Mr. RUSCHE. We have continued work which will lead to the final publication of an environmental assessment with respect to your site which will be under consideration by the Secretary. That work has been essentially completed.

I think that is the biggest part of the activity.

Senator HECHT. When will this be out?

Mr. RUSCHE. It should be out in the next few weeks. Mid-May is the date that I have indicated to you and to the State.

Senator HECHT. That soon. That is 2 weeks.

Mr. RUSCHE. Yes, sir.

Senator HECHT. So you are moving right ahead on it?
Mr. RUSCHE. Yes, sir.

Senator HECHT. Are you and the State working together?
Mr. RUSCHE. Yes, sir.

Senator HECHT. Why the laugh?

Mr. RUSCHE. I thought maybe you knew something I didn't know. Senator HECHT. No.

Mr. RUSCHE. We work together, but I suspect our view as to how effective it is may be different.

Senator HECHT. Well, I am sure we can get it together.

Mr. RUSCHE. We are going to work, and continue to work together, and appreciate your interest, sir, and concern.

Senator HECHT. Šenator Warner?

Senator WARNER. Thank you, Senator Hecht. I would like to say at the beginning that the reports from the State of Virginia, certainly with respect to you, individually, Mr. Rusche, are that you are fulfilling your responsibility as a public servant dealing with a most difficult and emotional task in a commendable manner.

I wish to thank you for your willingness to engage in open discussions with Governor Baliles, the distinguished Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and local officials and citizens with respect to this program and plans for further study of these identified sites.

Mr. RUSCHE. Thank you, sir.

Senator WARNER. The Commonwealth of Virginia has submitted their comments on the Department's draft area recommendation. Mr. RUSCHE. We have received them.

Senator WARNER. For the crystalline repository project, and I would ask that you review fully the technical information provided in the State's-

Mr. RUSCHE. You can be sure, sir.

Senator WARNER. I refer particularly to the information indicating that the Bedford site lies in an area prone to severe flooding, and that the Halifax, PA, site is within 2 miles of a major geological fault that DOE apparently did not identify in their own maps. And, third, that the candidate site in the Hanover-Louisa-Goochland area is bordered by two geologic megafaults-Virginia's most active earthquake zone.

Do you have any comment to that?

Mr. RUSCHE. All of those factors, Senator, could affect our judgment as to the appropriateness of those sites. They certainly have the potential for being adverse conditions, of some degree. I find myself, or we find ourselves in the awkward position of being criticized because we didn't know all the answers. But, I have to say

that even with that criticism, going through the kind of public process that we have gone through, even with all of its agony, if it turns up information that we missed-for whatever reason-I think we must both agree that the value of that process is justified. To that end, we appreciate what your State and its geologists and others have done. And we will give full consideration to that data and weigh it in the most careful manner we know.

Senator WARNER. I thank you, Mr. Rusche. Indeed, I have been in public life almost a quarter of a century in various capacities, and this is agony for the citizens of those areas because it has substantially dampened their ability to provide for economic development of those areas of my State. It is reassuring to hear you say this morning that the facts evolving from this process, difficult as it may be for the citizens and yourself, are facts which may not have been known prior thereto by the Department of Energy, but will now be carefully assessed as the Department proceeds with their determination.

I see that the next step for the second repository is the release of the final area recommendation report. Then DOE will work to begin the "area phase" activities for field investigation, which is actual onsite work on the identified sites.

How will DOE perform onsite investigations on land privately owned, particularly in situations where the landowner may object and any work DOE needs to perform happens to be on his or her property?

Mr. RUSCHE. Senator, I don't think that we can prescribe a rigorous detailed procedure to start with. Obviously, we will work on those lands, hopefully, in cooperation with and with the approval of the parties who own the land, and we are obligated to honor those rights.

If it turned out in the end that there was some very crucial piece of information, then we would have to look to other procedures, but that is so far down the road in the program that I hope we don't have to consider it and I think that we serve neither your purpose nor their purpose by trying to "what-if" that situation so far in ad

vance.

Senator WARNER. You will comply with local law and the rights of citizens.

Mr. RUSCHE. Indeed, we will.

Senator WARNER. And abide by that law.

Mr. RUSCHE. Yes, indeed. And if I may inject a comment that I guess I am drawn to every time I have this discussion-and I have been having a lot of them, as you know-I think the framers of the act, yourselves, must have had some sense of the need to try to avoid the agony of uncertainty that attaches to an action such as we are talking about, and weighed that against the value of full consideration and public participation, or else the act would not have been written the way it is.

There clearly, are other courses we could have taken, and the act could have taken, but I think on balance, when you look at what we are doing and what the act specifies that we do and how this is being viewed in the world, that we are really living out an open, democratic process on this matter and it is a very difficult choice between these conflicting interests. We want to stay closely in

touch and evaluate the schedule, evaluate the circumstances at every step of the way and we will do our best to keep you informed. Senator WARNER. Well, I think that is a very commendable attitude that you have expressed here.

The 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act imposed a cap on the volume of radioactive waste to be stored at the first repository at 70,000 metric tons. As you may know, I, together with Senator Mitchell and others, are cosponsoring S. 2354. The purpose of that bill is to allow the disposal of all waste at the first repository.

Is there any technical reason that you know of to limit the storage to the 70 K ton metric ton level, or could the sites under study for the first repository hold a greater volume of waste?

Mr. RUSCHE. Our best information is that all of the sites that are currently under study for the first repository could probably accommodate more than 70,000 tons. I think the confidence we have varies from site to site and that is clearly a subject that will become more evident as we characterize the sites and mine down into the rock or salt, or whatever it might be.

But I think the short answer is that we believe that all of the sites have the capacity to accept more than 70,000 tons, and how much more, I think we will have to wait a see.

Senator WARNER. You say you would have to wait. What factfinding do we need? Senator Mitchell and I are anxious to have this bill considered actually by this committee, and, of course, we called upon the Department for their technical advice.

Mr. RUSCHE. I think we can provide opinions today for each of the sites under consideration, but we would have to recognize that there remains some possibility that when you do the actual characterization that our judgment, based on limited data from the surface, might be replaced by new data when we get down to the actual depth and horizon in the particular rock.

The real question is, is the rock big enough, strong enough and able to dissipate the heat and provide the isolation. We think the answer is yes based on the knowledge that we now have, but that will not be as confident as we would all require until we get some more data.

Senator WARNER. We did make, presumably, the determination that 70 K was safe.

Mr. RUSCHE. We have selected the sites with the expectation that 70 K could be met for all of the sites. Obviously, we can't be that precise. Some of them perhaps have the capability of twice that. And that is what I mean by, "we will have to wait and see."

Senator WARNER. Certainly the ability to transport radioactive material, safely, whether by rail or on the Federal highway system is equally as important as the safety at the permanent repositories. To what degree has DOT's Office of Hazardous Material involved with DOE in planning for the transportation of radioactive waste? Mr. RUSCHE. That particular office, I have to profess not quite a clear view of where they sit. The director of the research-let me just check.

There is an office in the Department of Transportation which oversees hazardous waste and the shipment which would include nuclear waste, as to the acceptability of routes and roads and

bridges, and so forth, and we are fully subject to that for shipment of this material.

Senator WARNER. What you are answering is that the DOE is coordinating with DOT as it begins to work out this plan?

Mr. RUSCHE. Without question.

Senator WARNER. AS DOT has been responsible for coordinating the transportation of hazardous material, I think their experience would be highly useful and I am reassured by your response.

Who notifies State emergency offices or local officials if radioactive material were to travel through their State? What kind of information is shared with State and local officials should a transportation accident or a breach of radioactive material during transportation occur?

Mr. RUSCHE. In general, the shipper or shippers responsible which, in this case would be our office. We make such notifications and work with the States to assure that they receive the appropriate information on a timely basis.

Senator WARNER. I will have some other questions, but our second witness has been most patient. Mr. Chairman, do you think we should turn to him?

Senator HECHT. Thank you for the promotion.

Senator WARNER. Well, that is all right.

If there are no further questions to be directed to Mr. Rusche, we thank him. The committee will now turn to Mr. Vaughan for the presentation of his direct testimony.

STATEMENT OF JAMES W. VAUGHAN, JR., ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Mr. VAUGHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to have the opportunity to follow Mr. Rusche and in this case to summarize the Department's Nuclear Energy Supply Research and Development and Uranium Enrichment Programs.

These programs have a broad scope of significant importance to our Nation. We appreciate the interest of this committee, not only in these programs, but in the legislative initiatives that support them that are currently underway regarding Price-Anderson and nuclear licensing reform.

Accordingly, what I would like to do is provide an abbreviated summary of the programs of interest, focusing on what I believe are the concerns of this committee. I have prepared a detailed written statement, which I would like to have entered into the record. Senator WARNER. Without objection.

Mr. VAUGHAN. The Department places high priority on assuring that nuclear energy contributes to a strong, stable, and secure national energy base to meet both our civilian and our military requirements.

Our reactor development programs to help preserve the nuclear option, and our execution of a reliable, competitive, and businesslike uranium enrichment enterprise are an integral part of that commitment.

The Department also remains strongly committed to protecting public health and safety and to assuring a safe and clean environ

ment in connection with its activities. Our remedial action and waste technology efforts are an integral part of that commitment. The detailed funding levels for our programs are tabulated in my prepared statement and I won't reiterate them.

I would note that while the overall fiscal year 1987 energy supply research and development budget increases slightly from our fiscal year 1986 estimate, there have been some shifts in the relative funding for the individual programs.

There are several key factors that have influenced the formulation of our programs and budget request that I would like to highlight.

First, the Department is fully committed to support the bipartisan effort to control and reduce the Federal deficit. Second, our space and defense nuclear energy needs are increasing as was planned. Some of the activities have progressed from the design and screening phase into the more funding-intensive hardware phase.

Third, our civilian reactor research and development program is more sharply focused since the currently anticipated timing for the commercial introduction of innovative reactor technologies, beyond light-water reactors, has been stretched out.

Fourth, although the remedial actions and waste technology budget does increase by some $64 million compared to fiscal year 1986, this increase is less than previously forecast. The program objectives can be achieved at that requested funding level by extending the authorization period for the Department's Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Program.

And, finally, the uranium enrichment budget request reflects several strategic budget request items and decisions which were made by the Department during the past year.

Against this background, let me turn to a few of the key issues and highlights of our nuclear energy R&D programs. We have provided R&D support for both the defense and civilian nuclear energy areas for decades. Both areas will continue to be served by our proposed programs which will be integrated and coordinated so as to minimize overall costs.

The priority of defense nuclear energy programs for military applications has not changed. Those programs related to the strategic defense initiative have expanded and moved ahead as planned, while overall funding stringencies have tightened.

Therefore, in the face of the urgent need to reduce Government outlays, the Department has recommended an adjustment in the pace of the Advanced Civilian Reactor Development Program, one which we believe will still keep us ahead of market needs for the types of reactors involved.

Turning for a moment to light-water reactors, which is the subject we discussed at the beginning of this hearing, the technical support for demonstrating removal of the remaining technical, licensing, and institutional impediments to the next generation of LWR's, as well as for innovative advanced reactors, is a key and important objective of our R&D programs.

Our light-water reactor R&D program is focused on essential safety and reliability research and development which can help fa

64-415 - 86 - 14