Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 129
Appendix F Charge to the Committee 129
OCR for page 130
130 Excerpts from the Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1988 Public Law 100-180 Sec. 3134. INTERIM OVERSIGHT OF SAFETY' OF THE NUCLEAR WEAPON'S COMPLEX APPENDIX F (a) REQUIREMENT FOR REVIEW And REPORT.--(1) The Secretary of Energy sha31 request the National Academy of Sciences to conduct two reviews on the status of the nuclear weapons complex and submit a report on each review. Each such report shall include-- (A) a consideration of safety and technical issues at current facilities and a discussion of steps that would enhance the safety of operation of those facilities; (B) ~ consideration of the en~ironmentai impact of the operation of those facilities; (C) an estimation of the approximate useful lifetime of exi.~-ing reactors; and (D) findings and recommendations. (2) The reports shall be submitted concurrently to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives and the Secretary not later than December 1. 19&8, and December 1, 1989.
OCR for page 131
APPEND[X F 131 Department of Energy Washington DC20;~` Fet~ruarY 4, 1988 Hor.orable Frank Press President National Academy of Sciences Washington, D. C. 20418 Dear Dr. Press: On behalf of the Department of Energy and in ~,` [z - f EP C ~ l98Q it') response to Section 3134 of the Defense Authorization Act of 1988 (P. L. 100-180), I am requesting that the Academy undertake two reviews of the Department's nuclear weapons complex. Each of the two reviews should yield reports that include the following: o a consideration of safety and technical issues at current facilities and a discussion of steps tha. would enhance the safety of operation of those facilities; - a consideration of the environmental impact of the operations of those facilities; ar, estimation of the approximate useful lifetime of existing reactors; and findings and recommendations. In. addition to the Secretary of Energy, the reports shall be submitted concurrently to the House and Ser.a~e Armed Services Committees. The due dates for subm~ssio.. Of the two reports are December 1, 1988 and December 1, 1989, respectively. ~ have designated Troy wade, Acting Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs, as the Depar~mer.t's point of contact for this effort. I have asked Mr. hoe to Bake himself available to beet with you, at your earliest convenience, to discuss the details o' We scope and schedule.
OCR for page 132
132 continued APPENDIX F 2 By performing the two reviews, the Academy will play a key role in assisting the Department to address Congressional concerns and questions regarding oversight of the nuclear weapons complex. We look forward to working with the Academy or. this ef fort over the next 2 years and hope that both the Department and the Academy can find ways to expedite ~ ts start . Yours truly, . ... Joseph F. Salgado under Secretary cc : Honorable Sa;; Nunn Chairman., Committee on Armed Servi ces Uni' ed States Senate Honorable Les Aspin Ch.a i roan, Committee on Armed Services House of Representatives
OCR for page 133
APPENDIX F q ~ ~ 133 DopaMment of Energy Washington, DC 2058S MAY ~ 3 l~u8 orate Sam Nunn C~lnan, Con~nittee on Anred Services Ant ted States Senate if~shington, DC 20510 Dearer. Ch~lnn~n: en February 4, 198S, the Department requested the National Academy of Sciences to conduct two reviews of the nuclear weapons complex. This request was node pursuant to Division C, Title I, Section 3134 of the Defense Authori2~ticn Act of 1988 tP.L. 100-180). In our request to the Academy, we asked for two reports that addressed the follower;: o a consideration of safety and technical issues at current facilities and ~ discussion of steps that would enhance the Safety of Operation of these foci l isles; o ~ consideration of the envi ronrrental impact of the operations of those fact l Sties; 0 an estimation of the approximate IJseful lif~tlm of existing reactors; Act 0 findings uric reconn7endationt. Along filth the sub~lss10n of the reports to the Secretary, we revues ted concurrent submission to the House end Senate ApproprIetlons end Angled Services Committees. The due dates requested for the Swo reports were December 1, 1988, and December 1, 1989, respectively, as outlined in Section 3134. The Acade' has responded Al th ~ proposal that varies from our request in tom ways. First, the Acadc~'s review w111 not cover the defense production reactors; bird secondly, the Academy w111 report only on Decenber 1, lS89. The Acadeny's proposed departures are designed to avoid en unnecessary duplication of effort with the Department's Advisory Conrnittee OF Nuclear Fac1 1'ties Safety, and provide the time necessary to conduct ~ thorough and complete review es intended by Section 3134.
OCR for page 134
734 conifnwed We believe the Acad~'s approach will Beet the intent of Section 3134 and at the sage time coral invent the :epar~n:'s iritiatives on nuclear facilities Safety. If you require additional 1n~c~ation or feel further di$cu'$10r is required, please contact me at your earliest convenience. S1 ncerely, T~>E.!Wade 1I Acting A$~1'tant Secretary cc: Honorable John W. Warner Ranking Minority Member C~1 tte on And Services UM1t~ States Senate Washington, DC 2051C
OCR for page 135
APPENDIX F CC,\~!~11lTEF 7C' Elm\ IDE INTERJECT A'\ FRCIC.~] ·~} THE E)C,E N1-cLE.\R WE.Art~ c(~!`tPUFX NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL COMMISSION 0.N'PHYSICALSCIENCES MATHEMAnCS'A~D RESOURCES CO.~115510.N ON ENGINEERING AND TECH.~'1CAL'8YCTEM'i 2l/'1 Con~ntunf~,n Avenue Washington. O C ~(141S November 30, 1988 Honorable Sam Nunn Chairman, Committee on Armed Services United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Honorable Les Aspin Chairman, Committee on Armed Services House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Honorable John S. Herrington Secretary, Department of Energy Forrestal Building Washington, DC 20585 Gentlemen: I am pleased to report on the activities and current status of the National Research Council Committee to Provide Interim Oversight of the DOE Nuclear Weapons Complex. Following hearings sponsored by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee and the Senate and House Armed Services Co G ittees, and in response to Division C, Title l, Section 3134 of the Defense Authorization Act of 1988, the Department of Energy requested the National Academy of Sciences to undertake a review of the department nuclear weapons complex. That request is contained in a February 4, 1988 letter from Under Secretary Joseph Salgado to President Frank Press of the National Academy of Sciences. The letter is attached as Appendix I. 135 s As a result of discussions with DOE, the actual charge to the Committee differs somewhat from that proposed in the February letter. The final charge was modified primarily to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort with DOE's Advisory Committee on Nuclear Facility Safety. Dr. Troy Wade, DOE's Acting Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs, apprised you of this in a May 13, 1988 letter, which is attached as Appendix 2. The Nat, .c~.~~ c.~un~. ;~ ~n~ r .. ·~rfratt~t~ .7ce~;.~ ~ ~~, \~ I Amp : ;: ~~~ \~;~ At~~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~t~ I:, tp ~'f go.'-'" I! an,] roils ~ or A
OCR for page 136
736 cot ~_F Page 2. November 30, 1988 The committee is conducting an 18-month study to lay the groundwork for operation of the legislatively mandated, permanent independent board that will provide oversight of DOE's nuclear weapons complex. The committee has been asked to examine safety and environmental issues at a variety of facilities, but will not consider the defense production reactors safe handling of nuclear weapons: the waste isolation pilot plant transportation safety and activities at the Nevada Test Site. The final report, scheduled for December 1. 1989, will include: --A consideration of safety and technical issues at current facilities and a discussion of steps that would enhance the safety of operation of those facilities: --A consideration of the environmental impact of the operations of those facilities: --Findings and reco _endations. A co _ ittee of 22 experts has been appointed by the Academy. The members provide a balance of expertise in chemical processing, criticality safety, enviro _ental assessment, explosives safety, fire safety, laboratory management, materials handling, materials science, nuclear safety, pulsed power safety, remote systems technology, and seismic risk. ^ list of the members, including concise biographical sketches, is attached as Appendix 3. To date the co _ itcee has held two meetings. The first meeting was held at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, D.C. on August 22-23 and the second was at the Hanford site in Richland, Washington on October 24-26. AC its first meeting, the committee received briefings from Deparcment of Energy headquarters officials from the Chairman of DOE's Advisory Committee on Nuclear Facility Safety from staff of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: and from staff of the U.S. General Accounting Office. At its meeting in Hanford in October, staff of DOE's Richland Operations Office provided the co _ ittee with an introduction and overview of operations in the Hanford 200 areas, and personnel of the Westinghouse Hanford Company briefed us on various aspects of management and operations. The Co _ ittee toured the PUREX Plant, the Plutonium Finishing Plant, the 200-Area Tank Farms and B Plant. The Co_ ittee also met separately with staff of the Washington State Departmenc of Ecology.
OCR for page 137
Page 3. Nove ^ er 30, 1988 ~7 conifnweJ In addition to these activities, co _ ittee staff have "ace several subsequent visits to Hanford to review available doc _ents and interview staff of DOE, Westinghouse, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, and the Washington State Department of Ecology. Plans for additional meetings and site visits are currently under consideration. S e co _ itcee is aware of the magnitude of its task and the importance of these facilities to the future health, safety, and security of the nation. Mindful of this, we will make a determined effort to provide a thorough and timely report by December 1, 1989, that will be useful to the Executive and Legislative branch policy makers of the government, and to the permanent oversight board. S ~ erely your s, j~ 1 ~ Richard A. Meserve Chairman cc. Honorable John Glenn Mr. Joseph Salgado Dr. Troy Wade
OCR for page 138
138 CC,?~I~E TO PRO\ IDE I.~E~ ~ ?.~\'E REFIGHT OF THE DOE ~LCLE^R w~.`ro~ C`,MrLEx NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL COMM15510N 0N PHYSICAL SCIENCES. MA~EMAT1CS. AW ~URCES COMMISS10.N 0N E.N'GINEE~NG ~~ ~CHNICAL SY5UMS ~iO1 C`~n~nn~r'ar, Avenger ^ashtn~ton ~ C 2(1418 February 27, 1989 The Honorable Sam Nunn Chairman, Committee on Armed Services United States Senate Washington, O.C. 20510 The Honorable Les Aspin Chairman, Committee on Armed Services United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Admiral James D. Watkins Secretary-Designate Department of Energy Forrestal Building Washington, D.C. 20~85 Gentlemen: APPENDIX F This is to follow up on my letter of November 30, 1988, reporting on the activities and status of the National Research Council's Committee to Provide Interim Oversight of the DoE Nuclear weapons Complex. Since then, on January 26, 1989, ~ testified before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee on behalf of the National Academy of Sciences. Copies of both my November letter and my January testimony are enclosed. The Committee's visits in October to the Hanford Reservation in Washington; in January to the Y-12 Facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee: and in February to the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant will be complemented by an aggressive schedule of visits over the coming months: a March visit to the Rocky Flats Plant in Colorado; April visits to the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, the Los Alamos National Laboratory and the Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico, and the Pantex Plant in Texas; and a May visit to the Savannah River Plant in South Carolina. This schedule is driven by the large scope of the assignment -- the examination of safety and environmental issues at the defense weapons complex -- and by the deadline for our final report of December 1989 . The 'abroad ~~h Colt' LO to Mental on arm tat the .~at~l ^~ At: ~ and Air Neal it d End tC 5~ meant an ot~ orb
OCR for page 139
APPElID[X F The Honorable Sam Nunn The Honorable Les Aspin Admiral James D. Watkins February 27, 1989 Page 2 139 continued Although the Committee will visit only nine of the fourteen major facilities in the nuclear weapons complex that are encompassed by our charge, we are seeking, within the constraints of available time and resources, to examine a representative cross section of the complex. We believe our examination of a subset of the facilities will provide an adequate foundation for our report. S ~ rely yo ~ s, Ibid Richard A. Meserve Chairman Enclosures The Honorable John Glenn Dr. Frank Press
OCR for page 140
Representative terms from entire chapter: