basis, carefully work with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as well as with industry groups such as the Electric Power Research Institute, and others, to show that the work that is done is complementary and not duplicative.

[The information follows:]

DOE AND NRC ROLES IN NUCLEAR REACTOR SAFETY

The legislation that split responsibility for nuclear reactor safety research between DOE and NRC was section 103. (2) and (3) of Public Law 93-438, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974.

Chairman HATFIELD. Would there be any possibility of EPRI or the reactor vendors carrying out this responsibility?

Mr. VAUGHAN. The EPRI organization, as well as other parts of industry, do a certain amount of R&D work in addition to that which we do.

For example, you may have heard of the acronym IDCOR, which relates to industry effort for associating core damage accidents, and that has been an effort funded through industry and others which is complementary to ours and NRC. So there is work going on by all parties. Probably insufficient work would be done if all parties didn't participate. The participation by more than one party also is extremely

« PrécédentContinuer »