Senator HECHT. As you know, we have a short timeframe. I would prefer to give my questions in writing and go on and hear the next witnesses. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, very much, Senator. I have a number of other questions also which will be submitted for the record. Other members of the committee may also have until the close of business tomorrow to submit questions in writing for response. Thank you, very much. Mr. VAUGHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is always a pleasure to appear before this committee, and let me again emphasize how much we appreciate your constructive interest in these programs. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, very much. We have two other groups to hear from; one is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mr. Victor Stello, who we will hear from next, and then the military applications. We do propose to complete the hearing. Mr. Stello, your prepared statement will be placed in the record in full. At this point, I would invite you to summarize in as brief a manner as you can so we can proceed to questions. STATEMENT OF VICTOR STELLO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT B. MINOGUE, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH, AND DR. CHARLES KELBER, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR SCIENTIFIC PROGRAMS, OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH Mr. STELLO. Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman. I have asked with your permission to have Mr. Minogue, who is Director of our Office of Research, join me at the table, as well as Mr. Kelber, who is the Associate Director for Scientific Programs. I am certainly pleased to have an opportunity to appear before you today, to summarize NRC's views on the Department of Energy's program for research and development of civilian nuclear power and the disposal of the waste from such plants. The NRC and DOE have enjoyed a productive and harmonious relationship; we want it to continue and offer some comments on ways we think it could be strengthened. Before providing some specific comments, Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer some general remarks on the importance of nuclear safety research, an area I feel rather strongly about. Nuclear power is a product of one of the most comprehensive scientific research programs ever undertaken in the history of technology. The excellent safety record we have achieved with the peaceful application of nuclear technology is directly coupled to our Nation's nuclear research program. A healthy and vital national research program is needed. Commercial application of nuclear power is a maturing industry. The several generations of plants which have evolved have provided considerable confidence that this technology can and is being applied safely. New designs would, however, need the benefit of the insights of research and development in order to demonstrate the reliability and safety of new concepts. Without the results of such efforts, regulatory acceptability of new concepts would be difficult if not impossible. Both DOE and NRC have major roles in performing safety research. Both parties have an interest in maintaining U.S. test facilities and technical capabilities. NRC's major concern is that the technical infrastructure that supports further progress in the safe production of nuclear power not be further eroded. For the future, we see five major areas of safety concern that require technical support. One, the aging and degradation in service; two, the system response to complex operational and thermohydraulic transients; three, severe accident issues; four, reactor operation and risk assessment; and five, seismic margin. To these power reactor concerns I would add a sixth; waste disposal. The NRC maintains a research program in each of these areas that focuses on our regulatory needs. It is much narrower than DOE's research program. Industrial and utility groups do their part, but the sharply reduced Federal budgets of the last few years are eroding our technical lead in nuclear power over Europe and Japan. An important role for DOE has been the ownership and operation of major test facilities. Although these facilities have high base costs, the breadth of DOE's mission has permitted this cost to be spread among many interested parties. The LOFT facility at your State, Idaho, was operated for 3 years by an international consortium under the auspices of OECD. The NRC was a major partner in this consortium. This program was well executed by DOE's contractor, but with the shutdown and scheduled decommissioning of LOFT and the power burst facility, we will have lost the capability for in-pile testing in the United States. DOE's research at TMI-2 is an important program. This project, with substantial foreign as well as U.S. interests, has sponsored the retrieval of valuable information that the NRC has considered in guiding its severe accident work. Additional information is anticipated, particularly in support of decommissioning studies. The NRC believes that continuing and strengthening the ability of DOE to carry out such broad scope programs is in the National interest. They provide an opportunity to seek out answers to complex operational problems in advance, rather than to try to answer them in real time at a nuclear powerplant. The NRC also believes that cooperative research generally improves the quality of the work and the acceptance of its results. DOE's work is also unique in that DOE can be a bridge to commercialization of new technologies. Areas where efforts could be particularly useful are: Developing new, more reliable, and accurate safety systems; confirming the reliability of safety systems; and increasing the availability of safety systems. In 1982, the NRC took the position that DOE has a very high potential for success in developing improved safety technology for U.S. powerplants. We cooperated fully with DOE in the development of its comprehensive management plan to implement Public Law 96-567, Nuclear Safety Research, Development and Demonstration Act of 1980. We continue to believe this plan is reasonable and, if implemented, should result in a program that will yield important safety information. With DOE taking the lead in starting up the technology and demonstrating its practicality, we believe there will be a very good chance of industry putting the technology to use. A detailed examination of the DOE budget request for fiscal year 1987 shows only $3 million is devoted to increasing the reliability of currently operating plants. NRC would endorse expanding this program to include the full scope of issues identified in the Energy Research Advisory Board Report, DOE/SROO 24. If I might digress for a moment, I was impressed when I looked at some numbers in terms of the availability and capacity factor of plants in the United States, where our average capacity factors are in the fifties, if you look to Japan, in the seventies, and West Germany, in the eighties-think about that for a moment with 100 operating plants, improving reliability 15 percentage points. You are talking about the equivalent of 15 1,000-megawatt electric plants, which would save the American people somewhere between $10 and $20 million per day. The CHAIRMAN. I want you to repeat that statement, if you will. Mr. STELLO. The difference between average capacity factors in the United States, versus foreign countries; if you look to Japan, where those numbers are averaged somewhere in the seventies; and in West Germany where they are in the eighties; would suggest that the technology clearly is available-to increase the average capacity factors, or availability of plants in this country 15 percentage points. Doing that would have the equivalent, with 100 operating plants, of 15 1,000-megawatt electric plants. The CHAIRMAN. Is that without any additional investment? Mr. STELLO. I make that comment in the context of looking at further ways for which we can improve the reliability and availability of our plants through additional programs that DOE could sponsor and the industry itself, of course, because their interests ought to be as real as anyone else's. But the point being that this is an important area and having only $3 million devoted in the budget to increasing the reliability doesn't seem necessarily like the right amount in light of the potential gains to benefit the American people with the increased operation of these plants, and hence, its reduced cost. We are prepared to cooperate fully with DOE to review the designs of advanced plants consistent with available resources in order to set the stage for a more formal licensing submittal for the selected design. I understand DOE is cooperating with industry on an advanced light-water reactor program and that part of that program will involve an effort by industry to subject plants to the design certification process anticipated in the Commission's standardization policy. This I would like to cite as a very encouraging approach, as a particular effort needed in our country to reform the way in which we go about licensing plants throughout proposed certification process. I would now like to make a few general remarks on the important topic of waste management. DOE carries out an extensive and broad program of research on the disposal of high-level waste, including liaison with other countries. NRC's research and technical assistance program probes and verifies the quality and completeness of DOE's technical development activities and provides the technical base for NRC to review DOE's license application. For low-level waste, DOE has the_role of furthering low-level waste disposal technology. Yearly, DOE sponsors a meeting, attended by many interested parties, to update and distribute the latest technological findings in low-level waste disposal technology. NRC's research involves establishing a sound technical basis for low-level waste regulation and advice to States on all aspects of low-level waste disposal. In conclusion, I want to emphasize that the NRC believes DOE has a major research role to play in improving the safety of currently operating plants, as well as developing advanced designs. The NRC is concerned that our capability to deal with future problems of nuclear powerplants will be greatly impaired by a failure to deal now with the erosion of our technical support. To illustrate this point, our research budget, in terms of constant dollars, will be lower in fiscal year 1987 than it was when the agency was formed in 1975. Between 1981 and 1987, the Nuclear Regulatory Research Program will have been reduced by more than $110 million, about 53 percent. Joint programs with other parties and improved operating economies cannot make up for these reductions over the years. The reductions in the fiscal year 1987 research budget will mean an end to some programs and significant delays or deferral of others. Without support from others, the technical infrastructure must suffer. My judgment is that an expanded DOE program aimed at improving the safety of currently operating plants, one that includes broad partnerships for maintaining key test facility capability, will play a vital role in maintaining U.S. technical leadership in nuclear powerplant and waste disposal technology. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared remarks. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Mr. STELLO. We are prepared to reply to your questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Stello follows:] |