DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY BUDGET 

AND REORGANIZATION 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AXD :MINERAL R.ESOuR.CES 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY BUDGET AND REORGANIZATION 

72-697 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC 

JUNE 8, 1993 

Serial No. 103-30 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1993 

For sn lc by the U.S. Govcmment Printing Offi ce 

Superintendent of Documents, Co gre s~ io nal Sales Office, Washi ngton, DC 20402 

ISBN 0-16-041602-7 

72-697 0 - 93 - l 
COMMI'ITEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman 

PHILIP R. SHARP, Indiana DON YOUNG, Alaska, 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts Ranking Republican Member 

AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

NICK JOE RAHALL II, West Virginia BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon 

RON DE LUGO, Virgin Islands CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

RICHARD H. LEHMAN, California JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

Samoa KEN CALVERT, California 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota SCOTT MciNNIS, Colorado 

LARRY LAROCCO, Idaho RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii JAY DICKEY, Arkansas 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, Californill 

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 

Rico 

KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona 

KAREN SHEPHERD, Utah 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

LANE EVANS, Illinois 

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii 

THOMAS J. BARLOW Ill, Kentucky 

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin 

JOHN LAWRENCE, Staff Director 

RICHARD MELTZER, General Counsel 

DANIEL VAL KISH, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMI'ITEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES 

RICHARD H. LEHMAN, California, Chairman 

PHILIP R. SHARP, Indiana BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada 

AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania Ranking Republican Member 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

NICK JOE RAHALL II, West Virginia JOHN T. DOOLI'ITLE, California 

LARRY LAROCCO, Idaho WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia SCOTT MciNNIS, Colorado 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

THOMAS J. BARLOW Ill, Kentucky 

DEBORAH VON HOFFMANN LANZONE, Staff Director 

DEAN TOUSLEY, Counsel 

LAUREN 8CHARFMAN, Clerk 

CHRISTOPHER KEARNEY, Republican Consultant on Energy 

(II) 
CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held: June 8, 1993 ............................... .......................................... ... ......... 1 

Member statements: 

Hon. Richard H. Lehman ....... ................................. ....................... ....... ........... 1 

Hon. Barbara F. Vucanovich ........................................................................... 2 

Hon. Larry LaRocco .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. . .. .. .. .... .. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. . 4 

Hon. Craig Thomas .......... ....... ............ ............... .......................... ....... ........ .... . 4 

Witness statement: Hon. Hazel R. O'Leary, Secretary, Department of Energy . 5 

APPENDIX 

JUNE 8, 1993 

Additional material submitted for the hearing record from: Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, Committee on Natural Resources: 1. Post-hearing questions for Secretary O'Leary from Chairman Lehman 

and responses ..... .............. ... ........................................ ....... ......... ........ .... ...... 29 

2. Post-hearing questions from Hon. Bill Richardson, chairman of the 

Native American Affairs Subcommittee, and responses ............................ 42 

3. Post-hearing questions from Hon. Larry LaRocco and responses .. ......... 45 

4. Post-hearing questions from Hon. Barbara F. Vucanovich and re- sponses ........................................................................................................... 62 

(III) 

THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY BUDGET AND 

REORGANIZATION 

TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1993 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES, 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m. in room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Richard H. Lehman 

(chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD H. LEHMAN 

Mr. LEHMAN. Good morning. The Subcommittee on Energy and 

Mineral Resources is meeting today to review the nuclear energy 

programs of the Department of Energy. Our sole witness this 

morning is Secretary of Energy, Hazel O'Leary. Madam Secretary, it is really a great pleasure to welcome you 

this morning. Thank you so much. The Department of Energy programs within the Subcommittee's purview include the Nuclear 

Waste Disposal Programs, both high and low level, the Uranium 

Enrichment Program, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, nuclear energy research and development, the Uranium Mill Tailing Remedial Action Program and the West Valley Demonstration Project. Madam Secretary, I believe that yours is one of the most difficult 

jobs in our Federal Government. You have taken over an agency 

that quite frankly has to date less than a stellar record, particularly in the function that is now the department's primary work: 

environmental management. Your immediate predecessor certainly 

made efforts to reform the department, but in the end it appears 

he did not succeed in his self-stated goal of changing the culture. 

The department is being buffeted by a fundamental change in 

one of its core missions-away from 50 years of nuclear weapons 

production and toward cleanup of the unfortunate environmental 

results of that production. The slow progress of the Nuclear Waste 

Disposal Program continues to frustrate virtually everybody. 

Operation of the Uranium Enrichment Program is about to be 

turned over to the new U.S. Enrichment Corporation. The DOE remains responsible for the massive cleanup at the old gaseous diffusion plants. 

Congress finally passed land withdrawal legislation for the 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant at the end of the last Congress, but the 

schedule for a test phase at WIPP is already falling behind that set 

out in the act. 

(1) 
2 

In general, relations between our Committee and DOE have not 

been very good in recent years-and it was not just because they 

were controlled by different political parties. I certainly hope and 

trust and know that we will be able to improve on that history. The 

work of the department is very important to our country. It is in 

all our interests that the agency be successful-and be perceived as 

successful-in fulfilling its mission. 

Madam Secretary, I wish you the best in bringing about that success and I look forward to working with you to make it so. My focus 

in this morning's hearing will be on the larger programs, namely 

nuclear waste management and uranium enrichment. I am especially interested in hearing about the apparent proposal to make 

the Nuclear Waste Fund a revolving fund and about your ongoing 

reassessment of the High Level Waste Program. I would also hope to get an update on the Russian weapons uranium deal and on progress toward transition of the Enrichment 

Program to the Enrichment Corporation. Again, I thank you for 

coming this morning. I certainly look forward to your testimony, 

and at this time I would like to recognize the Ranking Member of 

our Subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Nevada, Mrs. Vucanovich. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH 

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 

hearing and for recognizing me and I would like to welcome the 

Secretary to our Subcommittee. I look forward to hearing about the 

DOE programs under our jurisdiction, particularly the activities at 

Yucca Mountain: However, as an aside, Madam Secretary, I am 

quite concerned about the lack of responsiveness by your agency regarding a letter I sent to you on April 30th outlining a series of 

questions about Yucca Mountain. My staff received the answers 

very late last evening, too late to review in time for this hearing 

and certainly too late for me personally to review. I also was given 

no explanation for the delay. 

But of most interest and concern to me this morning, Mr. Chairman, is the May GAO report which concludes what we in Nevada 

have known for some time, that the DOE has been pursuing an unrealistic deadline in their activities at Yucca Mountain and compromising scientific study in the process. The GAO says that due 

to scientific uncertainties, the technical activities to characterize 

the site may take as long as 13 years longer than eApected. The GAO report also indicates that a MRS will not be ready by 

1998 and it calls for an independent review of the program. 

This report is very, very troubling. To me it highlights several 

disturbing issues. It points out that the DOE has wasted millions 

of dollars, has fallen far behind schedule and has not been honest 

about the pace of its activities, either with Nevadans or the Congress. The answer to this criticism from the DOE when the new administration took over was, let's step back and take a fresh, inde- pendent look at the program, as was heavily implied they would. 

But rather, DOE incredibly is proposing to move the Nuclear 

Waste Trust Fund ofT budget where the Congress would have less 

oversight and control and DOE would have almost unlimited control. 
3 

Perhaps most worrisome, but again not surprising, is that DOE, 

according to GAO, is attempting to meet the 2001 license application deadline by pressuring contractors to do less scientific work 

and to cut corners in the name of an absolutely phony and unrealistic deadline. 

There are some serious open technical issues that should be 

closely examined by DOE and not only are they not being examined, but perhaps they are being actively suppressed. For example, 

the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board has on several occasions raised concerns about DOE's strategy for dissipation of the 

tremendous heat that would be liberated by spent fuel over 10,000 

years. 

Has DOE taken note of these expert scientific concerns? No one 

would notice. It must be frustrating to sit on that advisory panel 

and listen to themselves talk with little or no scientific rebuttal 

from the DOE. 

One other concern. How about the case of the Ghost Dance fault? 

I think the geologist who first mapped this geological structure 

must have named it Ghost Dance knowing that the DOE would 

swear it is just a figment of someone's imagination. Well, the Technical Review Board is sufficiently interested in the afterlife to want 

the DOE to hold a seance so to speak. 

Let's determine whether this structure is real or imagined, not 

hide it under the rug of semiannual reports and talk of 

reconfiguring a repository design due to safety concerns. Is the 

Ghost Dance fault a zone for potential percolation of groundwater 

to repository depth or is it not? Could it have been a pathway for 

groundwater pumped upward by seismic and volcanic activity? 

The Ghost Dance fault issue highlights the fact that DOE is continuing on a path of reckless and irresponsible action at Yucca 

Mountain with continued digging and the purchase of a tunnel boring machine while outside groups, such as the NWTRB and the 

GAO call for an independent review of the entire program. Legislation I introduced this spring would call for freezing of the 

program whil~I am missing a page her~while an independent 

review of the National Academy of Sciences takes place. 

Mr. Chairman, I must say that based on all I read about Mr. 

Clinton during his campaign last year, I fully expected a completely different mind-set and approach to the injustice that has 

been done to my constituents with respect to this program. Sadly 

it appears that to this point I was mistaken. However, I remain optimistic that Mrs. O'Leary and President 

Clinton will see the wisdom in the analysis of the GAO and the 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board by appointing an outside 

review group to study the entire Nuclear Waste Program at DOE. 

Finally, I would urge this Committee and the Congress as a 

whole, in the strongest possible terms, to be ever vigilant and aggressive in its oversight of the DOE in this area. I would further 

urge that we oppose the revolving fund proposal for the foreseeable 

future until the DOE can return credibility to a program which 

currently has not a shred. 

Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Thank you, very much. 

Other Members have opening statements? 
4 

Mr. LaRocco. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY LaROCCO 

Mr. LARocco. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your holding this hearing. 

I want to welcome the Secretary to our Subcommittee. Welcome. 

My principal concern today is the Department of Energy's High 

Level Radioactive Waste Program. I am very much opposed to the 

department's continuing efforts to bring high level nuclear waste 

into the State of Idaho for storage at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. The Idaho National Engineering Laboratory has already accepted more than its share of high level, low level and 

transuranic nuclear waste. 

In fact, no other State in the entire Nation has received as much 

radioactive waste as Idaho. Last December, your predecessor, Admiral Watkins, asked Congress for legislation to require the department to select sites for high level radioactive waste by the end 

of 1993. 

In a complete break from current law, this move would end the 

ability of governors to say no to nuclear waste in their States. 

Those of us in Congress with national labs, military bases and 

other Federal nuclear facilities in our States and districts do not 

appreciate this nuclear sword of Damocles hanging over us. 

In fact, I believe this move by Admiral Watkins was akin to pulling the pin from a grenade, laying it down on the floor and walking 

out the door. Madam Secretary, I appreciate the fact that you have 

been involved in this issue at Northern States Power. I also understand the problem facing utilities in licensing on-site storage. 

While it is true that the Yucca Mountain project and voluntary 

MRS efforts have been slow to yield results, they are moving forward just the same. I do not believe these temporary setbacks are 

reason enough to seek out a military base, national lab or other 

Federal facility and turn it into a nuclear waste dump over the objections of local citizens and the state's elected officials. 

Madam Secretary, I implore you to take the Watkins plan off the 

table, put the pin back in the grenade, and reassure the citizens 

of my State and others that they will not be forced to take more 

out-of-State nuclear waste, and I have a couple of questions for 

Madam Secretary this morning and I have got a couple that I am 

going to submit in writing and appreciate the opportunity to make 

an opening statement, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Thank you very much. 

The gentleman from Wyoming. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS 

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Madam Secretary. 

I too don't have a prepared statement. I am interested, however, 

in your views and other's views in terms of the future of nuclear 

power and how that particular fuel will fit into your plans in the 

future and of course specifically then, if they-if it does play a role 

in the future, what your budget proposals are to continue to do 

that. 
5 

Obviously if you are going to have nuclear power in our future, we have to do something about the waste problem, and my general 

hope is that we would move towards getting it permanently settled 

as quickly as we can, otherwise that is not a viable alternative. I 

look forward to your statement. 

Welcome. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Miller. Mr. MILLER. I have no opening statement. 

Welcome, Madam Secretary, and I will reserve my time for questions. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Certainly. 

The gentleman from Colorado. Mr. ALLARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Likewise I don't have 

any prepared statement. I would just like to welcome the Secretary 

and look forward to her comments. 

Thank you. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Thank you. And with that, Madam Secretary, we 

will recognize you for your remarks. We will put your complete 

statement in the record and other materials you have for us and 

you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF HON. HAZEL R. O'LEARY, SECRETARY, 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Secretary O'LEARY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of 

this Committee. I very much looked forward to today, principally 

because I am well aware that at least in the last four years, relationships between the Department of Energy and this Committee 

could use some improvement, and I am hoping that over time and 

in a very short time we might seek to do that. I understand that 

I own a very large part of that burden. 

For that reason, I would apologize both for the lateness of the 

testimony arriving to the Committee and certainly with respect to 

Mrs. Vucanovich's issue. I do apologize for the lateness of the response to your questions and would tell you that one of this Secretary's priorities is to be able to turn the mail around much more 

swiftly. My sense is that I will be able to do that very shortly as 

there are hearings in the Senate Energy Committee to confirm or 

at least to review the confirmation of two additional Presidential 

appointments to the Department of Energy very shortly bringing 

the number to six. This pleases me and certainly will help us with 

respect to moving our important work. 

I want to start my formal comments by attempting to address an 

issue which by the very nature of the comments made by Members 

of this Committee we all recognize addresses one of the more contentious areas for the Nation and certainly for the Committee and 

the Department of Energy. 

I want to start by pointing out the obvious. When you look at the 

budget of the Department of Energy, our Administration has very 

dramatically reshaped its priorities and come to some conclusions 

about which there is not unanimous agreement. That would be that 

the long-term future of commercial nuclear power is quite dubious, 

occasioned by the fact that we have not been able to address adequately the back end of the cycle. For that reason, as we project 

the need for government support for research and development and 
6 

support of commercial nuclear generation, we have dramatically reduced that budget by some 45 percent. In anyone's mind that is 

quite dramatic. 

That permits us to do two things that, in my view, must be done. 

Number one, concentrate more thoroughly and completely on the 

waste issues, both with respect to high-level civilian use and, certainly, with respect to our defense production waste. At the same 

time, it permits us, as one looks and examines our budget, to more 

carefully define our future and how we progress with respect to 

cleanup from the 50 years of weapons production. For this side of 

the budget, those are certainly the highlights. 

In discussing the High-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

Program, it is clear to me that we are not going to satisfy everyone 

on this Committee by continuing to focus on the mandates that are 

before us. That is to continue to characterize the site at Yucca 

Mountain. 

The Secretary and the Department of Energy has no alternative 

in this regard, as that is the law of the land. The things I think 

we can and should be addressing are the issues with respect to the 

scientific concerns of citizens in the State of Nevada as that characterization continues. 

We have attempted to address that in this budget by quite frankly focusing additional funding on the scientific and technological 

study that goes on there. Having said that, I recognize that to another group of constituents, that causes concern because the criticism has been that there is too much time and energy spent there 

and not enough on creating the wherewithal to give us the answers 

about characterization. That means to continue the tunnelling at 

the site. 

My sense is that in the four years that I will be in this job, that 

that will continue to be the tension and my hope is that by being 

far more open with respect to planning and trying to share information in a more timely fashion, we will cut down some of the rancor in the system. 

I want to move quickly now to discuss some of the issues opened 

by Members of the Committee with respect to the Uranium Enrichment Corporation. Suffice it to say that the transition manager has 

been on board now for almost three months. The view from the department's perspective is that that relationship and the attempt to 

hand off responsibilities from the Department of Energy to this 

government corporation continue on course and we expect those 

transfers to take place on the 1st of July. 

We are now deeply involved in crafting language and finalizing 

details with respect to the lease agreement and my sense after 

careful review of that and spending some time with Nick Timbers, 

who is the transition manager, is that we proceed along the course 

with no unexpected bubbles and bumps along the way. Some have 

been concerned about the nature of the regulatory responsibility 

that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would take with respect 

to the new corporation on July 1, and I would publicly state for this 

Committee, what is well-known by everybody in the industry, that 

we have made what I believe is a good arrangement with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to have the Department of Energy for 

the interim term to be responsible for certification, that the re-
7 

quirements for health and safety are being met in the diffusion 

plants and at a time certain, when the NRC and the department 

are comfortable with the hand over responsibility, that will take 

place in an orderly fashion. 

My sense as the Secretary of Energy with responsibility for leadership and oversight of this transfer of responsibilities and authorities is that it goes as well as can be expected and I am at the moment feeling comfortable. 

Now, having said that, I recognize that there will be some last 

minute things that will perhaps cause me discomfort and what I 

can promise to this Committee is to report anything that might be 

a problem and share it with you immediately, but my sense at the 

moment is that everything is going on course. 

I think that I will at this point conclude my comments and open 

myself up for questions. This might meet the needs of the Members 

of the Committee. I want to once again pledge, first of all, my 

availability to this Committee, have you understand that this is a 

very dramatic and an almost violent shaking of responsibilities at 

the Department of Energy, with respect to our n·uclear determination and where we are going with research and development for the 

mid-term, not so much the long term, and certainly, if one looks at 

our defense budget, while the cut has not been as dramatic, there 

is certainly violently shifted responsibilities there. 

My final comment would be--because I know there will be questions about it-that in realigning the Department of Energy to 

match these new priorities, we have placed a high emphasis on nuclear safety, environmental health and safety, and the health and 

safety of our own employees, as well as contractors and citizens living near our sites. 

This Secretary would say for the record that my sense is that 

this is one of our highest priorities and put it right up there with 

the cleanup of our weapons production sites and the work that 

must be done with energy efficiency as well as handling the waste 

portion of the nuclear cycle. 

It is my pleasure to appear before you and I look forward to answering your questions. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Thank you very much. I appreciate your testimony 

greatly. 

[Prepared statement of Secretary O'Leary follows:] 
8 

STATEMENT OF HAZEL R. O'LEARY 

SECRETARY OF ENERGY 

BEFORE THE 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES 

JUNE 8, 1993 
9 

Statement of Hazel R. O'Leary 

Secretary of Energy 

before the 

House Committee on Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 

June 8, 1993 

OVERVIEW 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the Department's FY 1994 

budget request to fund its responsibilities with regard to 

nuclear energy issues. 

The Department of Energy's FY 1994 budget is responsive to the 

President's plan for achieving national economic renewal. Th e 

President has identified the Department of Energy as an integral 

part of his investment program and his deficit-reduction 

objective. As part of his longer-term investment strategy for FY 

1994-1998, the President has proposed to redirect the 

Department's research and development priorities. Increased 

emphasis has been placed on research and energy conservation; 

natural gas utilization, renewable energy sources and energy 

efficiency. As reflection of the priority change, the budget 

proposes elimination of the research and development funding 

support and re l ated facility funding for advanced nuclear reactor 

technology that has no near-term commercial application. The 

budget request, howev e r , retains a strong commi tment to the 

Department's responsibilities t o manage nuclear waste safely and 

efficiently . 

You have asked me, in your invitation, to respond to a number of 

specific questions regarding aspects of your Subcommittee's 

oversight and I have included the answers to those questions in 

my prepared statement. There are several discrete nuclear 

activities within the Department's program. They include 

management of high level radioactive waste in accordance with the 

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, nuclear energy research and 

development, the Uranium Enrichment Enterprise, and the generic 

issues of radioactive waste cleanup arising from weapons system 

activities, including the responsibility for uranium mill 

tailings remediation. The role of nuclear energy in the United 

States, today and in the future, remains controversial . Among 

these activities are some of the Department's most significant 

and difficult challenges. Nevertheless, the budget represents a 

consistent approach to the nuclear issue that addresses the most 

critical needs of the nuclear industry and its customers. 

This Administration has placed a high priority upon the 

responsibility to manage the nuclear waste that has resulted from 

commitments made in the past, both in the national defense 

efforts of World War II and the Cold War and in the tederal 
10 

initiatives that launched the civilian nuclear energy industry. 

The budget provides funding to pursue the Congressionally 

mandated program for the disposal of spent fuel from civilian 

nuclear powerplants and processed high level waste from the 

weapons program. 

The Department's responsibilities for uranium enrichment in 

support of the commercial nuclear energy industry are being 

transferred to the newly established U.S. Enrichment Corporation 

as directed by the Congress in the Energy Policy Act of 1992. 

Despite the complexity of the transfer and the short time 

provided, we are hopeful that a successful transfer will be 

completed by July 1, and that a strong corporate structure will 

be created that will ultimately fulfill the Congressional goal of 

full privatization. 

Within the current fiscal constraints, the Administration has 

placed a much reduced priority upon Federal encouragement of 

future generations of civilian nuclear powerplants. We are 

continuing our cooperation with the nuclear power industry in 

development of a standardized design for the next generation of 

light water reactors. This design would provide the basis for 

commercial orders if the electric power industry should make the 

economic decisions to invest in nuclear powerplants in this 

decade . We have not continued funding for the development of 

advanced reactor technologies that do not have near term 

commercialization potential. Only actinide recycle technology, 

which holds a potential to benefit the high level nuclear waste 

disposal strategy, will be continued. 

Overlying the Department's nuclear strategy are more general 

management approaches that will help accomplish all of our 

objectives more efficiently. We have reorganized the Department 

to consolidate functions that relate to the Department's three 

major missions. Recognizing the integral role of nuclear energy 

within the national energy mix, the civilian nuclear waste 

management, nuclear research and development and our continuing 

involvement in uranium enrichment will be placed in the energy 

team. 

The Federal Government's role in nuclear energy continues to be 

essential, not only to the nuclear industry and it's direct 

beneficiaries, but also to all Americans who depend upon the 

electric power system and who share in the consequences of our 

responsibility to safely and efficiently manage nuclear waste. 

I will now highlight some specific program elements as you 

requested in your invitation. 

2 
11 

CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT 

The Department's mission with regard to spent nuclear fuel and 

high-level radioactive waste is to implement the Nuclear Waste 

Policy Act of 1982, as amended. Our fiscal year 1994 budget 

request for the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program is 

$380 million. This includes $260 million from the Nuclear Waste 

Fund, which is funded through fees paid by nuclear-generating 

utilities, and $120 million from the Defense Nuclear Waste 

Disposal appropriation. 

Our first priority in this program is Yucca Mountain site 

characterization and $262 million of our request is for those 

activities. In April 1993, I provided guidance to the Civilian 

Radioactive Waste Management Program to begin underground 

exploration at Yucca Mountain which is absolutely necessary to 

determine whether or not Yucca Mountain is suitable for a geologic repository. We expect to complete the 200-foot starter 

tunnel by the end of fiscal year 1993 and the budget request for 

fiscal year 1994 will permit tunneling of approximately 5,000 

feet into the Mountain by the end of fiscal year 1994. We expect 

to begin next spring tunnel boring with a 25-foot tunnel-boring 

machine for.which we just last month awarded the contract. The 

budget will permit us to continue necessary surface-based 

drilling and to complete two deep boreholes for downhole testing 

below the water table and 17 shallow boreholes for natural infilt~ation studies, as well as permit some drilling on two 10-

hour shifts. In addition, this budget request will permit us to 

achieve closure at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff level on extreme erosion, eliminate volcanism as a site disqualifier, 

and complete preparation and present to the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission rationale to support the initiation of the seismic 

hazard issue resolution topical report. 

Also, as a result of my guidance to the program in April, in 1994 we are requesting $15.7 million in the spent fuel storage area that focuses on development of a multipurpose canister system 

concept that would provide canisters for storage, transportation, 

and eventually, disposal. In fiscal year 1994, this funding 

level will permit us to complete conceptual design and initiate 

certification design for a multipurpose canister. We will focus 

less on Monitored Retrievable Storage except to support voluntary siting activities. 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND WASTE MANAGEMENT 

The Administration is firmly committed to honor the government's 

obligation to clean up the DOE nuclear weapons complex in order 

to protect our environment and the health and safety of our citizens. This is coupled with the determination to achieve 

those objectives as efficiently and cost-effectively as possible. 

3 
12 

In your letter of invitation to testify, you indicated several 

environmental restoration projects which I will now discuss in 

detail. 

waste Isolation Pilot Plant 

With the enactment of the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act in FY 1993, 

many new statutory requirements were imposed on DOE, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and other Federal 

agencies. The FY 1994 request allows the Department to meet its 

Land Withdrawal Act requirements and to continue moving toward a disposal decision, while maintaining the readiness of the WIPP 

site to begin and conduct a Test Phase with limited quantities of 

transuranic waste when all statutory conditions have been met. 

The FY 1994 request of $214.2 million also encompasses funding 

for the continuation of performance assessment and modeling 

activities and ongoing non-radioactive tests and laboratory 

studies. A large portion of this request will allow the 

Department in FY 1994 to initiate key tests, such as the Los 

Alamos source term experiment, that the National Academy of 

Sciences view as critical to the demonstration of the suitability 

of the WIPP site as a repository. 

Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRAl Project 

The Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project has been 

conducting remedial actions si nce 1983 . Of the 24 sites, 

remediation has been completed at 10 and remediation is under way 

at 8 additional sites in 1993. The sites completed or underway 

account for 89 percent of the total material to be remediated. 

Also, over 90 percent of the more than 5,000 vicinity properties 

have been cleaned up. The remaining 6 sites are in advanced 

stages of design and will be started in Fiscal Years 1994 through 

1996. The Congressionally mandated authority for the project 

ends September 1996. All sites will be completed or underway by 

that date, but several may not be completed until Fiscal Year 

1997. 

In 1988, Congress amended the Act to provide additional time and 

authority for DOE to remediate ground water at the 24 sites. In 

Fiscal Year 1991 the first funds were appropriated for the ground 

water project. The standards currently proposed by the 

Environmental Protection Agency provide regulatory flexibility 

that do not necessarily require cleanup at all of the sites. The 

Department is currently preparing a Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement for the uranium Mill Tailings Ground Water 

Project that will present a strategy for achieving regulatory 

compliance but will not necessarily require costly cleanup at 

many of the sites. The current schedule to finalize that 

document is FY 1994. 

4 
13 

West Valley Demonstration Proiect 

In FY 1993, DOE will continue to process liquids from the first 

sludge washed through the Integrated Radwaste Treatment System 

and to prepare the Phase II Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 

During FY 1994, the Department expects to complete the first 

three sludge wash operations and conclude the vitrification 

mechanical-electrical contract. The Department will complete the 

construction, checkout, and testing of the NOx (Nitrous Oxide) 

System and the Vitrification Facility in FY 1995. Also in FY 

1995, the Phase II Final Environmental Impact Statement will be 

published. Vitrification hot operations are scheduled to begin 

in FY 1996. We are requesting $124 million for our FY 1994 

activities. 

National Low-Level Waste Management Program 

The National Low-Level Waste Program implements the 

responsibilities assigned to DOE by the Low-Level Radioactive 

Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1965 (Public Law 99-240). The 

Department provides continuing assistance to states and compact 

regions in meeting their responsibilities as outlined under this 

Act and also is developing a program for disposal of greater than 

Class C low-level radioactive waste from Nuclear Regulatory 

licensees. 

Attempts to establish low-level waste sites by the Department of 

Energy have proven to be somewhat less than successful. In spite 

of the incentives and penalties established in the Low-Level 

Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1965, it is clear that 

with the r~cent disapproval of the proposed Illinois site and the 

delays in the licensing process in California, no new sites can be . expected to open i n the immediate future. 

We will however continue to assess the State/compact compliance 

and begin the return of rebates as required by Public Law 99-240. 

This issue has been under review by the Department's Office of 

General Counsel for sometime now. We are committed to completing 

the analysis as a priority action in preparation for a Federal 

Register notice on our final position to be issued this month. 

We will complete several analyses of economic and institutional 

issues related to viable disposal options for greater-than-Class 

C low-level waste. In FY 1994, our request of $11.4 million will 

provide the resources for this program to continue to be focused on technical assistance being requested by states and compact 

regions and on acceptance by the Department, of greater than 

Class-C low-level waste. 

5 

72-697 0 - 93 - 2 
14 

NUCLEAR ENERGY 

The Office of Nuclear Energy has the responsibility for ensuring 

that nuclear power can continue to make a significant 

contribution to the Nation's energy needs. In setting budget 

priorities for energy programs, within the constraints of deficit 

control, the Administration has reduced the emphasis on research 

into advanced nuclear technologies in favor of emphasis on 

conservation and renewable energy sources. The nuclear R&D 

program includes $84.7 million for termination activities and 

$182.2 million for continued program activities as compared to 

our FY 1993 level of $345.4 million for program activities. 

Our civilian reactor R&D budget gives priority to advanced light 

water reactors, which have more potential for near-term 

application. Our goal is to achieve standardized designs which 

hav e been certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission . 

The ALWR program is a Gov ernment-industry cooperative program 

with a minimum of 50 percent share by the private sector. It 

will lead to resolution of all safety issues, with full public 

participation prior to begi nning construction and it will provide 

for standardization of designs, which will result in a better 

estimate of the cost of the plant prior to construction. Funds 

for Li ght Water Reactor program activities will permit receipt of 

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's certification of all four 

-Advanced Light Water Reactor de s igns by 1996. Also, the funds 

will s upport standardized Advan ced Light Water Reactor designs by 

1996 wi t h an addit ional $157 million from industry, and will 

permit demonstration of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's 

license renewal process which, if successful, could support the 

continued safe and efficient operation of many of these power 

plants for up to 2 0 years beyond the period of their current 

licens es. Projections indicate that 66 GWe could come from the 

renewal of licenses for currently operating powerplants . 

In keeping with the Administration's policy of curtailing funding 

for nuclear R&D which has no near term commercial application, 

the Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor design and the Modular High 

Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor design programs will be canceled. 

The facilities at Argonne National Laboratory-West, Idaho used to 

support these research and development programs, and nuclear 

energy operations at the Energy Technology Engineering Center in 

California, will also be phased out. The budget request for FY 

1994 includes $84.7 million for shutdown and closeout activities. 

The only advanced reactor program remaining will be the actinide 

recycle technology demonstration program. The actinide recycle 

program will evaluate the technical and economic feasibility of 

an innovative nuclear fuel cycle technology. The Fuel Cycle 

Facil ity and the Analytical Laboratory at Argonne National 

Laboratory-West will be operated to support the actinide recycle 

6 
15 

program. The actinide recycle funding request is $15 . 0 million 

in FY 1994; $6.9 million is requested in the facilities budget 

for continued operation of the required facilities. 

URANIUM ENRICHMENT 

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 transferred most uranium enrichment 

functions from the Department to the newly established United 

States Enrichment Corporation, effective July 1, 1993. The 

responsibility for production and marketing of enriched uranium 

will transfer to the Corporation, although the Department will 

continue to own the gaseous diffusion plants where the uranium is 

enriched. The Corporation will lease the facilities from the 

Department, and will reimburse the Department for the cost of 

administering the lease. In addition, the Department will have an ongoing oversight role of the operation as well as responsibility for some facilities that will not be leased by the 

Corporation. 

Environmental remediation responsibilities related to preexisting conditions resulting from enrichment operations 

conducted by the Department prior to July 1, 1993, remain the 

responsibility of the Department. Funding to be provided from 

the newly established Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and 

Decommissioning Fund will assist in paying for the remediation. 

Included in the FY 1994 budget request for the Office of Nuclear 

Energy Uranium Enrichment Program is $160.0 million for the final 

demand charge payment to the Tennessee Valley Authority as part 

of a July 1987 contract settlement. 

CONCLUSION 

The FY 1994 budget process has initiated the redirection of 

Departmental priorities. Further work will be required. To that 

end, I launched a comprehensive policy review of all critical 

Departmental missions. I expect this review to contribute to a rethinking of the Department's fundamental responsibilities, and 

how those responsibilities are carried out. My aim is to build a strong consensus among internal and external parties on Departmental priorities, ways of achieving results rather than 

merely managing programs, and means to a more comprehensively 

coordinated energy policy among departments and agencies. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the FY 1994 budget request for the 

Department of Energy, and particularly the programs I have 

discussed in this statement are sound and balanced, and provides 

strong support for our missions. I look forward to working with 

Congress to enact this budget. 

7 
16 

Mr. LEHMAN. Under the Energy Policy Act that we passed last 

year, the Uranium Enrichment Enterprise is going to be transferred to the U.S. Enrichment Corporation. I believe that is scheduled to happen in about three weeks. 

Could you give us the status of that? Are we on schedule? Have 

board members been named? 

Secretary O'LEARY. Mr. Chairman, we are indeed on schedule 

and for the Department, on schedule has had to do with several 

pieces. Certainly the naming of board members, which continues to 

be an issue is now being reviewed by our Administration. My sense 

is that that will occur in due fashion. 

I don't want to mislead this committee that that will occur exactly on July 1. My sense is that it cannot occur on July 1st because the number of processes which must be gone through before 

formal nominations can be made. But we are very much in the 

process from the Department's point of view of discussing a list of 

names of people who might be nominated for the five positions. 

In my own view, more importantly, the process issues involving 

the transfer of responsibility from the Department of Energy to the 

new Enrichment Corporation are very well on track, most of those 

being bound up in the lease agreement, which is now in negotiation 

between the Department and the transition director's office. And 

those are very much on track and I am, as I indicated earlier, feeling as comfortable as one can feel when you are in the midst of 

such an intricate passing off of responsibilities and authorities. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Very good. And how will the regulation of gaseous 

diffusion plants be handled in the interim until the NRC sets up 

some standards? 

Secretary O'LEARY. Well, the Department of Energy is establishing its own set of standards and procedures which, while we have 

talked about them and used some expertise on staff at the NRC 

and others to establish, I don't want to lead this Committee to 

think that they are blessed by the NRC. 

We spent some time over the last four or five months that we 

have been in office reviewing with staff and then with the Chairman of the NRC what would be the most appropriate means of 

passing responsibility. After serious discussion with the NRC, the 

determination was that there should be this interim step where the 

Department maintains responsibility for oversight and in a time, 

which I hope will be as short as six months, when the Department 

can certify to the NRC that it is appropriate in our view for the 

pass off to take place, we will do so. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Thank you. With regard to WIPP, under the WIPP 

Land Withdrawal Act, DOE must submit a set of test plans to EPA 

before any tests involving wastes can be carried out. 

EPA has recently rejected the plans that DOE submitted. They 

said they were incomplete, I believe. Do you expect to be able to 

work out a test plan that is going to be agreeable to them over at 

EPA or is it more likely that you are going to proceed with tests 

that don't involve waste in place at WIPP? 

Secretary O'LEARY. I expect to be able to work out a plan that 

is agreeable to EPA. I say this for two reasons, and want to point 

out to you that I believe our Administration is working a little 

more closely with some of our sister agencies. Both administrative 
17 

secretaries, that is, Hazel O'Leary and Carol Browner, have discussed this issue and we agree that it can be solved. I am able to 

report to you that staff on both sides of the Mall have discussed 

this issue and we are very certain that a test plan can be worked 

out, which will be agreeable to EPA. In my view, looking back to 

the Carter Administration, when I had some responsibilities for 

working with EPA, I can tell you that the relationship is very much 

improved and it is because we spend time just talking to each other 

about issues rather than shooting our issues over the transom. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Do you share your predecessor's opinion that it is 

necessary to place wastes at the WIPP facility in order to show 

compliance? 

Secretary O'LEARY. My sense, Mr. Chairman, is that while it is 

not absolutely necessary, it would be useful to be able to place 

some small amount of waste, but I am very well aware of the impression that was left under the last Administration that the plans 

for using large amounts of waste to test out the reliability of the 

plan struck many as being an apology for creating a repository. 

I am well aware of that fact and will tread very cautiously on 

that edge to the point of reducing the amount of waste that we are 

now recommending, such that the complaint is now on the other 

side. So once again, we are in the middle in trying to handle this 

in a very responsible way. 

Mr. LEHMAN. You propose using less wasteSecretary O'LEARY. That is correct. 

Mr. LEHMAN [continuing]. Than your predecessor? 

Secretary O'LEARY. That is correct. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Does that mean that some of the other costs, like 

staffing, would be less? 

Secretary O'LEARY. Well, unhappily, the size of the waste to be 

managed does not reduce the requirement to staff dramatically so 

that one accomplishes a large savings. I think rather the way we 

are going to accomplish savings and we have begun to identify 

them now, is to look at redundancies in our system and how we 

might manage both our contract relationships and our people in a 

way that simply cuts out redundancy and is more efficient. 

I wouldn't so much look for it here but I think you have every 

right to look to the Department to hand up those savings and I will 

commit that we will do that. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Thank you. With regard to high level waste, you 

recently recommended that we take the Nuclear Waste Fund off 

budget, and I believe you submitted that to Mr. Panetta over there 

at OMB. That would leave us with a-I guess a hole in the budget 

of $300 million. 

Do you have any idea as to how we ought to make that up? 

Secretary O'LEARY. Well, my sense is, one, that the revolving 

fund had sat out there, and I want to be very careful with this because my administration has no point of view. The Secretary has 

a point of view and I want to make that very clear. You will hear from me perhaps shortly in a more official way. I 

hope we will be singing the same tune, sir, but my sense at the 

moment is since we have used that fund rather as a paper account, 

that we ought to focus on how we can continue the sense that the 

revolving fund is available for the balancing of the budget or to be 
18 

used as offset against deficit, while at the same time permitting 

the Department access, at least to those funds that represent future revenues and the interest. Ai3 has been pointed out in several 

discussions, you would recognize it this year, the budget request for 

the High-Level Civilian Nuclear Waste Fund is less than the interest earned on the fund to date. 

I recognize once again, as is always the case with these waste issues, that this is not an easy issue and there will be people on each 

side of it. And I will look forward to being able to address this issue 

in a more formal manner when my Administration has come to 

some conclusion on it. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Do you want to address the GAO report? They 

didn't really put the cabash on the revolving fund but they did find 

some objections to loosening up the purse strings before some management issues had been resolved. 

Secretary O'LEARY. I would express that, and I am also well 

aware of the tension created in the Congress when it would appear 

that by taking the fund off budget, Congress now has no authority 

to dictate and direct how money should be spent. Once again, it occurs to me that there might be a process that helps us address this 

issue. 

With respect to the GAO findings, it would be very convenient 

for me to simply look back and say, well, that was another Administration, but I am not that foolish any longer. We are almost six 

months into it. 

Clearly the issues involving management and some of the concerns with respect to whether there has been enough scientific 

work, whether the technical work has been appropriate, or answers 

the correct questions, remains an issue to be opened. 

I will say now, for the record, that early on in my confirmation 

hearing when I talked about some study of the management of this 

program, I seemingly created for myself lots of discomfort. On the 

one hand by suggesting that the first review ought to take place 

in the Department of Energy so that the Secretary, not with an attitude from an outsider, but suddenly the person responsible now 

for the overall program, understood what was going on and had opportunity to review all that the staff had done over the years that 

we are accomplishing and will continue to accomplish. 

With respect to the so-called outside and independent review 

which I spoke of. It had then, and it continues to be my opinion, 

that I thought that a review might occur with the many groups of 

people who were dissatisfied with the management of this program 

over the past five or six years, might come together in what I called 

the consensus process and look at some facilitation that might lead 

to a discrete examination of all of the data that now exists with 

studies that have been done of this program, and might take a look 

at two issues. 

Number one, what is to be done in the short term from 1998 to 

the year 2010, and more importantly, where do we go and how does 

one pronounce the progress and the continuation of the work at 

Yucca Mountain. I am today in a position to tell you that groups 

of people representing a broad spectrum of interests have attempted to come together in a consensus mode using the Keystone 

Center as their facilitator. 
19 

My sense, just at the beginning of this week is that, as is always 

the case with these "dialogues," the beginning has not been auspicious. What has been reported to me is that there is a real inclination on the part of all involved, and I would call that States, industry, regulators, community groups and environmentalists, to look 

at the first issue, i.e., what do we do and how do we do it to meet 

the need from 1998 to the year 2010. And I think that will go forward. 

Of greater concern to me is that there appears to be no desire 

on the part of all people who came to the table to go forward to 

take a hard look at what is going on at Yucca Mountain. That now 

raises once again the question of the "independent review." Finding 

myself in that place, it is clear to me that I have got to go back 

and come up with another suggestion. 

My sense is that I would hope that the Keystone process can continue. If it does not, it is clear to me that I have got to respond 

to that issue in another way and I would hope to do it within the 

next month. 

Mr. LEHMAN. I am sure we will continue a discussion of Yucca 

Mountain in a second when I recognize Mrs. Vucanovich. But I just 

want to be clear though on the proposal to OMB; that would mean 

that the expenditures over there would not be subject to an appropriation by us; is that correct? 

Secretary O'LEARY. My sense, Mr. Chairman, is yes, that is correct, in that that Committee and no other Committee who has appropriations oversight is going to be very comfortable with that fact 

of life. We need to come up with some process that gives you a high 

level of comfort or some level of comfort. 

Mr. LEHMAN. And a further concern, beyond just removing it 

from the appropriations process, would be that we might lose our 

ability to---eertainly for the degree of control we have now, but also 

maybe even for oversight. 

Secretary O'LEARY. My sense is that it is not in the Nation's best 

interest for you to lose ability for oversight, nor would it be in my 

best interest. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mrs. Vucanovich. 

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and the 

discussion about the independent review, I am not certain just 

where you are on this, considering that GAO and the Nuclear 

Waste Technical Review Board and the legislation I have introduced calling for independent review, your discussion with the 

Chairman, I am not sure. 

Are you saying you will look at that or is that something down 

the line or what are your plans about an independent review? I am 

not certain what your answer was. 

Secretary O'LEARY. From the very beginning, my intention had 

been that, number one, the Secretary had to undertake her own review. That was clear, and I came to the table understanding that 

and directing that that be done. Secondly, it was also clear to me that with respect to the many 

outside, third-party reviews that have taken place, that the individual reviews themselves got us nothing in terms of consensus from 

the various constituencies interested in these issues. 
20 

So whenever I spoke of independent review, I was consensus 

building, and perhaps I expressed myself poorly, but that had always been my concern and my desire. 

Now, I then focused on, "the so-called Keystone-like process" that 

was introduced by the National Association of Utility Regulators, 

and upon which many others appeared to be signing on. I thought 

there was great momentum to get that done. It now appears there 

is great momentum to do some thinking about nuclear waste issues, civilian nuclear waste issues for the, if you will, the mid-term, 

1998 to 2010, from that group, which would meet part of my requirement and expectation that there would be "an outside review." 

I was after consensus building. Where is the answer that doesn't 

keep us fighting with each other? I know that that sounds foolhardy but that is still my goal. 

With respect to the longer term and the focus on Yucca Mountain, it has been reported to me that this group of environmentalists, ratepayers, regulators, utility executives and government officials cannot reach consensus, that there even should be dialogue on 

that issue. 

So that puts me now in the dilemma of saying, I have got no new 

look or fresh look at Yucca, which I understand is something that 

you want very much. I am saying, where I go from here now very 

much depends upon whether the Keystone effort can be stimulated 

again, and I would like that to occur. 

If that does not occur, then I have a responsibility to try and 

have what you are calling an independent review and what I am 

now and have from the very beginning been calling a reaching of 

consensus with respect to all the data that is now on the table. I 

feel I have got to come back with something else. 

I also would like a month to determine whether or not the Keystone effort can be ongoing. Now, I will go further. I will tell you 

and the Committee entirely that there are two views in mind. 

Number one, we start again with another outside group, another 

commission, who will now examine the Yucca Mountain project, or 

we do something much more short term, much more accelerated so 

that we are not spending a year to come to conclusions again, over 

which generous and gentle and reasoned people will still differ. 

We will still have no consensus, which has always been my goal. 

If you will give me a month to figure out how to do that, one, I 

promise to come and talk to anyone who wants to talk to me about 

it and put together something that makes sense. I don't want to 

leave anyone with a misunderstanding. 

I have a mandate to continue to characterize the Yucca Mountain 

Site. It is my firm intention not to back off that mandate until and 

unless the Congress of the United States so directs me to do otherwise. 

Mrs. VucANOVICH. I understand what you are saying, Madam 

Secretary, and I am just talking about the Keystone effort, I am 

curious to know whether our State, the State of Nevada or any of 

the local affected governments, the counties, were invited or participated in that Keystone effort. 

Secretary O'LEARY. It is my understanding that, yes, they were 

invited. In my case, I specifically issued an invitation, and it has 

also been reported to me that, across the board with respect to the 
21 

State of Nevada, there was a disinclination, that is, the State declined to participate. 

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Just once more about the independent review, 

and I keep hearing about the slippage in the High Level Waste 

Program and if it is as severe as the GAO says, and I am looking 

at costs of the Yucca Mountain program, costs which a lot of people 

think are out of hand already. 

The estimated total cost today is $6.3 billion and some people are 

saying that it would grow another $1.8 billion if the program slips 

again. Again, how in the world can these costs be justified without 

an independent review? 

Now, you are asking for a month and I am perfectly willing to 

say that is legitimate, but I think it is a very serious consideration 

when we are looking at the costs of this program. 

Secretary O'LEARY. I am very comfortable with a very hard look 

at how monies are being spent and whether the Department is in 

point of fact getting value received for the dollars spent. For those 

of you who had absolutely nothing to do over the weekend, you 

could have read some testimony that I gave last week on the Hill 

with respect to how we intend to be managing all of our contract 

work, and the world is aware of the fact that this work is done 

principally through contractors. 

I believe that the Department itself must refine its processes for 

requiring work, for measuring that it has been done and it has 

been done in a quality way. I think in that regard the review that 

I have ongoing addresses that. 

It is also the work of the GAO to provide that kind of guidance 

to us and on many occasions, as the Secretary of Energy and this 

one included, has gone outside to take a look at that piece. In my 

own mind, in this month what I have got to do is discreetly pull 

apart functions and come back with a logical recommendation with 

respect to how we examine each one of these issues. I am very, 

very comfortable having anyone "audit the financial responsibility of the Department of Energy." 

I see that as a discrete issue, and I think you and I will agree, 

and this entire Committee and I will agree about how we will handle that. My issue then begins to be how redundant should the 

audit be, but clearly some review should take place. 

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Thank you. A couple of other questions, then 

I am going to submit the rest of them for the record. Can you assure the people of the State of Nevada that neither the test site, 

the Nevada test site, nor the Yucca Mountain site, would be the location of an interim nuclear waste storage facility? Is that under 

consideration at all? 

Secretary O'LEARY. One, it is clear to me that under the Act that 

now mandates all of our functions and behaviors, that that would 

not happen. I think that is it. 

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Doesn't the purchase of the tunnel boring machine reflect DOE's intention to pick Yucca Mountain as the site 

for the repository? 

Secretary O'LEARY. With respect-all that I know and have understood about this program leads me firmly to conclude, and always to be able to say without one blink of an eye, that the only 

way one can understand whether we can go forward with Yucca 
22 

Mountain is to complete the examination of the underground site. 

That was the purpose of the purchase of the machine and the tunneling, which must occur in order to permit us to come to the con- clusion of whether or not this is the appropriate site. Mrs. VUCANOVICH. One other question. Before I state the question, I know that you have mentioned visiting various sites, as a 

matter of fact all of the sites, and I have invited you by letter to 

visit Yucca Mountain and as Secretary, I would like to extend that 

invitation again. I am not certain whether you have been there before. 

Secretary O'LEARY. I have been to Yucca Mountain and I would 

be pleased to return. I have an outstanding commitment to the 

Governor to show up sometime this summer and I would--

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. I hope I have an opportunity to be with you 

there at the same time. 

Secretary O'LEARY. Thank you. And I would like very much to 

coordinate the planning for that trip so that we can be certain that 

you will be in attendance. 

Mrs. VucANOVICH. Thank you very much. One other question 

and then I will submit the rest of them for the record. 

What steps will you take to implement the recommendations of 

the May 27 GAO report? 

Secretary O'LEARY. We are beginning now to fully digest that report. I would like to be able to provide for the record, rather than 

to give you off the top of my head, exactly what has been planned 

and provide, as is required by the rules of this Committee, an interim answer and then share with you, in detail, step-by-step how 

we intend to implement the recommendations. 

[The information follows:] 

HIGH-LEVEL WASTE 

What steps will you take to implement the recommendations of the May 27 GAO 

Report? 

The referenced General Accounting Office Report recommends that the Secretary 

of Energy review the program's goals and objectives in the context of the present 

program's low funding priority for Yucca Mountain. Shortly after my confirmation, a review of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program was initiated that will address the General Accounting Office con- cerns. We met with many interested parties and reviewed numerous written reports 

related to the program. We found during this preliminary review that, the program 

needs to refocus its efforts to improve in two broad areas: increased emphasis on the highest quality scientific work and the more effective inclusion of external parties in program development and implementation. As part of my ongoing review, we will include a process for thoroughly airing critical issues facing the program with 

parties external to the Department. This consultative process will place special em- phasis on Governors and other elected or appointed officials with constituent responsibilities affecting the program. Any redirection of the program and subsequent revision of the program's technical, cost, and schedule baselines will occur after the re- view's completion. 

Mrs. VucANOVICH. Thank you, Madam Secretary, and thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Thank you. The gentleman from Idaho. 

Mr. LARocco. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I mentioned in my 

opening statement, I have some very serious concerns about the 

left-over policy from the Bush Administration. I am sure, Madam 

Secretary, you can anticipate my question with regard to the Wat-
23 

kins Plan, with regard to forced MRS, with regard to moving some 

waste to bases, nuclear facilities such as the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. 

What is your position on the old administration's plan? 

Secretary O'LEARY. To use the language that you have used, let 

us say that the grenade is a dud and I will put the pin in it as 

soon as possible. 

Mr. LARocco. Okay. Will you seek authorization from Congress 

for a forced MRS? 

Secretary O'LEARY. I have been very careful to try and not signal 

policy direction to be taken, principally because I am depending so 

much upon my firm hope that some consensus might be reached 

out of this dialogue that is just beginning. 

I think we have to give that process a fair time to bear some 

meaningful results and if that does not occur, it is clear to me that 

then our Administration has a responsibility to come forward with 

a recommendation, and I have every intention of doing that. 

In my own mind, I think we can give it six months. I think I 

have got to watch it and share with Members of this Committee 

whether progress is being made, and I intend to do that. 

Mr. LARocco. My next question will, I think, further indicate my 

concern about the facility at the INEL, and I have a copy of the 

Department's phase-out plan for the Idaho Chemical Processing 

Plant before me and it is dated October, 1992. The report describes 

current waste storage buildings at the INEL, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. 

In this report on page 101 the report says: 

The CPP-603 underwater fuel storage facility is a concern in several respects for 

continued fuel storage. The integrity of the concrete basin walls and fuel storage 

monorail system during a seismic event is a concern. There is no evidence that the 

building was designed using modem seismic criteria. Another concern is the observed corrosion of the fuel baskets and storage equipment. Recent inspections have 

revealed gross corrosion of the fuel baskets and yokes. The potential for a severe seismic event to cause a criticality has not been fully evaluated yet, but is a concern. A third concern is potential leakage through the basin walls into the environment. 

There is no indication that this has occurred but the concern increases as the facility ages. The general concern is the equipment failure rate, because much of the 

facility is well beyond the design life. Equipment failures are frequent and costly. 

The report goes on to say that the building was designed and 

built in the late 1940s and had a service life of 30 years. It also 

says that the Department's goal is to move the waste out of the 

building by the year 2005. 

What makes this even more amazing is the fact that nearby this 

building is a building that was built in 1984 that has available 

space to store the waste, yet the Department refuses to move the 

waste. It sounds to me that CPP-603 is a potentially leaky, outdated building that will have serious problems if Idaho has an 

earthquake before the year 2005. I know this is not acceptable to 

me and I can't believe it is acceptable to your Department. 

Is it possible, Madam Secretary, for the DOE to investigate options that will speed up the removal of this waste? 

Secretary O'LEARY. Yes, it is possible and I personally commit to 

you to do that. 

[The information follows:] 
24 

Yes. The phaseout of the three basins (North, Middle and South) in CPP-603 is 

proceeding. Actions are underway to place the fuel and the equipment in CPP-603 

into a safer configuration. When these recovery actions are complete, fuel compatible with storage in the new fuel facility (CPP-666) at the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant will be transferred to CPP-666. Some of the fuel in the CPP-603 storage 

basins is incompatible with the storage in CPP-666. This fuel is planned to be 

placed into dry storage. The technical capability needed to prepare this fuel for safe 

dry storage is being developed and this is the key issue driving the length of the 

schedule. Current plans call for all spent fuel to be removed from the CPP-603 

North and Middle basin (which would be most affected by a seismic incident) by the 

end of the calendar year 1997 and from the South basin by the end of the year 2005. 

We are evaluating this schedule and any feasible option that can expedite the schedule is being explored. 

Mr. LARocco. Thank you. With regard to WIPP, I have some 

concerns over what you said about reducing the amount of fuel that 

is going to be used for tests. Let me just say in very lay terms, as I understand this process, 

it was very involved and-in the land withdrawal and moving that 

process through the Congress last year. We finally got it done, 

amazingly. 

My concern is that after a five-year test period, that if we don't 

have the right amount or the required amount, requisite amount, 

whatever is required for empirically studying this over a five-year 

period of waste there, after five years, somebody who doesn't want 

that repository opened is going to say: We can't open it because we 

didn't have enough waste. 

And so this is the balance, I know, but we have been waiting to 

start shipping waste out of Idaho to that site. Those are my concerns with regard to that and I am hopeful that now that we have 

an administration that wants to govern, that things will move 

ahead. 

I heard what you said with regard to your relationship with the 

Environmental Protection Agency. Those are my concerns. 

Secretary O'LEARY. I clearly understand the nature of your concern. I was trying, in my opening statement, to relate to each and 

every one of you the precarious position of the Department in the 

middle. And that is to try and satisfy scientific concern, concern of 

political perception, real perception and fear, and come upon the 

right number. 

It was necessary to achieve that balance to satisfy many people 

who have both oversight responsibility and advisory responsibility, 

with respect to that project, and finally, to the regulators. My sense 

is that we are in the right place and I hope that what I can do, 

in exchanges like this, and in other fora is create enough of a 

record to leave the clear sense that the scientific consensus drove 

this decision and not the political perception. 

I think that is my job, and so I am delighted that you have asked 

that question of me today. I think we are focused on the right 

amount and I will try to leave enough record behind me to have 

it stand up over the years. 

Mr. LARocco. I appreciate that. I consider that a sincere and 

dedicated attempt to make it bulletproof, and it is my job to send 

to you in this hearing the message of the people of Idaho. 

Secretary O'LEARY. I understand. 

Mr. LARocco. We want the waste to start being on the trucks 

going out, not just coming in. 
25 

Secretary O'LEARY. I understand. 

Mr. LARocco. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Thank you. 

Chairman Miller. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Madam 

Secretary, for your time and your appearance here this morning. It 

is rather obvious from your testimony, and from the questions, that 

you have inherited a number of the most sticky problems that this 

government has before it with respect to its energy needs and its 

environmental obligations. But we have confidence that you will be 

able to work many of those out and obviously this Committee, 

Chairman Lehman and myself and the Members, would like to 

help you in any way that we can. 

We worked very hard on WIPP in the last session of the Congress. Many suggested it was something we should not have gotten 

involved in, that it had no prospect of success within the legislative 

framework and I think in fact we proved them wrong. We stand 

ready to assist you in that same vein of trying to solve some of 

these problems that have been bounced around for an awful long 

period of time. 

I have a couple of questions. They are not in the nuclear area, 

but they are of concern to me as Chair of the Committee, and our 

ongoing stewardship of resource management. One I have written 

to you about and that is the question of the renewal of the WAPA 

contracts and the time period for that, and it is really not a question. 

I just want to ask that before any decision be made, you and I 

have an opportunity to talk on that issue, to go through it, so that 

without prejudging the terms and conditions of the contracts, the 

purposes or anything else, that we just make sure that we, the government and the people of this country who are paying the freight, 

are in sort of a maximum position of flexibility to determine our 

future resource needs and obligations in this country with respect 

to WAPA as we have in water and other areas. I would just make 

that request, that we have an opportunity to sit down and to discuss that before any decision has been made. 

I know my staff has been talking to yours and they have been 

very, very cooperative, and I wanted to leave that request with you. 

Secretary O'LEARY. Fair enough. I will commit to do that. It is 

my understanding, however, that my staff has worked up a recommendation that may meet and take care of your major concerns. 

Mr. MILLER. I hope so. I just want to make sure we are in the 

same vein. I must say I am dealing here now in the realm of rumors, but if there is any discussion with respect to the outer continental shelf where we have a Presidentially bipartisan, Congressionally mandated moratorium in most areas that this Committee 

be involved very early on in those discussions. 

That is not to suggest that that will happen or the change will 

take place, but simply that we have been very involved in that over 

the last 20 years and both with the rewriting of the Act and the 

issues surrounding various moratoriums, both in the coast lines of 

the Lower 48 States and certainly with respect to Alaska where a 

number of leases are currently in controversy. 
26 

So, again, if any discussions are going to be undertaken, we 

would like this Committee to be involved at the very earliest stages 

with respect to those issues. 

Secretary O'LEARY. Fair enough. Let me say this: First of all, I 

would want to take this out of the realm of rumor and tell you exactly where we are. The Department has undertaken an initiative 

to try and collect the various studies which are now on the shelf 

and have not been addressed. The last one done by the National Petroleum Council on the natural gas industry and looking at some recommendations they have 

made with respect to increase production, which concerns me a 

great deal as we move forward to stimulate that marketplace, and 

equally as important, how do we stimulate production if it is cost 

effective and environmentally correct in petroleum production, as I 

look at the projections for the increase in imported petroleum end 

products that one can expect in the United States during my tenure and over the next 20 years. 

We have sought to indicate that we are anxious to work with the 

industry and all interested parties. That certainly includes the 

Congress, to try and review every suggestion that is on the table 

to see what needs doing further. 

It was never my intention to leave the impression that the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) was up for grabs. With respect to the outer continental shelf, I know the very delicate nature 

of the negotiation that had to occur in order to result in legislation. 

I would not dream of taking a step without coming to the Congress 

and I can assure you personally that I would be talking to you. Mr. MILLER. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. LEHMAN. Thank you. Madam Secretary, I have some additional questions with regard to how you are spending money at 

Yucca Mountain, but rather than ask you to get too specific right 

now, I will submit those to you and ask you to respond to them in 

writing. 

I would like to ask you a general question. Both GAO and WTRB 

have complained that the Department is overemphasizing schedules at the expense of perhaps the scientific integrity of the programs. 

I would like to have your response to that assessment and how 

you address the question of deadlines versus scientific credibility. 

Secretary O'LEARY. Well, I could again point to the past but I 

won't. I think we have to draw the line in the sand and own that 

our Administration took over on the 21st of January. I believe, if 

those two bodies were now examining what is occurring at the Department of Energy, and if there were a consideration that we, or 

criticism that we, were pushing responsibility to meet milestones 

ahead of scientific integrity, the criticism would be minor because 

we have sought to adjust in that area. 

As one responsible for the overall management of the Department, my balance will always be, what are the measures for 

progress in every program area? And there have to be milestones, 

there have to be dates. You don't overcome the sense of the lack 

of trust in the Department by simply hitting the milestones, if 

there is some reason not to. I would point out the steps we took 
27 

at Hanford when it was clear to us that the milestone, which was 

the building of the vitrification plant, before we understood why 

and what we were building, was a milestone that no reasonable 

person would seek to meet. 

So I believe it is important to share data and when the milestones are inappropriate, to say so and negotiate the fact that they 

won't be met. Now, having used Hanford as an example, I recognize that I place myself in jeopardy leading every community to believe that the Department will never honor its commitment. 

I think there has got to be a rational balance. I understand it is 

now my job to conduct myself and provide the leadership to the Department so we are providing that balance. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Thank you. Finally on another subject, the proposal to purchase highly enriched uranium from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons presents 

us with an opportunity to meet three objectives: One, national security, at least we are permanently removing that material from 

their arsenal. Two, we can help them with hard currency and keeping some of those people in their nuclear industry working and 

hopefully we could also reduce the cost of nuclear-generated electricity here at home, and I would like to ask you this morning to 

provide us with a brief status on negotiations in this deal. 

Secretary O'LEARY. Well, those negotiations, which have taken 

some of my time since I have been at the Department, in my view, 

are going along on course. We had signature on the blanket agreement very early on in our Administration and issues involving 

transparency have been concluded. There are some initials on the 

document at the moment. 

My sense is, again, and I always hesitate to say this, that I cannot think of anything that would stand in the way of progress on 

concluding this negotiation, and actually having a signed document. As you may well know, at the end of this month, Prime Minister Chernomyrdin will be in the United States meeting with Vice 

President Gore. 

My sense is that we will have things pretty well wrapped up at 

the conclusion of that meeting and I see nothing that could stand 

in the way of progress. 

Mr. LEHMAN. What are the sticking points? Price and verification 

of course; is that correct? 

Secretary O'LEARY. Price surely, which will always be the case, 

and negotiation on both sides with respect to the source in Russia 

and from the Russians' point of view with respect to the United States~ Certainty on their part that we are, in fact, using the 

blended material for civilian production and as has been reported 

to me by staff who have just returned from Moscow, that those negotiations are proceeding as smoothly as one could expect at this 

term of the negotiation. 

Mr. LEHMAN. wm · we get it at a price that is beneficial to our 

utilities? 

Secretary O'LEARY. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LEHMAN. You promise me that? 

Secretary O'LEARY. I do promise you that. 
28 

Mr. LEHMAN. Our concern is we would pay more for it than utilities could get it here and we would have to make up the difference 

from somewhere, perhaps from the general revenues. 

Secretary O'LEARY. I understand your concern and I think that 

is an issue that is being watched by others than the Secretary of 

Energy and we are watching it well indeed. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Well, thank you very much. I have additional questions with regard to actinide recycling funding and Mr. Richardson 

submitted some questions with regard to the Indian provisions of 

the Energy Policy Act, and I think to let you go, we would just submit those to you in writing and you can respond to them to the 

Committee in the next couple of weeks. 

Secretary O'LEARY. I will indeed. 

Mr. LEHMAN. I have no further questions. Mrs. VucANOVICH. I have no further questions. Thank you very much. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Thank very much for your testimony this morning. 

We certainly appreciate it. 

[Whereupon, at 11:05 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
APPENDIX 

JUNE 8, 1993 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD 

Post-Hearing Questions for Secretary O'Leary 

from Chairman Lehman 

High Level Waste 

1. The GAO reports that for fiscal year 1992, the waste program spent $109 

million on activities related to accepting waste and pursuing other objectives, 

and $166 million on the Yucca Mountain Project. Of that $166 million for 

Yucca Mountain, only $60 million was spent on site investigation, a nd the 

remaining $106 million was spent on "infrastructure activities" supporting 

the scientific investigation. Please explain what these "infrastructure 

activities" are that have been receiving the bulk of the funding? 

2. Why has only 22 percent of the program's budget been going to the issue that 

should be the number one priority: finding out whether Yucca Mountai n is 

suitable? 

Low-Level Waste 

3. DOE has some support responsibilities in the low-l evel r adwaste disposal 

program. One of those is to decide whether generators or states should 

receive surcharge r ebates under the Low-Level Waste Act. States are to 

receive the rebates if they ar e providing disposal capacity, and generators are 

to r eceive them otherwise, according to the Act. 

4. Given that only the Northwest and Southeast Compacts are actua lly 

providing disposal capacity at present, do you feel that it sends the right 

signal to the other, ta rdy states to give them these rebates on th e basis of 

contracts with the Southeast Compact? 

Actinide Recycle Funding 

5. With r espect to R&D funding for advanced reactor technologies, your 

testimony states that "only actinide recycle technology, which holds the 

potential to benefit the high level nucl ear waste disposal strategy, will be 

continued." Later you sta te that the actinide recycl e program "will evaluate 

the techni cal and economi c feasibility of an innovative nuclear fuel cycle 

technology." If we ar en't goi ng to use taxpayer funds to support the advanced 

liquid metal rea ctor design- a decision which I su pport- why does it make 

sense to continue funding the fuel cycle that is unique to that reactor? 

1 

(29) 

72-697 0 - 93 - 3 
30 

6. To make any significant dent in the current nuclear waste problem, wouldn't 

it be necessary to build dozens of new liquid metal reactors and run them for 

many decades? 

7. Haven't several reputable independent analyses concluded that such a 

scheme cannot provide an economically competitive alternative to repository 

disposal of spent fuel? 

8. How can a few years of technological demonstrations realistically evaluate 

the real-world economic feasibility of this technology? 
High-Level Waste 

Question 1: 

An swer: 

31 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN LEHMAN 

The GAO reports that for fiscal year 1992, the waste program 

spent S109 million on activities related to accepting waste 

and pursuing other objectives, and $166 million on the Yucca 

Mountain Site Characterization Project- Of that $166 

million for Yucca Mountain, only $60 million was spent on site investigation, and the remaining $106 million was spent on "infrastructure activities" supporting the scientific 

investigation . Please explain what these • infrastructure 

activities" are that have been receiving the bulk of the 

funding? 

"Infrastructure" co sts are made up of compliance activit ies 

such as environmental regulation s, safety and health 

regulation s, interacting with oversight bodie s (Nuclear 

Waste Te chnical Review Board, Nuclear Regulatory Commission , 

et c. ) and stakeholders ; and administrat i ve activitie s such 

as managing t he proj ec t , rent , phones, etc. The science and 

technic al work canno t be done without al so doing the 

supporting complian ce and administrative activities. For 

in stance, before a hole can be drilled many permits from th e 

State are required and numerous procedures and plans mu st be 

approved t o ensure applicable Depa rtment of Energy Orders 

will be implemented as well as Department of Labor, 

Occupational Safety and Health Admini stration rules and 

regulations . 

Regarding the Yucca Mountain infrastructure estimate 

provided in the General Accounting Office report, many of 

the activitie s included by the General Accounti ng Offi ce in 
32 

2 

this category directly support the scientific work at the 

Yucca Mountain site. Examples include performance 

assessment activities: rock sample management; project-level 

quality assurance; environment, safety and health 

activities; information management; and project management. 

Whether these activities are categorized as "infrastructure" 

or "scientific/technical" involves subjective judgment; 

however, all these activities are necessary to ensure that 

the scientific work has the requisite documentation. 

Finally , "infrastructure" also includes the financial 

assistance payments to the State of Nevada an d affected 

local governments specifically Identified In the FY 1992 

appropriation bill. 
High ·leve l Waste 

Que stion 2: 

Answer: 

33 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN lEHMAN 

Why has only 22 percent of the program's budget been going 

to the issue that should be the number one priority: finding 

out whether Yucca Mountain is suitable? 

The General Accounting Office's assertion that only 

22 percent of the Program's budget has been allocated to 

Yucca Mountain site characterization is somewhat misleading . 

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, requires 

not only the chara cterization of the Yucca Mountain 

candidate repository site, but also authorizes development 

of a Monit ored Retrievable Storage facility and a 

transportation system. The Act also mandates that both the 

repository and th e Monitored Retrievable Storag e facility be 

l i censed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This , in 

turn, requires the development and implemen ta t ion of 

ri gorous qua l i t y assur a"ce and regulatory compl i anc e 

progra ~s to ensure public health and safety and t he 

integrity of scientific data. In add it ion , the Act place s 

substantial in st itutional requirements on the Department. 

The Department must be responsive to a wide array of 

stakeholders, including the Congress, the Office of 

Management and Budget, the General Accounting Office, the 

State of Nevada, affected St~te and local governments, 

affected Indian Tribes, nuclear utilities, Federal 

regulatory agencies (Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Environmental Protection Agency , Department of 
34 

Transportation, etc), other oversight bodies such as the 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, and the public at 

large. Satisfying the information requirements of these 

organizations and entities requires significant resources. 

Finally, the Department must continue to support the 

traditional program and project management functions that 

are necessary to manage, integrate and control the 

components ~f the civilian rad io active waste management 

program. 
Question 3: 

Answer: 

35 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN LEHMAN 

DOE has some support responsibilities in the low-level 

radwaste disposal program. One of those is to decide 

whether generators or· states should receive surcharge 

rebates under the Low-Level Waste Act. States are to 

receive the rebates if they are providing disposal capacity, 

and generators are to receive them otherwise, according to 

the Act. 

The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 

I985 (the Act) directs the Department to rebate surcharges 

to States and compacts that have, by January I, 1993, 

"provided for disposal of all low-level radioactive waste 

generated within such State or compact region." The 

Department is the administrator of an escrow account into 

which surcharges have been paid, and is responsible for 

making payments of surcharge rebates associated with the 

January I, 1993, deadline from the monies in the escrow 

account. States that met the 1993 deadline are to receive 

rebates; however, if a State did not meet the deadline, the 

rebate is to be paid to the generators within that State 

from whom the surcharges were collected. Because most 

States have been granted temporary disposal access to the 

Southeast Compact's Barnwell facility, States and compacts 

contend they have provided for disposal in accordance with 

the Act and should receive the rebates; on the other hand, 

generators maintain the temporary disposal access which has 

been arranged (until June 1994) does not meet the intent nor 

the letter of the Act. This issue and the views of the 

generators and States are being evaluated within the 
36 

Department and we expect to announce a decision within the 

near future. 
Question 4: 

Answer: 

37 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN LEHMAN 

Given that only the North~o~est and Southeast Compacts are actually providing disposal capacity at present, do you feel 

that it sends the right signal to the other, tardy states to give them these rebates on the basis of contracts with the 

Southeast Compact? 

The Department considers the issue to be whether temporary 

and conditional access as provided by South Carolina 

extending access to its regional disposal facility to waste 

generators outside the Southeast Compact, until June 30, 

1994, is sufficient to meet the requirements of the Act. 

As stated previou sly , the Department i s currently evaluating 

this issue and it will base its decision on the Act's 

requirements for States/compacts to meet the 1993 deadline, 

after fully considering the comments provided by generators 

and Stat~s in response to the Federal Register Notice 

entitled , "Surcha rge Rebates ; Eligibility Criteri a and 

Procedures for the January I, 1993, Deadline of the LowLevel Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985" 

published on September 30, 1992. 
Question 5: 

Answer: 

38 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN LEHMAN 

With respect to R&D funding for advanced reactor 

technologies, your testimony states that "only actinide 

recycle technology, which holds the potential to benefit the 

high level nuclear waste disposal strategy, will be 

continued.' later you state that the actinide recycle 

program "will evaluate the technical and economic feasibility of an innovative nuclear fuel cycle technology.• If we aren't going to use taxpayer funds to support the advanced 

liquid metal reactor design --a decision which I support--why does it make sense to continue funding the fuel cycle that is 

unique to that reactor? 

The focus of the Actinide Recycle Program is to study the 

feasibility of reducing the volume and half-life of 

commercial nuclear waste . Since the principal area of 

technical uncertainty is the fuel cycle, it makes sense to 

use the available limited funding to focus on the most 

important aspects of the program. Potential deployment of 

the actinide recycle system, including the advanced liquid 

metal reactor, would depend upon a number of marketplace and 

policy factors including, of course, the economic and 

technical results of the proposed research and development 

activities. 
Question 6: 

Answer: 

39 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN LEHMAN 

To make any significant dent in the current nuclear waste 

problem, wouldn't it be necessary to build dozens of new 1 iquid metal reactors and run them for many decades? 

Analysis indicates that one liquid metal reactor would need 

to be deployed for every 3-10 light water reactors, depending 

on the assumptions. Each of these reactors is designed to 

operate for 60 years, and during this lifetime these reactors 

potentially could make a significant contribution to waste 

management while at the same time generating economical 

electrical power. 
Question 7: 

Answer: 

40 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN LEHMAN 

Haven't several reputable independent analyses concluded that 

such a scheme cannot provide an economically competitive 

alternative to repository disposal of spent fuel? 

No . The Lawrence Livermore Nat ion a 1 laboratory Study, to 

which you may refer, estimates that reprocessing of existing 

fuel would cost more than twice the estimated cost of 

repository disposal. However, the study only looked at the 

co st of . repository versus cost of react ors. The study did 

not consider t he entire system. More recent preliminary Oak 

Ridg e National Laboratory analysis has found that signifi cant 

economic benefits, amounting to S 10 to S40 bi 11 ion net 

pre sen t value over a period of 60 years, could potentially be 

re al ized wi th dep l oyme nt of actinide recycle te chno l ogy. 
Question 8: 

Answer: 

41 

QUESl!ONS FOR CHAIRMAN LEHMAN 

How can a few years of'technological demonstrations 

realistically evaluate the real-world economic feasibility of 

this technology? 

lhe technical demonstrations build on nine years of previous 

work at Argonne National laboratory. Three to four more 

years is sufficient to evaluate the real world economic 

feasibility of this technology. 
42 

Questions from Native American Affairs Subcommittee 

Chairman Bill Richardson 

Indian Provisions in Energy Policy Act 

1. What steps are being taken to implement the Indian provisions of the Energy 

Policy Act of 1992? 

2. Will there be funding available this year for tribes wishing to take advantage 

of the Indian provisions in the Energy Policy Act of 1992? 

3 
43 

QUESTIONS FROM REPRESENTATIVE RICHARDSON 

Energy Policy Act of 1992 Indian Provisions 

Question 1: 

Answer: 

What steps are being taken to implement the 

Indian provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 

1992? 

DOE is currently in the process of developing 

a plan to implement these provisions, which 

will include a process for tribal 

consultation and involvement, a 

defined program that meets tribal needs, 

and ensures fairness in competing for program 

dollars. 

DOE is committed to working with Indian 

tribes to assist them to develop their 

resources. It is a high priority of the 

Department to integrate Native American 

interests into its present programs through 

their participation in future procurements. 

DOE will encourage our industrial partners to 

include Native Americans in their proposals. 
44 

QUESTIONS FROM REPRESENTATIVE RICHARDSON 

Energy Policy Act of 1992 Indian Provisions. 

Question 2: 

Answer: 

Will there be funding available this year for 

tribes wishing to take advantage of the 

Indian provisions in the Energy Policy Act 

of 1~92? 

No funds were requested for implementation of 

the Indian provisions of the Energy Policy 

Act of 1992 (EPACT) in the Department's FY1994 budget . Once a plan for 

implementation of Title XXVI is developed in 

consultation with Indian Tribes, the 

Department will be better able to define 

funding requirements . 
45 

s .. ~o .. ;-Hd. l>v ?cr· Llc.i'o,c.o 

'-r-u 1-lca.ri"l 

OTIIER QUESTIONS SUBMITI'ED IN WRITING 

l) It is my understanding that the Department and the State of Idaho are in general 

agreement on the terms and scope of an Environmental Impact Statement of the waste 

program at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. If DOE has conceded to 

doing everything that the State of Idaho has requested in terms of the scope of the 

EIS, why won't DOE enter into a court-approved order codifying those plans? 

2) The State of Idaho has requested that there be no more shipments of spent fuel , 

including naval fuel , to INEL until completion of the EIS. The Department has said 

that it is not possible to store the naval fuel at the shipyards. The Department says 

they need to bring the naval fuel to Idaho to inspect it. However, according to Mr. 

Richard Guida, the Associate Director for Regulaoory Affairs of the U.S. Naval 

Nuclear Propulsion Program, less than 20% of the fuel is inspected anyway. 

Couldn't DOE ship only the fuel that is examined at the site and leave the other 80% 

at the shipyard? 

3) By the Department's own admission, waste storage building 603 is unsafe. A nearby 

storage building, building 666, was built in 1984, and has available storage capacity. 

The Department could improve safety by moving the fuel from building 603 to 

building 666. In the interest of safety, shouldn't the Department transfer this waste0 

Over the next decade, spent naval fuel will continue to be sent to building 666. Next 

March that building is projected to run out of space. To make more space in building 

666, the Department has begun the Rack Reconfiguration Project in the building. 

This project is estimated to cost $80 to $120 million dollars. Under the new storage 

design, the Department will be putting more fuel in the same space, thus putting the 

fuel closer together. The Department has said that they will study the safety of this 

proposal in a site-wide EIS, but they want to go forward with the "re-racking" before 

they complete the EIS. 

Do you support this "shoot first, ask questions later" policy? Do you believe that it is 

consistent with the National Environmental Protection Act? Aren't we taking a risk in 

spending $100 million on a project before the EIS has been completed? 

In light of all of these considerations, wouldn't it make more sense to take only the 

waste that the Navy needs inspect, move the waste from building 603 to the safer 

building 666, and hold off on a $100 million project until the EIS is completed? 
Question 1: 

Answer: 

46 

QUESTIONS FROM REPRESENTATIVE LAROCCO 

It is my understanding that the Department and the State of 

Idaho are in general agreement on the terms and scope of an Environmental Impact Statement of the waste program at the 

Idaho National Engineering laboratory. If DOE has conceded 

to doing everything that the State of Idaho has requested in 

terms of the scope of the EIS, why won't DOE enter into a court-approved order codifying those plans. 

The issue of a court approved settlement order is no longer 

relevant at this stage since the United States District 

Court for the District of Idaho issued an order on June 28, 

1993, that requires preparation of a comprehensive site-wide 

Environmental Impact Statement at the Idaho National 

Engineering Laboratory. This Environmental Impact Statement 

will evaluate the direct and indirect environmental effects 

of all major Federal actions involving the transportation, 

receipt, processing, and storage of spent nuclear fuel as 

well as a range of reasonable alternatives. DOE is enjoined 

from any further transportation, receipt, processing, and 

storage of spent fuel at the Idaho National Engineering 

laboratory until the comprehensive Environmental Impact 

Statement is completed, reviewed, and any challenges to the 

statement are resolved. The Department is currently 

evaluating the possibility of an appeal of the district 

court's decision . 
Question 2: 

Answer : 

47 

QUESTIONS FROM REPRESENTATIVE LAROCCO 

The State of Idaho has•requested that there be no more shipments of spent fuel, including naval fuel, to INEL until 

completion of the EIS. The Department has said that it is 

not possible to store the naval fuel at shipyards. The 

Department says they need to bring the naval fuel to Idaho to 

inspect it. However, according to Mr. Richard Guida, the 

Associate Director for Regulatory Affairs of the U.S. Naval 

Nuclear Propulsion Program, less than 20% of the fuel is 

inspected anyway . Couldn't DOE ship only the fuel that is 

examined at the site and leave the other 80% at the shipyard? 

As stat ed in the Government's response s t o the State's 

inte rrogatories in the Ida ho spent nuclear fuel law suit, and 

in Mr. Guida's January 25 , 1993 , deposition, 2.lJ. spent naval 

fuel is visually examined at the INEL. These examinations 

include internal and external surfaces. Mr. Guida went on in 

his depo sition to state that less than 20% of the spent naval 

fuel subsequently receives more detailed exami nation. 

Mr. Guida went on to expl ain ho~ examinat i on of all spent 

na va l fuel has been done since the beginning of the Progr;,m, 

how the examinations remain a critical part of ensuring 

continued safe and reliable naval reactor fuel performance, 

and how they support increases in naval reactor core 

lifetimes which minimize the number of shipboard refuelings 

and the amount of spent fuel generated. Several pages from 

Mr. Guida's depo sition are attached illustrating these 

points. 
Answer 2 

(continued): 

48 

-2-

Second, the question implies that the Program knows in 

advance which fuel ce11s require more detailed examinations. 

This is not the case. Many of the detailed inspections are 

performed only as a result of the discovery of conditions 

during the visual inspections that every fuel cell receives. 

Because there is no way to predict in advance which fuel 

cells might exhibit conditions requiring further detailed 

investigation, there is no way to determine which specific 

fuel cells should be shipped to Idaho. Again, the excerpts 

from Mr. Guida's deposition refer to this. 

Finally, even if identification of the "right" 20% was 

possible, the Government would still run out of containers to 

store the remaining 80% of the spent naval fuel at shipyards 

before the INEL Environmental Restoration and Waste 

Management Environmental Impact Statement is estimated to be 

completed. As a result, the question would not avoid the 

resulting shutdown of the refueling and defueling of the 

Nation's nuclear powered warships and layoff of several 

thousand shipyard workers, as described in several filings 

before the Federal District Court. 
49 

k. h~at we ~ave a~e data on occupac~~na: expos~~e 

2 c! :~e pecple who ~o~k at:the expended cere fac:::ty. 

~~ac ~nfo~~:io~ has not been supplied, but can cer~ain:y 

~ be supp:ied. The occupational exposure o! t~ose workers 

S is extraord~narily low, and it is documented, co~~:etely 

6 . doc~ented, and reported as part of the Idaho Nationa: 

: En?~neering ~aboratories occupational exposure o: its work 

:c:-~e repcr~s. 

: o you. 

: wculd say ·• excuse ~e for jus: add:n; cne 

:2 pc:nt. I wou~d po~n: ou: ~ha: no where ic :he naval 

reac:ors prcgra~ have we ever exceeded Federa~ :o~•:s Q~ 

:: 

: tu:-:1 yn·.:..-: at:e~t:.on t:: Ex.h:bit. 3. :~.e :- as~ ~:-.se 

:c :.~te~roga:ory ~~~er 10 . 

:e A. I'rr. t!"lere. 

:9 Q. And, &peci!ically, I direct your at:er.tior. to 

:<C tht! first sentence of that response, where it is s:a:ed 

~- :hat al: spent naval nuc~ear cores received ac ECF are 

visua:ly t!xamined. Is it trul! tha: the co~es are 

ALDERSON REPORT:NG COMP~\~. INC. 

llll FOURTEE~H STREE, , N.W. 

su:TE: 400 

WASHING7CN, D. C. 2~005 

! 2 02 ) 289.2260 

(SOC) FOR DEPO 
50 

2 the coie? 

3 A. wr.e~ we =e!e= ~o a ~eac:~r core, what we mean :s 

4 :he !uel assemblies ~hat constitute the cere. So our 

sta~eme .. : that all ceres received are visual1y examined 

means that every fuel module, or ~uel cell as we ~al: i~. 

7 that const~tu:es that ~o:::-e has re~eived a visua: 

exar:i:.::a::..c::. 

ce::s re~oved fro~ operacing ships i~ =~e las~ five yea~s 

i::C.icated a.::y un~xpec:.ed cond:.t::..::.::s t.ha-: led to ~~e ~eeC. 

A. Yes. 

Q. How oft.er.? 

:5 technical evaluat~on, assessmen::. Several ~i::-.es a yea:: 

:3 this wi:l occur. 

;c The results that come !rom those types of v~sua~ 

2" ex~.~nations are then reported tc the design and 

LL m&nufac:·.!:::-ing eng~neers at. our Bettis or Lewis powe:-

AL:i:C:RSON RE?ORT:NG COMPAl\Y, INC. 

:1:1 FOUR~EE~~H S7REE~. N.W. 

S\JI:'E ~00 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20COS 

(202)289-2260 

(800: FOR PEPO 
51 

des: gr. and s~rpc::-t manu!act·..:r& o! new fuel . The resuC. ::.s 

are assess@c =elative to our manufacturi:1g standards and 

s core design s:andards and fed into the continuing process . 

6 Because i: is a ccn:ir.uing process of evaluat;ng :~ose 

7 standards a~d upg=ading those Btandardl. 

~~cse star.dards the~ are used, c! =curse, o= 

l~ ~~ nuf ac:ure c! ex:sti:1g fuel. 

Q. Co~ d stor:ions of the fuel modules cr ce:ls 

::: :lue :c ir=ac~a:io~ heat anc !i•s~on be d.e:e::r..i:-Je:l dur!::~ 

1.: ::-!! ac :.o:-s? 

:~ he ~is:or:ions are so severe as := inpact 

:~e ~emcva: o~ t~e fuel, :ben i~deed yo~ wc~:d de:~=: , -

whe~ you :=ied to re~ove :he !ue:. ~he types c~ 

:8 ~stcr:ions we ' re talking about here are nc: of :hat 

:·9 character. We're talking a.bou: much more subt:e, :r:.Jcl'. 

20 sma~ler distc=tions which have s=eat conse~.Jence wi:h 

2} ::-espect to the use of that intor.mation in :he dea~gn and 

22 !abricat~on o! new fuel. 

ALQ~KSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC . :::1 FOVRTEE~~H STRiE~. ~.W. 

SUITE 400 

WASF.INGTON, D.C. 20005 

(202 : 289·2260 

(8 00 ) !'OR ;)l::PC 
52 

H3 

me to des~g:: a !".>e~ tha't wou'-d have a cer~air. :.:.:etime 

a~d be ab:e to sustai~ a l:te~~me :hat I wan: :: to 

4 s~stair., ! m~st have a database of information that 

describes how my f~el -- how this type of fuel has 

6 performed in service over a certain period o! time. 

7 That database is constructed by per!c~ing the 

~:~ds of exarri~a~:o~s , viscal and o~he~ ~har. v~sual ex~s. 

:as~i~n. and then one draws fro~ :~at database the 

::. ~::~facture of new fuel. 

:3 :'~e c:-:.tical e:e:nen: he:e is ~~a: :he !'..!e: 

_... i:self :::-on a~y g:.ver: :-eactc:-, a::.~ougt. i: r.l&y ::,e !::;:;. a 

reac:or of a design that's already s~sta!::ed severa: 

::::~.:Etioni i!it t~.e. :::.:ne o! i:s cpera~::.on. :: ::-.ay ::a·:e 

lS operated longer, a coup:e of years :onge.r :ha:: c:her !~e: 

:9 o! the 8ame design. It rnay nave withstood chemi~try 

2C cc::ditio::.s :.:: the primary coolant that are dif!ere::t . 

2: When it was manufac:ured, i: may ~ave been c!oser := a 

22 tolerance than other :uel . 

Al.OERSCN REPORT!NG COMPANY. :~;:::. 

1:1: FO~TEE~~ STREE7 , ~.W. 

SUI':'t 400 

WASP.lNG70N , D.C. 2C~ C5 

!202) 289-2260 

1 SOC) FOR !:lE?C 
53 

So, the bo~~c~ !i~e is. every spen: !~e: ~c~u:e 

2 tas ~~s own r.~sto~. man~~accur~ng hiitory and operationa: 

h~s~cry assoc~a:ed with it. So the in!o~t~on ttat one 

4 :ear~s from examination of that spent fue: is uni~~e to 

5 that specific module. 

6 Q. When was the last time that a visual ir.spec~ion 

7 of S?en: nava: fuel resulted in a change of rnater~al 

A. There is no way I can rela:e specifi~ 

~hey be visual or non-visual. tc specific chanies in the 

-~ way we de!iign or :TLa::~faccure ot.:r fue:. And :.l":.e reaso~ ~or 

:4 a desig~ engi~eer and I have now been supplied ~he 

:ypes cf ex~~inat~~ns, : ta~e t~at :n~~ co~s:de~At:~~ as -

nOlo.' seei< ~o dete=ir.e stould : rev1se my s~a:odar:!, s!1:::'-'::; 

:a : "Ai<e changes hdre. there, or wha:ever. 

My recommendation. then. to the Goverr~en~ as 

~c what that standard should say will reflect what ! have 

,_ considered in the way of the information provided to ~e. 

2~ But it isn't a situation where there is a tag, this piece 

AL~ERSDN REPCR7ING COMP~~Y. INC. 

:11: FC~RTEENTH STREET. N.W. 

su:TE .;oo WASH:NGTCN, ~.C. 2000~ 

1:<02)299·2260 

1800 l FOR OEPO 
54 

2 ma~~fac:ur•ng standard cr design standard. 

3 ~sually lt is a much more subtle th!ng of. ~! : 

~ dete~ined that there happens to be a discolorat1on on the 

5 surface of this particular fuel module that has seen :h~s 

6 type of serv:ce, this type of neutron f:uence, which is 

7 the n~er of ne~trons go~n> thro~gh the surface, et 

~e~ere. then that would move me in the direction, al: 

..._ pert,iips. of that, yo-.: knew. that ty;>e c! :nater~a:. 2t.:: 

:hen : would have :o ccns:der that rela:!ve tc a host cf 

:2 c:~er da:a that has a:sc been supplied ~~o~ t~e 

-~ So, it :..s al: a:: in:egrated package of 

::: .:::f~::-=r.a:..:..:;:-:. :~at comes f::-::1r.1 exazr.i~at.i.cns :hat :::Eo 

e~;::-:ee~s that. have t.c assess to dete~.!.~e wl:a: s~c·~:..::. __ 

:s ~~nt.:!ac:uring standards. 

Q. Are visual inspections o! &per.~ ~aval fuel :.he 

20 only source o! information :hat the Naval Nuclear 

2: ?!"op:.::sior. Progra . .'·n r<!!lies upon in confi:-m::.ng t!".e adeq-~acy 

22 o! new design features? 

AL~ERSO~ REPOR7!NG COMP~~. !NC. 1~1: FOURTEE~H STREET, N.W. 

SU!TE 400 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 

(202. :e9 -:2260 

(8001 l'OR DEPO 
55 

A. 7~~Y are the mos: impor~anc a~C c~~t~cal 

2 e::.~mer.=s, b· ·· they're not.• tr.e only element.. '!'he c:!:er 

e:ements :r.at we use are c::::r.puter code!, ::ertainly, 

eomputer sirr.ulat:.!on! of ·· or transport calculations c! 

how material would behave over a period of time under 

6 certain neut:.ron bombardment, et cetera. 

H6 

7 We also rely upon materials tes: dat:.a fro~ :~e 

s acvar.ced :est reac:cr loca:ed at the Idaho Natior.al 

; ~::;:.nee::-~ns ~abo=a:ory, whe::ae we i:radia:e spec::..:r.ens 

.~ w~ere t~e ~OE irradiates ~pecimens , because it's r.c: a 

:-:;s·.·a: rea::t:.=rs program facility . So we take t:.~.a: data as 

1~ we:: . 

:J 7~e o~!y da~a tha~ we have of ar. operat!~g 

:~ c~arac=er, where the :ongevi:y of t:.he t:.hir.g you !:ave 

Oi)era:cr :est:.ed is co:r.parab:e to what yc'.l wan: :.r. :!'.2 -.:ay 

:7 ir.spec:ec !ro:r naval ships. 

:2 Ar. ex!Ur.ple wa! the i::r.terprise. we wa.r.t :~ 

:9 examine tha: !'.lel a!ter 20 years o! service. 7here is r.~ 

2C test data we get from ATR comparable to :hat . '!'here :he 

2: test data is an accelerated te!~. where the data are 

2L obtained a!:er just a much shorter period of time, u~de= 

~ERSON REPOR7IN~ COMPANY, INC . 1:11 FOURTEE~~H ST~EET , N. W. 

SUI'!'.E: 400 

WASHINGTON , D.C. 20005 

(202 )2 89 · 2260 

{800) FOR DEPO 
56 

~r.u::~ n-.ore 15tr:.ngen:. cc:1di ~ i~:1s. '..!nder much mo~e C!.!! i c·..:.: t 

2 o~ vigorous cor.ci:ions . 

Q. !s it t~~e that visual inspec:ions of spent 

4 nuc"ear ~uel :hat has not experienced worst case accident 

conditions can p~ovide lit:le or no information about :~e 

6 assurance of the fuel to operate satisfactori"y unde~ 

those accident ccnditions? 

A. No. tha: is not t~e. 

C. Could you elaborate? 

A. Cer:a:.:1:y . 

~!':@ per!o:-:r.a.nce of !.,;e: :ha:. ::.as wi:!:stc~d 

:3 ~~e case o! Ente~~ise aga~n, ~hat's 20 years c! 

:4 ope~atior., revea:s a g~eat dea: about its ruggedness a~~ 

:'.r.:~;ri:y, abili:y tc withstand ·· i:s at~::.: y t~ 

:s When we design a co~e. we predic: :r.a: :!:\e !·~e: 

:s will distort or wil: behave in such a fash~cn as to c~ange 

20 ita dimensions by a certain amount over a certain pericd 

2. of time. The aar.le codes t);.at are used to predict 

22 distortion of fuel also are used. The same types o! 

~DERSON REPORT!N~ COMPANY. :~c. 

11:1 FOURTEENTH S~£E,, N.W. 

st::T£ ~oo 

WASHINGTON , D.C. 20005 

<2C2l289·2260 

<BOC J FOR DE?D 
57 

ca:c--'!aci:ms are c!o:1e :o detcer.r.ir:e how :.!'le fue! would 

2 behave in a:1 accident scenario, in scenarios where it 

experiences tempera:ures and cc!'lditl0:15 tchatc are beyond 

~ what it wou:d normally see under routine service. 

S That having been said, if I have a sitcuatio!'l 

6 where : have predicted a certcain performance o! ~he fuel 

7 over 20 yeare, at the end o! tcha ~ 20 yeare. I predic:. that 

~:. wi:l look ·· ~twill have a certai!'l appearances, a 

? cer:ain visua: appearance with respec:. to wheth~r it's 

:c distorted by more :har: what ! predict or r:o:. 7hen, 

c~~parin: ~hat t o the ac:ual re9~::s quali!ies t~e ~ode:s 

:2 that I havl!! usi!!d to dl!tenr.ine whet:Oer the fc:e: is c;o:r:; :o 

be!:ave as predicted, obviously. 

As I &ay, the same types of transport 

:s :he core w11: d~stort under more severe co:1d::.iens wh •ch 

ill o~=~= over a s~orter period ~~ t~me, bu= obv:c~s:y 

:e be. !or ex&rnple, o! higher temperature, as opposed :o over 

19 a longer period o! :ime but ate a lower temperature. come 

20 as c:ose ~o reality as one can get. 

21 H ! 'rr. trying to quaH!y a :r.odel. ~ t' s m~:cl: 

22 better to have actual data on long-term performance as 

~~~ERS:~ REPORT:NG CO~~ANY . INC. 

:1:1 FO~TEE~ STREET. N.W . su:TE 400 WAEHINGTC~. O. C. 20:~5 

(202 ; 289.2260 

\BOOl FOR OE!'O 
58 

1 :•ve jusc described, t!" .. a~, !:. is to have :.nfor:r.aticn t!:at 

4 

5 

6 

is cor.je~t~ral or is not measur&bly. It comes from so~e 

source ot~er th&r. the actual test of materials . 

o. Is it .true that only a small portion of the 

•elected corea that are received at the expended core 

faci:ity are given the more detailed examinations referred 

to in the response to interrogatory number lC? 

A. It is tr~e that the :rac~~on o! :uel which 

9 .rece~ves ex&rninations beyond visual represents a 

:~ rela:ively small f:aetion o! all of t~e spent !~el :ha: ~s 

. , received ac ECF. 

o. Can you give me a~ approx~~a;e percentage? 

A. Yes. 

Q. 

are give~ the more detai~ed exL~inat~ons? 

A. Lesa than 20 perce:1t. And aga~~. :hat ~s v .. a. 

_, fuel module basii, no: just a core bas:s. 

:a o. Generically, what type of equipment is used :o 

:9 visually examine externally the epent naval fuel that :s 

20 received at the expended core facility? 

A. When you say examine external:y, are you then 

22 excluding the internal? 

ALDERSON REPORT:NG COMPANY, I~:. 

~l!l FOURTEE~H STREE~. N.W. SUI':'E 400 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 

1202)289-2260 

1800) FOR DEi?C 
Question 3: 

Answer: 

59 

QUESTIONS FROM REPRESENTATIVE LAROCCO 

By the Department's own admission, waste storage building 

603 is unsafe. A nearby storage building, building 666, was built in 1984, and has available storage capacity. The 

Department could improve safety by moving the fuel from 

building 603 to building 666. In the interest of safety, 

shouldn't the Department transfer this waste? I 

Over the next decade, 'pent naval fuel will continue to be sent to building 666. Next March that building 1s projected to run out of space. To make more space in building 666, 

the Department has begun the Rack Reconfiguration Project in 

the building. This project 1s estimated to cost $80 to $120 

million dollars. Under the new storage designs, the 

Department will be putting more fuel in the same space, thus 

putting the fuel closer together. The Department has said 

that they will study the safety of this proposal in a site· 

wide EIS, but they want to go forward with the "re-racking" 

before they complete the EIS. 

Do you support this "shoot first, ask questions later" 

policy? Do you believe that it is consistent with the 

National Environmental Protection Act? Aren't we taking a risk in spending S!OO million on a project before the EIS 

has been completed? 

In light of all these considerations, wouldn't it make more sense to take only the waste that the Navy needs inspect, move the waste from building 603 to the safer building 666, 

and hold off on a S!OO million project until the EIS is 

completed? 

The Department does indeed agree there are major safety 

concerns at the o 1 d Fue 1 Storage F ac i 1 ity ( CPP -603}. These 

concerns are being actively addressed and include: 

(!} systematically identifying fuel storage issues and root 

causes of problems, (2} prioritizing resolution of critical 

issues in fuel storage consistent with governing safety 

documents, (3} a program and schedule to remove all fuels 

from CPP-603, (4} upgrading storage equipment, racks, and 
60 

procedures, ind (5) applying lessons learned from spent fuel 

storage activities within the Department and in the private 

sector. 

Buildings CPP-603 and CPP-666 both contain spent fuel 

storage basins. : The phaseout of CPP-603's three basins, 

(North, Middle, and South) is proceeding . .Actions are 

underway to p 1 ace the fue 1 and the equipment in the facility 

into a safer configuration. When these recovery actions are 

complete, fuel compatible with storage in CPP-603 may be 

transferred to CPP-666 . Only part of the fuel in the 

CPP-603 storage basins is compatible with storage in 

CPP- 666. The techni ca 1 capability needed to prepare this 

fuel for safe dry storage must be developed and this is the 

key issue driving the length of the schedule. Current plans 

call for all spent fuel to be removed from the CPP-603 North 

and Middle basins by the end of calendar year 1997 and fuel 

from the South basin by the end of calendar year 2005 . 

Transfers of spent fuel from CPP-603 to CPP-666 can and will 

proceed, regardless of whether all or only part of the 

projected spent naval fuel shipments are received at 

CPP-666. 

Prior to the June 28, 1993, order from the Federal District 

Court, DOE was preparing an Environmental Assessment for 

re-racking three of the six CPP-666 storage basins. Re -

racking would have been needed to preserve future CPP-666 
61 

storage options for consideration In the Idaho National 

Engineering Laboratory (INEL) Environmental Restoration and 

Waste Management Environmenhl Impact Shtement (EIS), by 

creating additional space through tighter spacing within the 

existing storage baslfl,s. This Interim action would not have 

prejudiced the final EIS decision because the additional 

storage capacity would not be used until after the EIS was 

issued . As a result of the court decision, DOE Is 

reevaluat i ng 1ts position on re-racklng . This project Is 

estimated to cost only $18 million, not $80 to $120 million. 
62 

QUESTIONS FOR SECRETARY O'LEARY 

FROM MRS. VUCANOVICH 

--Given that GAO, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review 

Board, and legislation that I have introduced all call for an 

independent review of the program, Why have you not 

taken steps to arrange such a review ? and secondly, will 

you undertake one ? 

-- Can you assure the people of the state of Nevada that 

neither the Nevada Test Site nor the Yucca Mountain site 

will be the location of a interim nuclear waste storage 

facility ? 

-- Doesn't purchase of the Tunnel Boring Machine reflect 

DOE's intention to pick Yucca Mountain as the site for the 

repository ? 

-- What steps will you take to implement the 

recommendations of the May 27 GAO Report ? 

-- What did you mean a few weeks ago when you said at 

the National Press Club that DOE has a ''moral obligation" 

to meet the 1998 date in which DOE has to accept spent 

fuel from utilities ? 

-- I am told that in an exchange between you and Mr. 

Myers of the Appropriations Committee on April 21, you 

said "Its not a scientific problem we have at Yucca, its 

political." Did you say that and if so, what did you mean by 

that? 
63 

--The GAO has recommended that the Nuclear Waste 

Trust Fund not be taken off-budget. Given your support 

for taking it off budget, will you accept the GAO 

recommendation or ignore it ? 

-- Last year, Admiral Watkins in a letter to Sen. Johnston 

proposed that Yucca Mountain be licensed under a phased 

licensing process where small amounts of waste would be 

brought to the site after the license application is 

submitted. Does DOE support the concept of phased 

licensing ? Why or why not ? 

-- In your recently announced reorganization, the Director 

of the Office of Civilian Nuclear Waste Management now 

reports to the Deputy Secretary. This would appear to 

violate the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 as amended. 

Why the change ? 

-- When do you expect to announce the name of the 

Director of the Nuclear Waste Office ? Is Mr. Dan 

Dreyfuss a candidate for that position ? 
High-Level Waste 

Question I: 

Answer: 

64 

QUESTIONS FOR REPRESENTATIVE VUCANOVICH 

Given that GAO, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, 

and legislation that } have introduced all call for an independent review of the program, why have you not taken 

steps to arrange such a review? And, secondly, will you 

undertake one? 

Although numerous internal reviews of the program have been 

conducted, I have committed to initiating an independent 

management review of the Yucca Mountain Site 

Characterization Project. This effort may produce 

recommendations for actions that could be undertaken to 

enhance the program. I wi 11 be consulting further with the 

State of Nevada along with you and other members of the 

Congressional delegation as I bring this planned review into 

place. 
High-Level Waste 

Question 2: 

Answer: 

65 

QUESTIONS FROM REPRESENTATIVE VUCANOVJCH 

Can you assure the pe6ple of the State of Nevada that 

neither the Nevada Test Site nor the Yucca Mountain site 

will be the location of an interim nuclear waste storage 

fac i 1 ity? 

Section 14S(g) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as 

amended, prohibits the construction of a Monitored 

Retrievable Storage facility in the State of Nevada. In 

addition , the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ' s implementing 

regulations state in Section 72.96(b) of Title 10, Code of 

Federal Regulations, that a Monitored Retrievable Storage 

facility must not be sited in any State in which there is 

located any site approved for site characterization for a 

high-level radioactive waste repository. Unless there is a 

change in the legislation and the regulation, the Department 

is prohibited from establishing a Monitored Retrievable 

Storage facility in the State of Nevada. As I stated in my 

confirmation hearing , I intend to comply with all 

legislation in implementing the nuclear waste managment 

program. 
66 

QUESTIONS FROM REPRESENTATIVE VUCANOVICH 

High-Level Waste 

Question 3: 

Answer : 

Doesn't purchase of the Tunnel Boring Machine reflect DOE's 

intention to pick Yucca Mountain as the site for the 

repository? 

Construction of an exploratory tunnel is not a conrnitment on 

DOE's part to construct a repository. In-situ testing at depth 

is required by the Nuclear Regulatory Colll!lission; see 10 CFR 

60 . 15b which states: "Unless the Commission determines with 

respect to the site described in the application that it is not 

necessary, site characterization shall include a program of in -

situ exploration and testing at the depths that wastes would be 

emplaced." In the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Final Rule for 

Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Geologic 

Repositories : Licensing Procedures, it states "The Commission 

believes that in-situ testing at depth is an essential 

technique for DOE to obtain sufficient data to determine 

whether and to what extent the surrounding geologic medium is 

suitable for hosting a geologic repository. The Commission 

interprets the phrase 'in-situ testing at depth' to mean the 

conduct of those geophysical, geochemical, hydrologic, and/or 

rock mechanics tests performed from a test area at the base of 

' a shaft excavated to the proposed depth of a potential 

repository in order to determine the suitability of a 

particular site for a geologic repository." Mechanical 

excavation of the exploratory tunnel, using a tunnel boring 

machine, was specifically recommended to DOE by the Nuclear 
67 

Waste Technical Review Board because this excavation technique 

would reduce the disturbance to the rock wall s, allowing more 

reliabl e conduct and interpretation of in-situ testing . Should 

in-situ testing determine that Yucca Mountain is not suitable, 

furthe r excavation will cease and the Department is conmitted 

to restoring the environment at the site. 
High-Level Waste 

Question 4: 

Answer: 

68 

QUESTIONS FROM REPRESENTATIVE VUCANOVICH 

What steps wi 11 you take to implement the recommendations of 

the Hay 27 GAO Report? 

The referenced General Accounting Office Report recommends 

that the Secretary of Energy review the program's goals and 

objectives in the context of the present program's low 

funding priority for Yucca Mountain. 

Shortly after my confirmation, a review of the Civilian 

Radioactive Waste Management Program was initiated that will 

address the Genera 1 Accounting Office concerns. We met with 

many interested parties and reviewed numerous written 

reports related to the program. We found during this 

preliminary review that, the program needs to refocus its 

efforts to impr ove in two broad areas: incr eased emphasi s 

on the highest quality scientific work and the more 

effective inclusion of external parties in program 

development and implementation. As part. of my ongoing 

review, we will include a process for thoroughly airing 

critical issues facing the program with parties external to 

the Department. This consultitive process will place 

spec i a 1 emphasis on Governors and other e 1 ected or appointed 

officials with constituent responsibilities affecting the 

program. Any redirection of the program and subsequent 

revision of the program' s technical , cost, and schedule 

baselines will oc cur afte r the review ' s completion . 
High-Level Waste 

Question 5: 

Answer: 

69 

QUESTIONS FROM REPRESENTATIVE VUCANOVICH 

What did you mean a few weeks ago when you said at the 

National Press Club that DOE has a "moral obligation" to 

meet the 1998 date in which DOE has to accept spent fuel 

from utilities? 

The Department is c011111itted to carrying out its 

responsibilities under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, 

as amended , which charges the Department with disposing of 

the Nation 's spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive 

waste _ We remain convinced that the Department has a moral 

obligation to meet the 1998 date for spent fuel acceptance. 
High -l eve l Waste 

Question 6: 

Answer : 

70 

QU ESTION FROM REPRESENTATIVE VUCANOVICH 

J am t o 1 d that in an exchange between you and Mr- Myers of 

the Appropriations Corrvnittee, you said, "It's not a 

scientific problem we have with Yucca, it's politicaL" Did 

you say t 11 at and if so, what did you mean by that? 

My comment to Mr . Myers was intended to convey the concept 

tha t, based on the historical progress of the Department 's 

Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program, the political 

and institutional challenges of siting, constructing and 

operati ng a geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and 

high -l evel radioactive waste are, in many respects, mo re 

daunting than the technical cha llenges that need to be 

ad dressed and resolved . 
H1gh-Level Waste 

Question 7: 

Answer: 

71 

QUESTIONS FROM REPRESENTATIVE VUCANOVICH 

The GAO has recommended that the Nuclear Waste Fund not be 

taken off budget_ Given your support for taking it off 

budget, will you accept the GAO recommendation or ignore it? 

The referenced Genera 1 Accounting Office reco11111endat ion is a 

recommendation to the Congress, rather than to the Secretary 

of Energy, because any modification of the current funding 

mechanism for the Civilian Radiaoctive Waste Management 

Program requires legislative action. The General Accounting 

Office recommendation reads as follows: "In view of the 

current status of the disposal program, we recommend that 

the Congress defer consideration of legislation that would 

change how funds are provided to DOE from the Nuclear Waste 

Fund for use on the disposal program until (I) the Secretary 

of Energy has completed the review of the disposal program 

that we recommended; (2) an independent review of the 

program, such as that recommended by the Nuclear Waste 

Technical Review Board, has been completed; and (3) 

appropriate legislative, policy, and/or programmatic changes 

to the program have been implemented." 

Thus, the General Accounting ~ffice did not recommend that 

the Nuclear Waste Fund not be taken "off-budget,' but rather 

that the Congress defer consideration of such a proposal. 

We would, of course, abide by and implement whatever 

legislative action the Congress takes on the funding issue. 
72 

However , we strongly believe that, if the Program is to make 

the requisite continued progress toward waste acceptance and 

disposal by the Federal Government, while also minimizing 

ultimate total Program costs, an alternative mechanism must 

be found that provides higher and more predictable funding 

levels for the Program. 
H1gh -level Waste 

Question 8: 

Answer: 

73 

QUESTIONS FROM REPRESENTATIVE VUCANOVICH 

last year, Admiral Watkins in a letter to Senator Johnston 

proposed that Yucca H6unta in be 1 i censed under a phased 

licensing process where small amounts of waste would be 

brought to the site after the license application is 

submitted. Does DOE support the concept of phased 

licensing' Why or Why not? 

The Department is continuing to consider alternative 

licen si ng strategies. One such alternative was mentioned in 

the letter from Admiral Watkin s to Senator Johnston of 

January 12, 1993. That alternative as well as alternatives 

outlined in the Apri l 1993 report of the DOE Task Force on 

an Alternative Program Stategy , entitled "Proposed 

Alternative Strategy for the Department of Energy 's Civ ilian 

Radioactive Waste Man agement Program" will be subjected to a 

thorough external consultative process as part of the 

ongoing review of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management 

Program . 
Question 9: 

Answer: 

74 

QUESTICNS FR::M REPRESENTATIVE VUCANJVICH 

In your recently announced reorganization, the Director of 

the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management now reports to the Deputy Secretary. This would appear to 

violate the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended. 

Why the change? 

Section 304(b) of the Act, which establishes the functions 

of the Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 

Management, states the Director 'is subject to the general 

supervision of the Secretary .... [and] shall be directly 

responsible to the Secretary." The reporting relationship 

recently established is in keeping with the terms of this 

section. By assigning day-to-day respansibility for 

monitoring the activities of the Office to the Deputy 

Secretary, the Secretary is assured that this priority 

program will receive the highest level of attention on a 

continual basis. Notwithstanding this assignment, however, 

the Director is still under the general supervision of the 

Secretary and is d1rectly responsible to the Secretary. The 

~reposed changes in DOE's management structure are intended 

to facilitate a more responsive, efficient and effective 

organization. 
Question 10: 

Answer: 

75 

QUEST IONS FROM REPRESENTATIVE VUCANOVICH 

Wh en do you expect to announce the name of the Director of 

the Nuclear Waste Offjce? Is Mr . Dan Dreyfus a candidate 

for that position ? 

The President has not yet stated hi s intent to nominat e a 

Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Wast e 

Management. That po sition along with other remaining 

appointments in the Department will be announced as the 

President complete s hi s review of candidates. We expect 

the process to proceed quickly. 

Dr . Dreyfus has been serv ing since February of 1993 in the 

position of Special Assistant to the Secretary. In that 

capacity he performs a variety of assignments within the 

Department. 

0 

72-697 0 - 93 (80) 
ISBN 0-16-041602-7 

900()0 

9 7801 16026