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:
armed services
