have underway a rule-making proceeding to consider further upgrading. Safeguards at reactor facilities have recently been upgraded through completed rulemaking proceedings. And the Commission has also proposed personnel clearance programs as a further step in assuring the necessary security of operation.

In 1976 the material control and accounting system at licensee fuel cycle plants were significantly upgraded through implementation of improved new controls within plans to localize losses, improved validation procedures, limitations on the accumulation of scrap, and procedures to provide current knowledge of the location and quantities of containers of special nuclear material.

In addition, a task force has been evaluating the role of material control and accounting in protecting nuclear material, and we expect recommendations from the task force in the near future.

Our basic safeguards objective is to protect the public against death, injury, or property damage arising from nuclear theft or sabotage. To be effective, safeguards must be capable of preventing a civil disaster and must protect against serious damage. To be acceptable, safeguards must take realistic account of risks involved, and of burden on the public in terms of civil liberties, institutional, economic and environmental impacts.

Decisions not to undertake plutonium recycle and to defer development and commercialization of the plutonium breeder do not eliminate the need for an effective regulatory safeguards program. Existing fuel cycle facilities, such as those fabricating high-enriched uranium for the nuclear Navy, must still be safeguarded against diversion or sabotage. Light water power reactors and research reactors must also be assured adequate protection. Accordingly, we expect our efforts in this developing field to continue.

Nuclear regulatory research-a further major function mandated by the Energy Reorganization Act-constitutes about one-half of the NRC budget. It is through research that we are able to validate the design methods and calculations which form the basis for the predicted performance of nuclear facility safety features. This permits us to substitute more precise knowledge to be used in framing regulations and conducting safety reviews.

During 1976, NRC's major testing facilities began to generate highly significant data in several areas-particularly with respect to emergency systems designed to cool the reactor core in the event of a loss of normal coolant. Research is also under way on other important fronts, such as safeguards, fuel safety, and environmental protection. Earlier, I referred to the Commission's functions in the sphere of international nuclear activities. In meeting its responsibility for the licensing of nuclear exports, the NRC gives primary consideration to assuring that such exports will be used in a manner consistent with U.S. national security interests.

The NRC works closely with executive branch agencies and has been fully consulted in the development of the President's policy initiatives in the export area. Should the legislation announced yesterday by the President be enacted, still further responsibilities would devolve on us. The growth of nuclear activities has major impact on the regulatory organization. Nuclear power reactors dominate our regulatory activities and, of course, directly affect the elements of the nuclear fuel cycle

that we regulate. Today, 64 nuclear powerplants are licensed to operate with an installed capacity of 46,000 MWe representing about 9 percent of total U.S. electrical generating capacity today. Authorization has been given to begin full or limited construction on 91 units, and another 45 are under NRC review for construction authorization.

This growth will have obvious impact on the Commission resources. For example, it will necessitate increases of NRC manpower in areas such as the Office of Inspection and Enforcement. In this respect we note the President's proposal for placement of Commission inspectors at each reactor site. That proposal is in full accord with our own thinking. For some time we have been studying the utility of such a complement to our present inspection program, and we are fully persuaded of its fundamental soundness. It will, of course, require additional manpower and budgetary support at a pace consistent both with implementation of the policy and with sound organizational growth. A detailed plan of implementation is now being prepared, and will be provided the committee at an early date.

We recognize that the President's decisions respecting withdrawal of support or encouragement for commercial use of plutonium will impact on activities subject to Commission regulation. In this regard, the Commission now has under active consideration what next steps are appropriate in light of the President's energy policy statements, including, for example, the future of the pending NRC proceeding on the use of mixed oxide fuel in light water reactors-the so-called GESMO proceeding. Even with the alteration in some programs, however, the continued growth in use of nuclear energy anticipated in the President's message will require matching capabilities and resources for effective and efficient nuclear regulation.

CONCLUSION

I have described today the components which make up the Commission's regulatory program. Our request for budget authority in fiscal year 1978 totals just over $292 million. Our proposal reflects cur best judgment of the requirements for the regulatory programs we believe necessary to serve the public interest.

While some changes may result from recent Presidential policy decisions a matter regarding which we expect to inform the committee at an early date-we expect these to be moderate and, to a substantial degree, offsetting in character. We will supply the committee with the details of any changes as they are identified..

Similarly, you requested our comments on actions taken by other committees on our authorization bill. The Interior and Insular Affairs Committee on Wednesday voted to report the bill, with changes which are to be explained in the committee report, which we understand will be due today. We will be in a position to state our views once we have had an appropriate opportunity to study the changes and the report. Mr. Chairman, it has been my pleasure to appear before you today. My colleagues and I will be pleased to respond to any questions.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Rowden, the committee thanks you for a very helpful and very well thought out statement. We do appreciate not only your presence but your courtesy and your assistance to the committee.

The Chair will now recognize members of the subcommittee for questions. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Öttinger.

Mr. OTTINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate this opportunity to hear you, Mr. Rowden, and members of the Commission who are with you. There are so many things that one would like to inquire about but I am going to confine myself for a few minutes this morning to some of the problems of nuclear waste. How long do you anticipate it will take before we have a program in place to store high-level nuclear waste?

Mr. ROWDEN. Mr. Ottinger, the essential components of that program have begun to be put in place, some of us feel on a somewhat tardy basis-some of us feel very strongly on a somewhat tardy basisover the past year and a half.

The Presidential policy statement on nuclear energy contemplates clearly some modification of the present program in the sense of a reorientation away from the permanent storage of the waste stream from reprocessing plants to a regime which would provide for interim storage and subsequently permanent storage on a retrievable basis, that being one of the bases, of spent fuel elements themselves.

The present target dates, however, remain the same. ERDA is committed on the developmental and operational side and we are committed on the regulatory side to have in place one or more demonstration geologic repositories by the year 1985.

Mr. OTTINGER. Now we are getting a situation where increasing numbers of fuel rods are being stored at nuclear plants in pools. What is the life expectancy of those rods? How long is it safe to keep those rods in water before they start to deteriorate and what is being done to cope with the problem of deterioration?

Mr. ROWDEN. Let me ask Mr. Case and possibly Dr. Smith. Mr. Case is Acting Director of our Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Mr. Smith is Director of our Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.

Mr. CASE. Mr. Ottinger, there is no reason to believe that the fuel storage at the reactor facility could not be continued for tens of years without any safety problems whatsoever.

Mr. OTTINGER. They have already been at some of these plants for tens of years. What kind of program do you have for that replacement?

Mr. CASE. There is no reason to believe that the cladding would corrode in the water that it is being stored in. We have monitoring systems that monitor the water where the fuel elements are being stored to see if there is any release of radioactivity. We have leak-tight systems so that if there is any leakage it can be detected before it gets in the soil or the environment. We don't suspect there is any problem. We are monitoring it carefully to make sure there is not. When I say tens of years, I mean several tens of years, up to 50 or a hundred years. The program Chairman Rowden spoke about will be well in place before there is a safety problem from continuing storage at the reactor sites.

Mr. OTTINGER. As it relates to this, one of the things that really bothers me, and we are going through this now in West Valley, N.Y., is

the tremendous cost involved in decommissioning that particular operation, estimated at somewhere between $600 million and about $1 billion. We are in the process of having to assess which are the best options to pursue in terms of meeting our energy requirements for the future. Certainly one element of that is the cost. Another element relates to safety and environmental hazards.

One of the things that bothers me is that the cost of waste disposal and the cost of research and development that went before it do not seem to get reflected at all in the assessment. That is to say, apparently the utilities are anticipating that they are not going to have to bear the burdens of that cost.

Mr. ROWDEN. If that is an anticipation I believe it is a mistaken one. I believe it has been clear from the outset that although the waste management program-at least the responsibility for so-called permanent storage of high-level waste-will be a responsibility of the Federal Government, it is not expected to be a responsibility which the taxpayers will bear. There will be a cost involved and the utilities, the beneficiaries of the system in terms of the use of power, will be expected to pay an appropriate part of that cost.

Now, in terms of past history, one must be candid in recognizing that the program as it has developed is one which can teach us many lessons. There were a number of mistakes made in the developmental phases of the waste management program. You pointed out the experience at West Valley as being illustrative of a lesson we should learn. I believe the present program, the resources committed to the program, the will of the Federal Government in terms of having an effective and a viable program in place within a reasonable period of time—and I am talking about waste repositories being in operation by 1985-indicate an entirely different cast of mind, and, I think based on our assessment, a different outcome in terms of handling of these high-level

wastes.

I might also add, Mr. Ottinger, to complement some of the observations made by Mr. Case with regard to the interim storage of spent fuel, that our Commission has underway now a generic environmental impact evaluation of that very matter. Of course each of these facilities is individually reviewed, but we have also undertaken to assess this on a generic basis and there is addditional research work being conducted in this area. Perhaps Dr. Smith could address himself to that aspect.

Mr. OTTINGER. Because of the limitations on time I will have to ask deferment of that, as much as I would like to hear from Dr. Smith. We do have a lot to cover.

Do you have, or if you don't have, off the top of your head can you furnish me with some estimate of what the cost of this waste disposal program is going to be nationwide, with 64 reactors now in being and the 91 that are about to come on line and the extra 45 that you have under review?

Mr. ROWDEN. We can give you what cost figures are available, Mr. Ottinger. As you know, the national waste management program encompasses not only the projected waste from commercial facilities, but also the waste from the military program.

Mr. OTTINGER. I would like to have that broken out if I could. It seems to me the military program is a different problem. In making

the decisions as the degree of emphasis we ought to be placing on the nuclear option, it seems very important to me that we get those costs right and that we include all the costs to the public that are going to be attendant on that.

The best estimate you have, it seems to me, ought to be put in that calculation. I know you are still not at a point where all the i's have been dotted and the t's have been crossed with respect to what that waste management program is going to be, but I think it is time that we put a dollar figure on that and feed that back into what the costs

are.

Mr. ROWDEN. We will contribute what we can in terms of the program as it presently exists. A number of the requirements of course as yet have not been established and won't be until we go through the public process.

Mr. OTTINGER. I will not burden the committee time any more. But, Dr. Smith, I would like to hear you on the subject if we can do that informally at another time.

I want to thank the chairman very much for his indulgence.
Mr. DINGELL. The Chair thanks the gentleman.

The Chair recognizes Mr. Hunt, of the staff, for questions.

Mr. HUNT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Rowden, going back to this question of cost, one of the questions that has always come up is, How indeed do we calculate the full lifecycle cost of a plant?

Congressman Ottinger has addressed one aspect, the long-term waste and the spent fuel elements. I was wondering if you would care to address the problem of decommissioning at this point and what range of figures are associated with the decommissioning of a plant after its expected 30-year life.

Mr. ROWDEN. We have submitted some figures to the committee. Perhaps Mr. Case can address himself to the figures we have submitted. Mr. CASE. They are contained in this book. I have not found the particular question yet.

Mr. HUNT. If I may refer you to it, it was question 11(a), I think. If I am reading this properly, there seems to be a very wide range of estimating error, running from $1 million to $70 million.

Mr. CASE. There are different ways of decommissioning a plant. This range covers the different methods that have been used in the past.

Mr. HUNT. Are there any standards at this point that have been printed and accepted relative to NRC as to what methods would be required for the decommissioning of the plant?

Mr. CASE. Generally we have performance standards in the sense of preventing undue risk to health and safety of the public, the amount of radiation that people can be exposed to in an unrestricted area, and so forth. There are many ways you can achieve these objectives. We don't have specific standards as to how it should be done."

Mr. HUNT. I am correct, then, in assuming that in the final licensing of a plant relative to its operation there is no decommissioning program that is attached to that license?

Mr. CASE. That is correct, although the cost of possible decommissioning programs, including the maximum costs, are incuded in the environmental reports as the cost of the plant.