Another important attribute of the MHTGR is that its high temperature capability makes it uniquely suited for applications other than electricity generation. one-third of the Nation's primary for the generation of electricity, Since only are energy requirements there is a large market here currently served by oil and gas for the most part. these non-renewable resources will be depleted Inevitably, and prices will rise. At that time the availability of the MHTGR may be extremely important to the Nation's economy. The DOE program has been reoriented toward the objectives described above via the selection of the prismatic fuel, annular core design. The THTR in West Germany is now operating. Continued successful operation of this 300 MWe power plant will give that country a significant advantage in any international competition for HTGR business and could lead to the direct supply of German HTGRS to the U.S. With respect to the near-term development of the MHTGR, we believe a demonstration plant is necessary to focus the design and development effort, to confirm the performance, cost estimates and schedule, and to establish licensing rquirements by assisting in securing a Standard License from NRC. It will be very difficult for the private sector to finance such a program without significant commitments from DOE. For FY 1987 in particular, the objective has to be to obtain an initial statement of licensability from the NRC. Both NRC and DOE need to be adequately funded for this purpose. Once a successfully, demonstration plant has been built and operated we have no concern over the commercial applicability of the MHTGR. The Joint Statement of Support attests to the interest of potential customers for this concept. MODULAR LMR The Modular LMR builds on a broad technical base of world-wide experience dating back to the tion. EBR-1, the first nuclear reactor to generate electricity for commercial applicaThe LMR has been chosen throughout the world as the best way to breed plutonium from non-fissile uranium, something that will eventually become very important to do. A suitably designed LMR meets the U.S. objectives previously discussed. Unique features are that the coolant is not boundary (i.e., under pressure So that the primary coolant This minimizes the reactor vessel) is not highly stressed. the probability of leaks and loss of coolant accidents. response to upsets. Modular LMR is a objectives of the For these reasons, among others, the strong candidate to meet the near-term advanced reactor program while serving as a "bridge" to the breeder when this is needed to supply fissile fuel. As with the HTGR, a demonstration plant will be needed to demonstrate the desirable features. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and other members of your Subcommittee for the opportunity to comment on these DOE programs. -11 Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much. Mr. Walker of Gas-Cooled Reactor Associates. STATEMENT OF RICHARD F. WALKER, CHAIRMAN AND PRESIDENT, PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO AND CHAIRMAN, GAS-COOLED REACTOR ASSOCIATES Mr. WALKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my pleasure to testify on the DOE advanced reactor_program. I am Richard F. Walker. I am chairman of the Gas Reactor Associates. I am also chairman and CEO of the Public Service Company of Colorado. The Gas-Cooled Reactor Associates is an organization of a number of major utilities in the United States that for a number of years as utility users have supported the high temperature gascooled reactor concept. I might add parenthetically that we are the only active organized utility group supporting a specific reactor design at this moment. I certainly too would acknowledge this subcommittee's support over the past years in helping us secure DOE funding to continue the high temperature gas-cooled reactor design and definition work. A number of years ago, we worked very diligently on a larger HTGR, a reference design, if you might call it that. For the last several years, the emphasis has switched to a modular HTGR that Mr. Chernock and Dr. Dean have testified to. On the electric side, it turns out to be 140 megawatts electric, and some of its characteristics, besides its smaller size, lower power density, self-cooling, it looks to me like it is a real candidate for certification of a true standard modular unit that could be built and installed with some degree of confidence. The size is to me very important in that, as the utility executive, much to our chagrin, the electric load requirements in this country have not grown as they did in the seventies, and most of us are not experiencing very large amounts of load growth. It is necessary then for us to be able to program into our system smaller amounts of capacity. A modular system such as this, where you could group two or four 140 megawatt electric together, you get 560, if you only needed 280 you could get 280, we see this as a real advantage in financing and construction, particularly if there was true certification so that you would not have to go through with every module a great long licensing process. Mr. Chernock indicated that there was a statement attached to my testimony, which is a joint statement of 20 major companies, including utilities, vendors, architect-engineers, and I certainly endorse that and support that statement. I did not indicate earlier, Mr. Chairman, I would like my full statement to be included as part of the record. Senator DOMENICI. It will be. Mr. WALKER. I am obviously paraphrasing from the statement. We need the support to continue. We are getting-we have had the project reasonably well defined from the technical aspect and what size and configuration arrangements. Now we need to identify cost estimates, schedules, and institutional arrangements to get this done. Mr. Chernock referred to a vendor. I call it a project supply company. We think it is very important that this be put together with more than one vendor so that we do have a true supply company that could provide this for us. On the utility side, we need a utility project partnership, which we are working on, to get a number of utilities together that could go into this on a joint basis. Obviously, in today's economy we cannot support this by ourselves, and it is going to require the Department of Energy to be a partner in this. We recognize that it is also necessary that we do our share, and certainly an equal sharing of costs in the long run is certainly appropriate to get this done. For our continued work, we have picked the Idaho National Engineering Lab site to do our reference design studies. That would be an excellent place to build the 140 megawatt electric module, to take it through a full demonstration phase, to prove to everyone its ability to self-cool, its ability to be operated with a minimum of safety systems. And we are looking forward to continuing that study. I too support the recommendation of $32 million for the Department of Energy in the advanced reactor field; also, $2 million for work at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, because it is very important and a keystone to this program is being able to have licensability or having real assurance that we could license and certify this thing before any of us proceed with this type of project, whether it be the supply company, the utilities, or the Federal Government. That is the way we see it. We think it is worth continuing. We think an advanced reactor concept is vitally needed in this country for a number of reasons: our prestige, our need for power, and so we are enthusiastic. We hope to continue this work in spite of some of the things that have gone on lately. So I wholeheartedly endorse the DOE continuing. They just need a little more money than they have programmed to really carry on the job that I would like to see done. Thanks again to your subcommittee for its support in the past, and we certainly have appreciated it. [The prepared statement of Mr. Walker follows:] STATEMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FY 1987 DOE AUTHORIZATION FOR HIGH TEMPERATURE GAS-COOLED REACTOR PROGRAM RICHARD F. WALKER CHAIRMAN & PRESIDENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO AND CHAIRMAN OF GAS-COOLED REACTOR ASSOCIATES Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Richard F. Walker, and I am Chairman and President of Public Service Company of Colorado and Chairman of Gas-Cooled Reactor Associates (GCRA) which is a utility/user organization that supports the development and commercialization of the High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor (HTGR). Historically, the basis for utility/user support for the HTGR is its high temperature capability which offers increased efficiency for electricity generation, and the unique potential to access cogeneration and high temperature process heat markets. From both the utility/user and National perspectives, these characteristics alone provide sufficient basis for priority development. However, of increasing importance are the HTGR's unique features which are directly responsive to the current institutional issues that plague the nuclear industry. The most notable of these features are the inherent safety and low environmental impact characteristics that translate to minimal reliance on engineered safety systems, substantial time (measured in hours) for operator response to postulated reactor upset conditions, added margins for plant investment protection and siting flexibility, and low radiation exposure of plant personnel. As a result, the HTGR technology offers an advanced, second generation of nuclear power that provides the basis for a fundamentally different approach to licensing and a fresh approach to public/investor acceptance. The GCRA's goal is to ensure that the HTGR is established as an attractive commercial alternative for a broad range of applications in a timely manner. approach to achieving this goal has been to establish a National Demonstration Project after which commercial plants can be deployed. In achieving this goal, maximum use will be made of the past 35 years of worldwide gas-cooled reactor technology, demonstration and application. During the past several years, the focus of the collective efforts within the HTGR Program has been to develop an HTGR design that is responsive to the utility/user's requirements, eases the current institutional difficulties associated with nuclear power and optimally capitalizes on the HTGR's unique characteristics. As you know, the result of this effort has been the establishment of the Modular HTGR (MHTGR) as the reference concept for near-term development and deployment emphasis. The strong consensus of support within the Program participants and the broad utility support for the MHTGR is reflected in the recent Joint Participants' Statement to this Committee and the other Congressional Committees which have oversight responsibility for the HTGR Programs at the DOE and the NRC. We heartily endorse the Joint Statement and are proud to have coordinated its preparation and submittal. A copy of the Joint Statement is attached for the Congressional Record. |