TUESDAY, MARCH 16, 1982. NUCLEAR FISSION AND WASTE MANAGEMENT WITNESSES SHELBY T. BREWER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY FRANK COFFMAN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR COMMERCIAL Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Secretary, we are pleased to have you back with us again and you may proceed as you wish. SUMMARY STATEMENT Mr. BREWER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is our second appearance before you this session and I would like to beg your indulgence for about five or ten minutes to give you an overview of the fiscal year 1983 budget, the President's nuclear policy statement and how the two fit together. If I could have the first slide. Mr. BREWER. This chart shows the total scope of my responsibilities in the Department of Energy. We have reactor development programs, advanced programs such as the LMFBR, the high temperature gas reactor and some technical work in the light water reactor fuel cycle area. In the reprocessing program, we have two parts-the breeder reprocessing element and light water reactor reprocessing. On the front end of the breeder fuel cycle we have the SAF line, which is a high speed, remote breeder fuel fabrication demonstration under construction at Hanford, Washington. We testified the other day on the enrichment program. Beyond current enrichment activities we have GCEP and the advanced isotope separation projects. We are also responsible for closing the back end of the fuel cycle in terms of disposing of the waste. I also have naval reactor development as part of my responsibility and, finally, space programs. There are three appropriation accounts that affect my total responsibility, the energy supply R&D appropriation, the enrichment appropriation and the atomic energy defense appropriation. There are four key elements to the President's nuclear policy statement. I would like to show you how these four elements fit together. The red blocks are the light water reactor fuel cycle elements. That is where we are now. We mine uranium, mill it, convert it to UF6. We enrich UF6 in U-235. That is a Federal activity. Private industry fabricates the enriched uranium into fuel rods. The fuel rods are irradiated and create energy in the reactor plant. They are removed from the reactor and stored for some period of time at the reactor site. Reprocessing in this country does not exist yet. Reprocessing permits us to recycle the uranium through the light water reactor fuel cycle. The Department is also responsible for disposing of the waste which is shown in green. We will immobilize the waste after it is reprocessed, store it temporarily, and dispose of it in an ultimate geological repository. The ultimate fission energy system, the breeder, is shown in blue. The breeder connects with the light water reactor system in two ways. First of all, the depleted tails from the LWR enrichment activity, which are essentially all U-238, represent several hundred years of energy for this country. Also, reprocessing light water reactor fuel provides a stockpile of plutonium to start up the breeder. The breeder fuel cycle is shown in blue-fabrication, the reactor, storage of the fuel and fast breeder reprocessing. Again, there is a plutonium stream going back to the stockpile. In both cases our plan is to dispose of the solidified waste in an ultimate repository. You can see that these four elements, which envision the symbiotic energy system 20 or 30 years hence, are one to one with the elements of this chart. This is what the pioneers 30 years ago envisioned and that is the strategy we are now trying to get back to. One of the charges against the nuclear program, Mr. Chairman, is that we are the big hog at the trough. I would like to walk you through the major architecture of the nuclear budget. The total nuclear budget is about $3.4 billion, of which almost $.4 billion is in the naval reactors area under the Defense appropriation. About $2 billion is expended on enrichment activities. Those expenditures are offset, as you know, by revenues of about $2 billion. So the total energy supply R&D budget is about $1 billion. Of this $1 billion, only $670 million is directed at programs which have some commercial potential. That is to say, we have an operational responsibility to conduct the waste management program and to actually take the waste at some point in time. So that is an operational responsibility like enrichment is an operational responsibility. We also have a statutory responsibility to do the remedial actions programs and clean up the mill tailings and so forth, and we have an operational responsibility to conduct the space nuclear program as a service to the Department of Defense and NASA. My point here is that $670 million is roughly what one could consider a discretionary expenditure for high risk, long term, high national benefit programs. If we focus, Mr. Chairman, on the $670 million, you can see, in this chart, the comparison between fiscal year 1982 and fiscal year 1983, and the message is that, we are down a little over $100 million in the energy R&D account. The first line is the breeder program, some elements of which are Clinch River, at $253 million, the fabrication demonstration at about $10 million, the breeder base program at about $234 million, the light water breeder reactor termination cost of about $42 million, all adding up to $578 million. The converter reactor program is down sharply from $96 million to $32 million. The fuel cycle program, which includes the breeder reprocessing demonstration and spent fuel technology is up about $7 million. But the total is down from 796 to 670, in other words, there is about a 16 percent reduction between 1982 and 1983. This chart lists some of the reductions between 1982 and 1983. The Breeder Base program is down $106 million. The converter reactor program is down $64 million. Much of that is the HTGR, which was eliminated in the budget request by OMB. The LWBR program is down $10 million, which is to fund termination. The RERTR program, that is the reduced enrichment test reactor program will be picked up by the Arms Control Defense Agency, so we have zeroed it from our budget. In summary, Mr. Chairman, the Breeder request is down. The converter program request is down. The space program-the advanced nuclear systems program-is down. Remedial actions is up slightly. Fuel cycle is up about $6 million. Commercial nuclear waste is shown down in this chart but it is picked up in the nuclear waste disposal fund on the bottom line. This concludes my formal testimony, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to respond to questions. [The statement of Mr. Brewer is included at the conclusion of the hearing.] NRC AND CRBR Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Secretary, a short time ago the Nuclear Regulatory Commission voted 3 to 2 to deny the Department of Energy's request for a limited work authorization to permit accelerated construction of the Clinch River Breeder reactor. Can you tell us why the NRC denied this request? Mr. BREWER. Mr. Chairman, the basis for the NRC decision has not yet been documented and published, but based on Commission meetings on this subject I believe that a fair summary of the position of the three Commissioners who voted against our request is that they felt that acceleration of the Clinch River project was not in the public interest. Let me explain. There are four factors which they were required by 10 CFR 50.12 to consider; the environmental impact of the action, redressability of the environmental impact, foreclosure of alternatives and public interest. We based our case on public interest on cost savings to the American taxpayer. Our estimate was $120 million to $240 million in savings if we were allowed to enter the site and start excavation this spring rather than 18 months later. The three Commissioners apparently disagreed that this savings was in the public interest and so they voted against our request. Mr. BEVILL. Apparently, one of the Commissioners, Commissioner Ahearne, did not feel that your application met the standards that would be required of a public utility and that your justification for accelerated construction was sloppy and inadequately supported. And I am quoting Mr. Ahearne on that. Why is it that the Department of Energy with all its years of AEC and ERDA experience cannot adequately justify a program that has been underway for many years? Mr. BREWER. Mr. Chairman, our submission to NRC, was quite adequate and I feel that we made our case in the best possible way. We will submit a detailed report of the NRC denial for the record and a summary and analysis of the DOE submission. [The informaton follows:] SUMMARY OF DOE'S REQUEST FOR NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AUTHORIZATION TO CONDUCT SITE PREPARATION ACTIVITIES Request: On November 30, 1981, DOE requested authorization from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), under Section 50.12 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, to conduct site preparation activities for the CRBR project. Coapplicants: The request was filed by DOE, for itself and on behalf of its coapplicants, the Project Management Corporation and the Tennessee Valley Authority. Scope of work: The scope of work covered by DOE's request included site clearing, grading and excavation, and construction of temporary support and service facilities, including roads, a railroad spur, a concrete plant, a barge unloading facility, a fire protection system, and a storm drainage system. These activities would have been performed on approximately 260 acres of the 1,364 acre site beginning in March 1982. Benefits: The delay imposed by the previous Administration's April 1977 proposal to cancel the project has added approximately $800 million to the cost of the project. NRC's approval of the request would have advanced the Congress' and Administration's policies of expeditious project completion by permitting redressable site preparation activities to proceed while preserving all elements of NRC's environmental, safety, and hearings processes. Approval would have advanced the schedule by 1 to 2 years and resulted in a cost sayings of $120 to $240 million. Regulation: DOE's request for authorization to conduct site preparation activities was in full accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations 10 CFR § 50.12. The regulation provides that the NRC may grant such authorization upon consideration and balancing of the following factors: (1) The environmental impacts of the proposed site preparation activities; (3) Whether the activities would for close alternatives; and (4) The effect of delay on the public interest. NRC's approval would not have constituted a commitment to issue a construction permit; all relevant environmental, safety, and public hearings processes would have been conducted. Basis: DOE's submission provided the following basis for approval of the request: 1. NRC's Final Environmental Statement has already concluded that the environmental effects of the site preparation activities would be insignificant. Current analysis confirms that this conclusion holds true today. 2. No safety-related construction is involved and no reasonable alternatives would have been foreclosed. 3. Redress of the activities, if necessary, could have been accomplished promptly and at modest cost. 4. The project is in an advanced state of completion. Design is about 90 percent complete and approximately 60 percent of the required plant hardware is completed or on order. The project is in a position to begin site clearing and construction upon receipt of the necessary approvals from the NRC. The public interest would therefore have been served by avoiding an additional delay of 1-2 years, which would undermine this demonstration project and the Nation's preparedness for longer term energy needs and by saving taxpayers $120 to $240 million. Mr. BEVILL. When you get that detailed report from the NRC I would like for you to submit that for part of the record and also comment on what they did wrong and what you did right. Mr. BREWER. Yes, sir; I will be happy to. Mr. Bevill. And be honest and tell us what you did wrong and what they did right. Mr. BREWER. Yes, sir. [The information follows:] The following is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Order of March 16, 1982, denying the Department's request pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12 for authorization to conduct site preparation activities: |