Page images
PDF
EPUB

United States. Congress.

on Atomic Energy

committee

MODIFICATIONS IN THE PROPOSED ARRANGEMENTS
FOR THE CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR

DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

NINETY-FOURTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

CONSIDERATION OF MATTERS WHICH RELATE TO MODI-
FICATIONS IN THE PROPOSED ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE
CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR DEMONSTRATION

PROJECT

APRIL 14 AND 29, 1976

Printed for the use of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy

72-818 O

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1976

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $4.410

AF25 A8 1976c

JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY

JOHN O. PASTORE, Rhode Island, Chairman
MELVIN PRICE, Illinois, Vice Chairman

SENATE

HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington
STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri
JOSEPH M. MONTOYA, New Mexico
JOHN V. TUNNEY, California
HOWARD H. BAKER, JR., Tennessee
CLIFFORD P. CASE, New Jersey
JAMES B. PEARSON, Kansas
JAMES L. BUCKLEY, New York

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES JOHN YOUNG, Texas

TENO RONCALIO, Wyoming
MIKE MCCORMACK, Washington
JOHN E. MOSS, California

JOHN B. ANDERSON, Illinois
MANUEL LUJAN, JR., New Mexico
FRANK HORTON, New Jersey
ANDREW J. HINSHAW, California

GEORGE F. MURPHY, Jr., Executive Director
JAMES B. GRAHAM, Assistant Director
WILLIAM C. PARLER, Committee Counsel
JAMES K. ASSELSTINE, Assistant Counsel

ALBION W. KNIGHT, Jr., Professional Staff Member
NORMAN P. KLUG, Technical Consultant
STEPHEN J. LANES, Technical Consultant
BEVERLY A. BAUGHMAN, Research Assistant

MICHAEL R. KEPPEL, GAO Consultant
CHRISTOPHER C. O'MALLEY, Printing Editor

(II)

[blocks in formation]

Montoya, Hon. Joseph M., member, Joint Committee on Atomic Energy:
Opening statement___

Coughlin, Hon. Lawrence, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Pennsylvania

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed]

(III)

GAO report (RED-75–361), April 4, 1975: Comments on ERDA's proposed arrangement for the Clinch River breeder reactor demonstration plant project__.

Letter dated April 7, 1976: G. F. Murphy to Dr. Seamans, requesting
comments by ERDA on GAO report_-_.

Letter dated April 17, 1975: R. D. Thorne, ERDA to G. F. Murphy, Jr.,
JCAE, responding to Joint Committee request for ERDA comments on
GAO report B164105__

Enclosure: Suggested changes (ERDA) to amended criteria___.
Letter dated January 16, 1976: Administrator Seamans to Chairman
Pastore (with enclosures) regarding agreement reached with TVA, CE,
and PMC on CRBR contract modification___

Enclosure 1. Modification No. 1 to AT (49-18)-12_
Enclosure 2. Analysis/comparison of changes..

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Enclosure 3. Contract No. AT (49-18)-14 between AEC and BRC.... Enclosure 4. Contract No. AT (49-18)-12 among AEC, TVA, Common.wealth Edison Co., and Project Management Corp--

237

249

Enclosure 5. Revised Program Justification Data Arrangement No. 72-106 (February 1975).

353

Letter dated Feb. 2, 1976: R. W. Roberts, ERDA, to Chairman Pastore,
JCAE

366

Letter dated Feb. 4, 1976: R. W. Roberts, ERDA, to Chairman Pastore,
JCAE

GAO letter report dated March 26, 1976, to Representative John E. Moss
responding to request of February 5, 1976 by Representative Moss' re-
quest for GAO review of proposed modification contract_

Letter dated March 31, 1976: R. W. Roberts, ERDA, to Comptroller
General Staats reviewing GAO report requested by Representative
Moss

Letter dated April 23, 1976: Rep. Lawrence Coughlin to G. F. Murphy, Jr.,
elaborating on testimony--

369

370

379

394

Additional comment by JCAE relative to added testimony by Repre-
sentative Coughlin..

395

Modification No. 1 to Contract No. AT (49-18)-14_

403

Modification No. 1 to Contract 49-18-12-1-.

417

Pertinent Contract Provisions Regarding ERDA Control.......

462

Letter dated April 14, 1976: Senator John Tunney to Representative Moss
forwarding four questions for presentation during the hearing.
ERDA responses to Senator Tunney questions------

509

511

Appendix: Letter dated June 11, 1975: M. C. Greer, Controller, ERDA, to Chairman Pastore, with budget information__.

523

[blocks in formation]

The Joint Committee met at 10:30 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room S-407, the Capitol, Senator Joseph M. Montoya presiding. Present: Senators Montoya and Baker; Representatives Young, McCormack, Moss, and Anderson.

Also present: George F. Murphy, Jr., executive director; James B. Graham, assistant director; William C. Parler, committee counsel; James K. Asselstine, assistant counsel; Norman P. Klug and Stephen J. Lanes, technical consultants, and Michael R. Keppel, ĜAO

consultant.

OPENING STATEMENT BY SENATOR MONTOYA

Senator MONTOYA. The hearing is called to order.

Today the Joint Committee meets to consider certain matters which relate to modifications in the proposed arrangements for the Clinch River breeder reactor demonstration project.

This is a project which was authorized in 1970 by section 106 of Public Law 91-273 and for which substantial additional governmental funds were authorized and appropriated last year by both Houses of Congress. The argument in justification for this project is that it is an important element in this Nation's overall program to solve its long-term energy needs, and, accordingly, it has been supported by both the administration and the Congress as a high-priority project. The Joint Committee has considered the Clinch River project on numerous occasions.

Last year, on March 10, 1975, the Administrator of ERDA sent to the Congress a legislative proposal which would amend the authorization for the project.1

This proposed amendment was made, in part, to reflect the fact that the estimated cost of the project had escalated to $1.736 billion in 1975, but the funds to be supplied by the utility participants [about $250 million] had not increased. This resulted in a situation where the utilities' financial contributions were not of such magnitude as to continue to justify the management role which the utilities have under

1 See page 58.

(1)

« PreviousContinue »