needs are crucial to the successful implementation of these programs. Indeed, it's times like this that the Department has exhibited in its pursuit of these responsibilities.

Senator DOMENICI. Senator Johnston?

Senator JOHNSTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, I think it is important to point out here, the American reactors could not have a graphite fire, as apparently this is, because we don't use graphite and light-water reactors cannot have this particular kind of malfunction, at least as reported in the press. Am I correct?

Mr. VAUGHAN. You are correct. There is one U.S. commercial reactor, a much smaller reactor, at Fort St. Vrain, which is a gascooled reactor, which is again of a different design. It does have a graphite moderator, but there are a number of other significant differences that don't make it at all like this particular Russian reactor.

Senator JOHNSTON. One more question: Do I understand correctly that after TMI, the studies indicated that even if the coolant had not been brought back on to cool the core, the core would not have fallen into the China Syndrome, and burned through the containment facility, but would have been contained. Did they make that conclusion?

Mr. VAUGHAN. Based on the knowledge we have in the examination subsequent to the accident, we believe that to be a true statement.

Senator JOHNSTON. So that we have full confidence, first, in the ability to bring on the emergency coolant, and even if that fails, we believe our design will both contain the core, and contain the polluted air, if that is the correct term-

Mr. VAUGHAN. I think fission product is the term you are looking for.

Senator JOHNSTON. Our design would contain the fission products within the facility.

Mr. VAUGHAN. We believe that to be the case.

Senator JOHNSTON. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN [presiding]. Thank you. Are there any further questions on what we know about the Russian experience?

[No response.]

The CHAIRMAN. We will continue to monitor what is happening and hope to be able to provide any further information and may, indeed, seek further administration testimony with respect to what we know about that, or what we have ascertained.

We will begin with the testimony of Mr. Ben Rusche, Director of the Department's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.

Mr. Rusche, it is a pleasure, always to have you here before us today, and let me add that based on all I have heard about your activities of late, I think we may already have a platter full, just hearing what has transpired in your office over the last 6 monthswithout ever hearing what you have in store for us during the upcoming fiscal year, so we had better get started.

STATEMENT OF BEN C. RUSCHE, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Mr. RUSCHE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I am pleased to have an opportunity to talk to you about our fiscal year 1987 budget request and plans for the conduct of the program under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.

I have prepared a rather complete statement, which I hope I might submit for the record.

The CHAIRMAN. It will be placed in the record.

Mr. RUSCHE. Thank you, sir. The program we have been carrying out, consistent with the priorities of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, puts first priority on geological disposal of spent fuel and high-level wastes as America's solution to nuclear waste consideration.

The first such geologic repository is a part of a program which I will discuss in a few moments, but it is the element in the program which receives first priority.

The second priority is given to proceeding with monitored retrievable storage because of its potential for improving the overall system.

The third priority is given to siting activities related to a second repository, should the Congress decide that such a repository is eventually needed.

Neither the MRS nor the second repository are authorized for construction by the NWPA, but it is clear to us that the MRS offers the earliest and best means for assuring that the objectives of the NWPA are carried out.

Our budget request is under two funding areas: One, the Nuclear Waste Fund, which is financed by fees collected from owners and generators of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste, and, second, a much smaller portion that is funded from the General Fund of the United States for Civilian R&D.

In keeping with the provisions of Gramm-Rudman, we have made adjustments in both fiscal year 1986 and in our planning request for fiscal year 1987. For fiscal year 1987, the fund expenditures proposed are $769.3 million compared to fiscal year 1986 of $499 million. The details of our request are provided in table 1 of my prepared statement and I will reserve discussion, perhaps to respond to particular questions.

Our request for the Civilian R&D Program is $6.5 million, compared to $16 million in fiscal year 1986. This funding level is consistent with our assessment of the best application of limited funds for generic research, and likewise, in table 2 of my prepared statement, are the details of that request.

We have, in addition, in the fiscal year 1987 budget, proposed that the Congress approve funding for MRS, and to the point that Senator Johnston addressed in his opening comment, take whatever such actions are appropriate to authorize our proceeding with MRS.

We have, therefore, before you today, in the President's budget, that request for an MRS.

Because of the peculiar circumstances that are before us, I would like to take an additional moment in this brief summary and focus

attention on MRS for perhaps reasons of eliciting questions and re

sponse.

I am sure you are all aware that I am limited in what I can say about MRS because we are currently enjoined by the Federal courts from submitting the formal proposal to Congress, required by section 141 of the NWPA on the need for and feasibility of one or more MRS facilities.

Therefore, I have to be very specific and point out that nothing I say today should be construed as being that formal proposal. Although I think I am at liberty to discuss with you in considerable detail the contents of the draft report which you received back in December, before the court action.

I believe I can say that having completed the needs and feasibility study, our analysis of the provisions of the NWPA and an evaluation of the programmatic options, we have concluded that an MRS facility located centrally to the major generators of spent fuel, and designed to be an integral component of the waste management system, would significantly improve the performance of the disposal system.

The facility should be designed and operated with the fundamental objective of protecting the health and safety of the public, the workers at the facility, and the quality of the environment. Such a facility would receive, consolidate and package spent fuel for bulk shipment to a permanent geologic repository. It would be licensed by the NRC and subject to both routine and unannounced inspections by the NRC.

It would be a shielded confinement and containment facility that would limit any releases of radioactive material to well below established regulatory limits, and its safety-related features would be based on available and proven technology in this country.

An MRS facility would allow DOE to separate a major part of the waste management process, that is, the acceptance, transportation, consolidation, and sealing in canisters, from the uncertainties about the repository, which attach primarily to the geologic aspects of the repository, and allow us to proceed immediately with detailed planning for, and implementation of, that separated part of the program at an earlier time.

Development and specification of a transportation system would also be advanced by several years because the approval of the MRS facility would allow specific routing, logistics, and equipment requirements for shipments from reactors to be determined up to 5 years earlier than would be the case if we have to wait for a determination of the first site finally by the President in 1991.

If development and construction could begin in the very near future, the accomplishments of the separable steps of the waste management process would significantly enhance confidence in the schedule for the operation of the total system.

We believe it would take about 10 years from the time of congressional approval and authorization to proceed and the time for such a facility to begin operation. By starting operation in 1996, and reaching full operations by 1998, the facility would allow the waste system to receive spent fuel at the full-scale rate 5 years sooner than does the system without an MRS facility.

Expenditures for the MRS project, from the time of congressional approval to the start of operations are estimated at about $970 million in constant 1985 dollars, of which about $700 million would be used for construction.

The annual operating expenses for the facility, which would employ about 600 workers, would be about $70 million, not including financial assistance and tax-equivalency payments.

All costs would be borne by the waste generators and paid for from the nuclear waste fund.

The cost of a total waste system, which includes an MRS, is estimated to be no more than 5 to 11 percent higher than that of a system without an MRS. We believe the cost and construction of an MRS are well worth that increment.

This does not include offset costs that we have been unable to determine with great precision because of the fact that for the remainder of the system there are a number of factors not yet determined.

Our request for MRS activities in fiscal year 1987 is $46 million. This request was submitted to the Congress in our regular budget proposal. Should we receive appropriate congressional action, both authorization and approval as you have suggested, the $46 million requested would be used primarily for site data collection and analysis, final design, regulatory compliance studies, and State liaison activities.

We have not, consistent with the injunction, submitted the formal proposal. However, our appropriation and authorization request is based on the earlier review documents in anticipation of the planned formal proposal that we had hoped to make in February and which were provided to you, the State, and other interested parties before the injunction was put in place.

If I may, I would like to take just 1 minute, finally, on the R&D program, because a number of you have elected to call to our attention a matter related to the generic program, particularly with respect to the Subseabed Research Program.

In preparing our 1987 budget request, under both the waste fund and the civilian R&D fund, we have tried to honor the spirit and intent of fiscal responsibilities as reflected by the various matters before the Congress. In so doing, we have had to make choices, just as you, indeed, are having to make choices.

Our choices, based on the three major priorities I mentioned earlier are, first, the first geologic repository; second, MRS; third, siting activities related to a second repository. And then, when we look at the civilian R&D budget, as you will note in my formal statement, we did not request funding for continuation of the subseabed disposal studies beyond fiscal year 1986.

We have, over the past several years, contributed funds from the general fund of the United States, to international efforts to determine feasibility of subseabed disposal.

We have not prejudged the technical feasibility of subseabed disposal in the future. In fact, if our budget proposal is accepted, we will continue to participate in such endeavors through international information exchanges and international involvement under section 223 of the act.

However, given the stringencies of budgetary requirements and the priorities that I have described, we believe that our most prudent R&D investments at this time are those involving cooperative demonstrations of at-reactor storage technologies, such as in Idaho, in cooperation with a number of utilities.

Our investments of time and dollars under the fund are, therefore, more appropriately directed to the three priorities that I have just mentioned earlier.

I would be happy to answer further questions, Mr. Chairman, on this or any other subjects related to the waste program.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rusche follows:]