EPSCoR States decided that the model developed at NSF was ap-
propriate for use at other science agencies, this subcommittee was
the one that stepped up and first took the action to extend it; and
it is now your leadership that has been followed by your colleagues
in the Department of Defense, NASA, EPA and others.

In 1992, the Congress saw the wisdom of the subcommittee's ac-
tion in the Energy Policy Act and included a specific authorization
for the DOE EPSCoR program. Since that time, the subcommittee
has continued to fund the program, most recently at $7 million.

We do not know as yet what the administration may propose for
DOE EPSCoR in the next — for the next year, but we hope that
once the budget becomes available, the committee will examine it
closely and provide funding to support a vibrant EPSCoR program
in all eligible States.



1042



In Alabama, the EPSCoR program has really worked as in-
tended. This is a success story right across the board. We have
competitively reviewed energy research programs under way now
in petroleum reservoir characterization, fusion energy research,
and novel organic semiconducting materials. But it is really — in a
State like Alabama, where we fight among ourselves occasionally,
it has brought the universities together; and we are also supporting
the development of our historically black universities. Tuskegee
University has just joined the EPSCoR group in Alabama.

Not only are we doing the research, but we are developing our
faculty at the professional and graduate level. We are extending
our efforts to improve energy science, awareness at all levels: high
school, high school teachers.

The major focus I want to emphasize is making us more competi-
tive for DOE research, and that is our primary objective, but it is
also extending awareness and interest in energy research across
the board through our State.

I appreciate your time and urge your continued support for this
important program.

Mr. Bevill. Thank you. Thank you very much, Bill.

Mr. Myers. Thank you. You are from the University of Alabama,
you are not changing that name, but are you from the Bevill cam-
pus?

Mr. Croker. No, but maybe in the future.

[The statement of Mr. Croker follows:]



1043



Written Testimony

Submitted by

Mr. G. William Croker



Assistant to the President and

Director of Governmental Relations

Office of Governmental Relations

University of Alabama



Before the

Subcommittee on Energy and

Water Development

House Committee on Appropriations



February 29, 1996



1044



Written Testimony

Submitted by

Mr. G. William Croker

Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development

House Committee on Appropriations

Thiu-sday, February 29, 1996



Mr. Chairman, Representative Bevill, other distinguished members of the Subcommittee.
It is a distinct pleasure to appear before you this mommg on behalf of the Coalition of EPSCoR
States to testify in support of the DOE EPSCoR program It is also however, a somev^at sad
occasion, and I would like to take the first portion of the time allotted to me to focus on that
aspect.

As you are all aware, the dean of the Alabama Delegation and Ranking Minority Member
of this Subcommittee has decided to retire from Congress at the end of this session. This is a
great loss for the State of Alabama. But recognize it will be a great tiuning point for
Representative and Mrs. Bevill as they enter the next phase of their life together. We would be
greatly remiss if we did not use this, our last opportimity to testify before Representative Bevill
and this subcommittee, to thank him for his numerous efforts on behalf of our state, and more
particularly the University of Alabama System If I were to merely Ust, without comment, all of
the things he has done for the state and the University System, that mere Ustmg alone would
consume well beyond my allotted five minutes. Therefore, let me use this opportunity instead to
express our heartfelt thanks to hun and to his colleagues on the subcommittee for their support for
us over the years. I would also Uke to introduce for the record, a letter fi-om Chancellor Austin of
the University of Alabama System, thanking Representative Bevill for his distinguished service.
Representative Bevill, while none of us can adequately express m words our thanks, we hope that
as this year progresses we will have numerous opportimities to show our gratitude for yoiu- many
years of service to your constituents, to the entire state of Alabama and to the nation which you
have served so welL

I would also Uke to salute you, Mr. Chairman. You and your colleague Representative
Bevill arrived the same year and you have proven yourselves to be an excellent team in managing
this Subcommittee and overseeing the many conq>lex and inq>ortant programs it fiinds.

My purpose today is to talk about the Department of Energy EPSCoR program First, let
me thank this Committee for its support over the last six years and ask that you continue to work
with us as we enter the next phase of the DOE EPSCoR program Without the work of
Representative Bevill, Representative Myers, Representative Rogers, and other members of this
Subcoimnittee, the DOE EPSCoR program would not exist. It was hutiated in this Subcommittee
in FY91 with a $4 miUion appropriation. In 1992 the Congress saw the wisdom of this
Subcommittee's action when it conqjleted the Energy PoUcy Act (P.L. 102-486), and included a
specific authorization for the DOE EPSCoR program Smce that time, this Subconamittee has
continued to fimd the program, most recently at $7 milUon.



1045



Very importantly, this Subcommittee recommended last year that the EPSCoR program
be moved to the Basic Energy Sciences program within the Office of Energy Research. We look
forward to a long cooperative relationship with this new program office team.

As we have not yet seen the Administration's 1997 budget, we are unable to comment
specifically on the DOE proposed budget for EPSCoR although we hope it will be at a level at
least as high s appropriated by this Subcommittee for FY96. Once the budget becomes
available, we urge the Subcommittee to examine it closely and provide fimding to support a
vibrant EPSCoR program in all eligible states.

I would like to explain some of the highlights of the Energy Department's EPSCoR
program in Alabama. It has accomplished results far in excess of the modest fiinding level
available. In the first year of the program we accomplished the following:

♦ Developed unprecedented cooperation among the seven EPSCoR
universities in the State - University of Alabama, University of Alabama at
Birmingham, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Alabama A&M University,
Auburn University, University of Southern Alabama and Tuskegee University.

♦ Facilitated more direct linkage between Alabama's research
universities and its historically black colleges and imiversities.

♦ Identified centers of energy expertise among university and
industrial researchers.

♦ Created new opportunities for cooperation in sharing equipment and
facilities.

♦ Expanded interdisciplinary and intercampus research partnerships and improved
the fimding record for energy-based programs arid projects.

One special benefit of particular interest has been the establishment of three focused
research clusters in the following energy-related areas:

♦ Petroleum Reservoir Characterization

♦ Fusion Energy Research

♦ Novel Organic Semiconducting Materials

At the faculty and graduate level, we have 41 faculty and professional staff members, 10
post doctoral associates and 14 pre doctoral graduate students actively at work. We also have 7
Graduate Trainees and 4 summer research interns.

In addition, we have 6 sununer undergraduate interns, 10 high school summer
investigators and 40 high school workshop participants assisting in these projects. To date, our



1046



work has resulted in 1 10 scientific publications, 43 scientific presentations, 14 proposals funded
and 14 proposals pending.

With continued support, we expect to achieve significant research results in these three
primary research cluster areas. In short, the DOE EPSCoR program is accomplishing its primary
objective, making researchers in Alabama and the other EPSCoR states more competitive at the
national level, thereby increasing the strength and breadth of the overall science base in the
United States. Those of us who are involved in higher education often act like we think that
academic research is merely an end in itself, but it's not. Scientific research is a contributing
element to economic development and job creation. President Clinton's program emphasizes
scientific research because he knows that research leads to the commercialization of products and
processes that, in turn, creates high-wage, high-skill jobs. This country needs EPSCoR to
stimulate research and generate high-wage, high-skill jobs in states which lag behind the rest of
the country in both.

If this Committee continues to support energy research as it has in the past, we pledge our
support to you in helping to assure that the rest of the Congress ratifies your action and continues
to recognize the wisdom of your support of this important activity. The research activity
supported by the Office of Energy Research fimds important scientific investigations and studies
in medicine, physics, chemistry and the environment. EPSCoR permits states such as Alabama
to participate in the excitmg and vital research areas managed by the Office of Energy Research.

In closing, let me also ask that the Committee continue its support for the research
programs at the Department of Energy. A strong, vital research mission at the Department of
Energy is fundamental to the fiiture of our coimtry and our competitiveness in the world.



1047



The University of Alabama System



The University of Alaba>ia • The University of Alab-ou at Birmingham • The University of Alabama in Huntsville
Philip E. Austin, ChanaUor
February 28, 1996



The Honorable Thomas Bevill

Subcommittee on Energy and Water Appropriations

Committee on Appropriations

2302 Raybum House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515



Dear Con^^finan Be

I sincerely regret that I am unable to be with you on Thursday, February 29, to
testify before the Subcommittee on Energy and Water. I, like many other citizens of
Alabama, have testified before you many times over the years and it has always been a
distinct honor and privilege. Your singular devotion to the best interests of the people of
Alabama, particularly their education institutions which I represent, is unsurpassed. We
sincerely appreciate all that you and this Subcommittee have done for us over your many
years of service in the House of Representatives.

On behalf of the Board of Trustees of The University of Alabama, I wish you an
active retirement We look forward to seeing you back in Alabama at university fiinc-
tions whenever you can find time to join us. Many of my fellow citizens will be eager to
see you and to convey to you their personal appreciation for your distinguished service
and all of your efforts on our behalf over the years.

Sincerely,



l^JiyJC



401 Queen City Avenue • Tuscaloosa. Alabama 35401-1551
Telephone (205) 348-5861 • Facsimile (205) 348-9788



1048

Thursday, February 29, 1996.
NUCLEAR ENERGY ISSUES

WITNESS

PHILLIP BAYNE, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NU-
CLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE

Mr. Myers. Phillip Bayne, President and CEO of the Nuclear
Energy Institute. Your prepared statement will be placed in the
record and you may proceed as you like for five minutes.

Mr. Bayne. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I
am Phillip Bayne, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Nu-
clear Energy Institute, and I am pleased to appear before you today
to present NEI's views on the Federal Government's nuclear energy
programs for fiscal year 1997. NEI represents approximately 275
members, including all U.S. electric utilities that operate nuclear
power plants.

My testimony today focuses on three issues: The civilian high-
level nuclear waste disposal program, the Nuclear Regulatory Com-
mission user fees, and advanced reactor research and development.

As this Nation confronts a new budgetary climate. Congress
must not lose sight of previous commitments made by the Federal
Government. The Federal Government has a responsibility to begin
managing used nuclear fuel from the Nation's commercial nuclear
power plants beginning in 1998. To fulfill that commitment. Con-
gress is crafting legislation to authorize a central storage facility in
the Nevada desert until a permanent disposal facility is ready.

In recent months, DOE has adjusted its milestones indicating an-
other five-year delay for repository operation, until 2015. By that
date, 93 of the Nation's 110 reactors will have exhausted existing
capacity to store used fuel at their plant sites.

In this year's budget the subcommittee must balance two major
imperatives: Preparing for Federal acceptance of used fuel begin-
ning in 1998, and continuing tightly focused studies at Yucca
Mountain. Assuming authorized legislation is passed, the Federal
Government must move forward with work at a central storage fa-
cility and on other components of the integrated program.

An interim storage program is meanin^ul only if DOE continues
to make progress in developing the permanent repository. In H.R.
1020, the funding source for the civilian waste program would be
changed to a user fee concept, assuring that the nuclear customers
would continue to pay for the program. Utility customers have held
up their side of the contract with the Federal Government. Now
Congress must ensure that the Federal Government upholds its re-
sponsibility to take the fuel. The nuclear industry is ready to work
with the administration and Congress in the development of an in-
tegrated spent nuclear fuel management system that can satisfy
DOE's commitment to electricity consumers.

In 1995, the U.S. nuclear industry continued to push perform-
ance to record levels and to cut production costs. As the electric
utility industry becomes more competitive, we must closely exam-
ine the budgets in all areas. In this fiscal year, 97 percent of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission budget is being recovered through



1049



user fees to the electric utilities. The average utility licensee pays
$3.7 million per plant in NRC charges.

We believe the percentage of NRC costs paid by our members
should be commensurate with the agency's resources dedicated to
regulating the industry. We encourage the subcommittee to exam-
ine the commission's budget closely and assign the industry only
those costs that are appropriate to protect public health and safety
and regulate nuclear power plants. To help maximize NRC re-
sources, the industry recommends that the NRC revise its ap-
proach to regulation and allow utilities to meet regulatory require-
ments without step-by-step prescriptive regulation.

In the area of advanced nuclear research and development, the
industry supports appropriating $64 million in fiscal year 1997.
The advanced reactor corporation, a consortium of 12 utilities, par-
ticipates in the development of new reactor designs and represents
one of the largest sources of private sector cost-sharing of DOE's
energy supply research and development activities.

In recent years, the nuclear industry has front-loaded its cost
share with the ALWR program. Now, with the program on the
verge of producing market-ready nuclear designs, the industry ex-
pects the Federal Government to fulfill its funding obligation with
the same commitment. These reactor technologies are between 50
and 90 percent complete. Furthermore, payback provisions in the
program will provide a return to the U.S. Treasury when these ad-
vanced reactor designs are sold.

This new generation of reactor technology represents a glowing,
high-tech industry and is creating opportunities that will strength-
en both the U.S. economy and the Nation's leadership. Thank you
for your attention.

Mr. Myers. Thank you very much for your fine testimony. This
committee, as you well know, has long recognized our responsibility
to help find some place to dispose of the waste, and we are doing
everything we can in trying to expedite it as rapidly as we can.

Mr. Bayne. Yes, sir. Our industry recognizes that and we thank
you for that.

[The statement of Mr. Bayne follows:]



1050



ne:i



U CL E AR ENERGY I N S I I I U T E



TESTIMONY OF PHILUPBAYNE

PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

NUCIEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE



DEFORETHE

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUDCOMMinEE ON ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS



Febraary29,1096



1051



Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am PhiUip Bayne, president and chief executive officer of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). I am
pleased to appear before you today to present NEI's views on the federal government's nuclear energy
programs for fiscal year 1997.

NEI represents approximately 275 companies and organizations worldwide, including all U.S. electric
utilities that operate nuclear power plants, nuclear plant equipment suppUers,
engineering/construction firms, nuclear fuel cycle companies, suppliers of radionuclides and
radiopharmaceuticals, law firms, consulting firms and labor unions.

We would like to thank members of this subcommittee for consistently supporting nuclear energy as
an essential component of the nation's energy portfolio. Electricity is one of the cleanest sources of
energy, and nuclear energy one of our cleanest sources of electricity. Generating electricity at nuclear
power plants produces no air polluUnts or greenhouse gases, thus protecting our environment while
helping to meet our energy needs.

Mr. Chairman, today my testimony focuses on three issues: the Department of Energy's civilian high-
level nuclear waste disposal program, funded through the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management (OCRWM); user fees charged to nuclear utilities to fully fund the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission; and the joint industry-DOE advanced reactor research and development effort funded
through DOE'S Office of Nuclear Energy.



As this nation confi^nts a new budgetary climate. Congress must not lose sight of previous
commitments made by the federal government. Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and
contracts between the Department of Energy and electric utilities that own and operate the nation's
nuclear power plants, the federal government has a responsibility to begin managing used nuclear
fuel fi'om the nation's commercial nuclear power plants beginning in 1998.

To fulfill that commitment. Congress is crafting legislation to authorize the Energy Department to
build and operate a central storage facility in the Nevada desert until a permanent disposal facility is
ready. Unfortunately, the process of determining the suitability of a candidate repository site at
Yucca Mountain has a legacy of delay and budget reductions. In recent months, DOE has adjusted its
milestones again, reflecting another five-year delay in repository operation until 2015 — if the site is
found suitable. By 2015, 93 nuclear units will have exhausted existing capacity to store spent nuclear
fiiel.

In this year's appropriation, this subcommittee must balance two major imperatives: preparing for
federal acceptance of used fuel beginning in 1998, and continuing tightly focused scientific studies at
Yucca Mountain.

Last year, the leadership of this subcommittee supported the beginning of an integrated program to
manage high-level radioactive waste. Reserving $85 milhon in the FY96 budget was an appropriate
catalyst to focus the program in the right direction. The nuclear industry is working actively with the
Congress on passage of the appropriate legislation to niove the program further in the right
direction — creation of an integrated spent fuel program that includes a federal spent fuel storage
facility at a single location and continued work on a geologic repository.

The industry supports continued fiinding for Yucca Mountain in fiscal year 1997 to continue to study
important scientific characteristics of the site, and reach a conclusion about Yucca Mountain in
accordance with DOE's revised plans for repository development.



1052



As site characterization activities have progressed, there has been increasing discussion about the
way the federal government funds oversight programs for the state of Nevada and affected counties
near Yucca Mountain. Affected local governments should continue to receive federal funding for
appropriate scientific oversight. However, we remain concerned about allegations that the state of
Nevada has misspent millions of dollars. Just this month, Nevada state lawmakers released an audit
that found discrepancies in the use of monies by the Nevada Nuclear Waste Project Office and its
contractors. The nuclear industry believes scientific oversight is appropriate and necessary. But the
program requires the necessary checks to ensure ratepayer funding is spent on appropriate oversight
projects, not lobbying and grassroots activities that have been restricted by this subcommittee.

Unfortunately, funding for appropriate oversight by the affected counties has also been adversely
impacted as a result of a lapse in congressional authorization. As the members of this subcommittee
know, affected counties are not currently receiving oversight funding fi-om the federal government. In
a recent exchange of letters between DOE and Chairman Myers and Ranking Member Bevill, the
subcommittee reaffirmed report language in the FT96 Energy and Water Development Appropriations
bill to withhold oversight money fi-om the state and affected counties.

During consideration of this year's funding, the industry urges the subcommittee to implement
effective restrictions to prevent the state of Nevada fi-om further misuse of payments by electric utility
customers to the Nuclear Waste Fund, while allowing legitimate oversight programs to proceed. This
may involve increasing funding for the affected counties or a more significant role for the Nevada
university system. Both have a successful history of scientific oversight work in conjunction with the
repository and the Nevada Test Site, and offer a reasonable solution to appropriate use of oversight
money.

The nuclear energy industry has general principles that we believe should guide Congress as it
continues to reshape the DOE program:

■ DOE must finally accept responsibility to develop and begin implementing a waste
management system that is capable of removing spent fuel fi-om nuclear reactor sites in 34
states beginning in 1998.

■ Congress must designate a location for, and mandate construction of, a federal interim
storage facility and the necessary transportation network to ensure access to the facility firom
existing rail lines.

■ Milestones must be established for the development of the interim storage facility and
transportation infirastructure to support spent fuel acceptance beginning no later than Jan.
31, 1998.

■ Site characterization for development of a repository must continue. Disposal of spent fuel
remains the ultimate program objective.

In H.R. 1020, authorizing legislation pending before the House of Representatives, the funding source
for the civilian high-level radioactive waste program would be changed to a user fee concept, ensuring
that nuclear utility customers would continue to pay for the program. Importantly, the waste program
customers would get one dollar's worth of services for each dollar appropriated by this subcommittee
to the program. Utility customers have held up their side of the contract with the federal government
since 1983 by committing approximately $12 billion to the Nuclear Waste Fund. Now, Congress must
ensure that the federal government upholds its responsibility to begin taking spent nuclear fuel fi-om
commercial reactors in 1998.

As the members of this subcommittee know, utilities and state regulators are increasingly concerned
about the equity of requiring utiUty customers to pay for both the DOE civilian radioactive waste
program and additional at-reactor storage. Seventeen utilities and 28 states have filed separate
lawsuits against the Energy Department asking the Circuit Court of Appeals to rule that DOE must



1053



begin accepting spent fuel beginning in 1998. Additionally, regulators in a handful of states are