Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much.

I think it is fair to include some other subcommittees and some other people. Obviously, we have been doing fairly well with our work as far as emphasizing these kind of programs as an authorizing committee, but I think we ought to acknowledge the excellent help that we receive in these areas from the Subcommittee of Appropriations on Energy and Water, chaired by Senator Hatfield, ranking Member Senator Johnston, and obviously, because of his genuine and abiding interest in this area, one of the senior members of Appropriations, the chairman of this full committee, Senator McClure.

In these particular areas, obviously on our side, Senate side of the Hill, they have been invaluable and we are all most appreciative of that.

I want to say, while I am not as intimately familiar with each appropriation bill as might be if I spent more time on it, I can say, however, looking at the American budget overall, that it would be, should be an embarrassment to this Nation if we are unable to support this kind of advanced technology.

With a one trillion dollar budget, to have to cancel and cut back these kinds of programs seems to me to be just the essence of lunacy. I mean, we are almost being crazy about it. These are our future.

You know, here we are running around so glad that oil prices came down, and we ought to be, and we already have studies showing that if oil prices were at $13-and it dropped so fast we do not have a current study. But if it was at $13, we would become 50 percent dependent upon foreign oil again by 1991.

We were pretty pleased to get that down to 30. That is not a terribly good set of facts, to be at 30 for a Nation like ours. But to turn right around and move in the exact opposite direction and have an absolute assurance that you are going to pass 50 percent in the next 4 or 5 years of dependence of foreign oil, and then to take the scientific and engineering capability of the country and cut it back in terms of advanced technologies for alternate energy sources seems to me to be really the height of the ridiculous.

We will do what we can. I am very pleased to say that at least the outlines provided in that budget that was approved by 70 votes will certainly accommodate-70 Senate votes from both sides of the aisle will accommodate an increase, not a large, mammoth one, but an increase in most of the energy R&D programs over what the administration recommended.

I have no doubt that something like that will find its way through both Houses and ultimately the appropriations process.

We have a number of questions, but we are going to submit them to you to answer within the next few days. I just wanted to ask Dr. Dean, will the fact that GA Technologies has changed ownership have any impact on the development and your participation, your company's participation, in the HTGR joint effort?

Dr. DEAN. Sir, we think it is going to have a positive impact. The new owners are a private firm owned by the Blue family from Denver, CO, and they have stated that the HTGR was one of the attractive features about GA when they were arranging to submit a bid to Chevron, and they have been very enthusiastic in their

support of it thus far and I expect it is going to be a positive development for the program.

Senator DOMENICI. I am sorry that we cannot be here longer and exchange questions and views with you for a little while longer. But I am unable to do that. I have another appointment, and we are going to recess the hearings. If you would answer the questions that the staff gives you.

We will seek back that 1982 record and see if it is relevant to today, and if it is we will insert some of it as if delivered by you again today, 4 years later. Is that fair enough?

Mr. CHERNOCK. Yes, fair enough.

Senator DOMENICI. We stand adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the hearing was adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.]

I am responding to your May 7, 1986 request to answer questions
arising out of my testimony before your subcommittee on May 5, 1986.
I am happy to respond and thank you again for the opportunity to
testify on behalf of the National Association of Regulatory Utility
Commissioners (NARUC) on the very important national issue of high-level
nuclear waste disposal.

In addition to answers to these questions, I also answer one
that may follow from a question you asked during my appearance.

It is true that the monthly burden on a single ratepayer's pocketbook
for high-level nuclear waste disposal is small; but that is a misleading
indicator, an approach we recognize has been used so often that
it is almost as an institution in itself.

I am aware of a rising opinion that the significant funds
derived from the small current disposal assessment rates will not
be sufficient to do the job. In some cases, I believe the assertion
of the "small amount" is counterproductive and looked upon as the
hollow promise of one spending someone else's money.

As another example of the "pennies-per-day" approach consider
the agony the federal government is now suffering and that you
personally are deeply involved with, the national debt. It certainly
does not reflect the national concern by, nevertheless correctly,
noting a desired annual debt of $100 billion equates to "only"
60¢ per hour for the average U.S. worker.

Honorable Pete V. Domenici
May 20, 1986

Page 2

Despite the low assessment in units of dollars per unit electricity per unit of time, the total amount of funds is enormous, as you know. Yet, even at this present overall rate of expenditure of

a large portion of one billion dollars per year, there is no guarantee that it will be sufficient. We are well aware of the early estimated costs of nuclear electricity in comparison with the present gloomy to disastrous costs of individual plant outputs. Furthermore, it could be that the future of nuclear power is so limited, both by public aversion and rising costs, that there will be far fewer future kilowatt-hours over which to spread future disposal costs. Finally, you and I can mentally separate out of ratepayers' bills the cost of high-level disposal, but, in fact, ratepayers cannot. They see in their bills the additional and growing charges for low-level waste disposal, added regulatory costs on nuclear plants which are sure to grow after the Chernobyl disaster, added costs for decommissioning and rising operating and maintenance charges, not to mention rising costs in the non-nuclear parts of utility operations, both in the present and the future for pollution control and ordinary costs of doing business.

While I do not wish to advance too negative a framework in which to evaluate disposal costs, it is important to recognize some of the subjective attitudes that surround this very difficult national task. My purpose is to contribute to a realistic evaluation of the disposal program and to pledge the assistance of the NARUC in contributing to a deliberate, cost-effective, safe and ultimately successful federal program.

I or

Thank you again for the opportunity to contribute. If I the NARUC can be of further assistance, please ask.

Answers of Edwyna G. Anderson

National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners

Hearing on U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
May 5, 1986

1. Q

A

NARUC is concerned that within DOE there may be some conflict of
interest between the waste management office and the Defense Program
Office. Furthermore, NARUC believes that the ratepayers may end up sub-
sidizing the disposal of defense waste. What should the appropriate
amount of contributions be from the Defense program in the Waste Fund?

The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners believes
that an analytical approach in which the defense and commercial programs
share in the cost savings that a combined repository (or two common
respositories) would produce is a reasonable approach. This approach has
historical and regulatory precedence among the nation's public utility
commissioners in that such a philosophy has been utilized in other tra-
ditional aspects of ratemaking. We do not, at present, promote a given
value but are aware, as you are, that analysis by the Edison Electric
Institute shows a value of about $10 billion as the defense share.

We must also caution that two other matters are integrally related to
the matter of an exact value. First, despite our concerns that rate-
payer interests have not been protected by the in camera negotiations
within the Department of Energy, we will await issuance of a proposal
for waste disposal cost sharing before asserting our conclusions as to
total value. The second concern is that, whatever value is concluded as
legitimate, it must contain several conditions that will make the de-

fense

O commercial break down contingent on both past and future events. These requirements for establishing and maintaining equity include