SHOOTOUT AT ( LINCH RIVI K 39-7 



In March, the subcommittee heard six witnesses who had con- 

 tributed to the Ford Foundation-financed Mitre Corp. study entitled 

 "Nuclear Power: Issues and Choices." Because the study had served 

 as a rationale for the decision of the Carter administration on the 

 CRBR, the subcommittee was naturally critical in its analysis. 



FUNDING NUCLEAR PROGRAMS 



As a result of its deliberations, the subcommittee placed greater 

 emphasis through additional funding in a number of nuclear programs 

 in 1977, including: nuclear waste management research; an interna- 

 tional spent fuel storage program; a study of the adequacy of facilities 

 at West Valley, N.Y. for handling liquid nuclear wastes with a high 

 level of radiation; additional work in the high-temperature gas- 

 cooled reactor program; more funding for investigation of the thorium 

 fuel cycle; increases in the magnetic fusion program, including the 

 Tokamak and Mirror approaches to magnetic fusion; and funding 

 for work at the Barnwell, S.C. Nuclear Fuel Plant on alternative fuel 

 cycles, spent fuel storage, safeguard systems and waste management. 



In 1978, the biggest game in town was once again the fight over the 

 Clinch River Breeder Reactor. This did not prevent the subcommittee 

 from holding its annual authorization hearings on DOE, even though 

 there were some serious jurisdictional fights with the Interior and 

 Commerce Committees, and an authorization bill for the following year 

 was not enacted. The approach of the subcommittee was summarized 

 by Flowers in his remarks in the House on July 14, 1978: 



The future of nuclear power in the United Sates depends on an aggressive ap- 

 proach to maintaining the breeder option, but it also requires improving our current 

 light water reactors, developing proliferation resistant reactors and fuel cycles, and 

 finding out just how much uranium we have and finally solving the disposal problems 

 of nuclear waste. 



NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT 



Public interest ran high in the issue of nuclear waste management, 

 and the Flowers subcommittee had four days of oversight hearings with 

 McCormack, Mrs. Lloyd and Walgren acting as presiding officers. 

 The hearings dealt with civilian wastes with high radiation levels, 

 and also related problems of spent fuel handling, disposal of military 

 wastes, and those with medium- and low-level radiation. Aside from 

 the DOE officials who testified, plus outside experts, two of the most 

 interesting witnesses were Dr. Alan Pasternak of the California Energy 

 Resources Commission and S. David Freeman, Chairman of the Ten- 

 nessee Valley Authority. Dr. Pasternak was the only member of the 

 California Commission to vote in favor of siting a nuclear powerplant 

 in California. Freeman discussed his proposal for long-term storage 

 of spent fuel assemblies in Oak Ridge, Tenn. In addition to the work of 

 the Flowers subcommittee in this area, the Office of Technology Assess- 



